Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lucky 6.9 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lucky 6.9

[edit]

Final (72/20/4) ending 23:51 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs) - Lucky 6.9 is an editor with a ton of experience and a long history of fighting vandals. He has better than 13000 total edits, and in my opinion would make an excellent administrator. Although he has been nominated 3 times previously, the last time was October 2004, almost a year ago now, and the issues discussed there have largely been cleared up. Scimitar parley 23:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I'm honored to accept.

Support

  1. Support, for the reasons detailed in the nomination. --Scimitar parley 23:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I'm impressed with Lucky's writing. I'm impressed with the way he's addressed the issues that came up in his previous nominations. Most of all, I'm REALLY impressed with the way he has taken some difficult editors under his wing in an attempt to move them from near-vandals to productive editors. Joyous (talk) 00:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. I was actually gonna nominate Lucky. Redwolf24 00:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support. I've been very impressed by Lucky, in particular his dealing with difficult newbies, and I would have nominated him long ago but gained the understanding he didn't want adminship because of his experience in previous nominations. I'm glad he's finally willing to try again.-gadfium 00:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Active doing RC patrol and has contributed to a number of featured articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, and about time, too: a good editor, a fine hand at dealing with vandals, clueless newbies, and suchlike people, and has evident enthusiasm and good humor. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support: One of the hard workers, one of the careful. He cares immensely about the well being of the project. Given how some folks have shown themselves willing to unilaterally block VfD (or delete it) or form "clubs" in name space to achieve their goals, havinig someone who has the experience and the proven dedication to following the policies and giving a fig about how well things operate would be a revolutionary change in adminning. Geogre 00:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support; very happy indeed to see this nomination here again. One of the best of all possible candidates. Antandrus (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. An impressive contributor. I too was considering nominating him. --Canderson7 00:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Another no brainer (erm - my vote, that is, not Lucky 6.9!) Grutness...wha? 01:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Unequivocal Support. For those concerned about his... colorful remarks to vandals, I believe the extraordinary amount of patience and kindness shown during SamuraiClinton/SuperDude115's RfC and his subsequent mentorship of him more than make up for that. android79 01:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Andre (talk) 02:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Good RC work. Fire Star 02:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Meets my unwritten policies :)  BRIAN0918  02:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Rhobite 02:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support --Duk 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, thought he already was one. Columbia 04:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Happy to support. -- Essjay · Talk 05:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Very experienced and committed editor, should have been made an administrator long ago. The criticisms of his "over-zealous" attitude to speedies apply to many existing admins, and I recognise that this is a symptom of RC patrollers and not adequate grounds for withholding the mop and bucket (one of our best administrators, RickK, sadly departed faced similar accusations). --Tony SidawayTalk
  20. Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 07:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support. utcursch | talk 08:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Well experienced user who has matured. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I'm impressed with his improvement and think he's a great candidate. Carbonite | Talk 11:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Longtime editor with solid record. -Willmcw 17:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support This is one of those "isn't s/he one already?" nominations... While not a perfect editor, occacional mistakes are acceptable. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. As cliché as this may sound, I thought he was one already. Hall Monitor 18:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Just give him the admin hat and be done with it! :)  Denelson83  18:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I also thought he was one already. Just in the last couple days, I've noticed his extreme patience trying to help a problematic new user (User talk:Maoririder), and was quite impressed. -Satori 18:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support A fine, long term editor. The reasons for oppose are minor. The JPS 19:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, have good experiences with this editor. Radiant_>|< 20:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. I often see Lucky do a lot of chores that Wikipedia really needs. Also very helpful on the VfD and copyvio checks. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Everything I've seen of Lucky has been positive. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Absolute support. When SamuraiClinton/SuperDude first arrived, his unusual editing habits annoyed and alienated a number of Wikipedians. But instead of labeling him a troll, Lucky showed immense dedication, patience and hard work helping him become a better editor. His valuable work welcoming newbies who get off to a rough start continues with Maoririder. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 23:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support as per the nomination, also I don't think there is an reason to distrust his judgement on deletion.--nixie 00:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support! A solid contributor on more fronts than I can count. -- BD2412 talk 00:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. Lucky has been a good editor for a long time, and he has a lot of heavy hitters in his corner. Good guy. :) Func( t, c ) 01:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Slac speak up! 02:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I hope that Lucky 6.9 takes note of the some of the criticism, however, and is very careful with image deletion especially (since it cannot be undone). Better to always tag and let someone else give a second opinion, I'd suggest. kmccoy (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support. He's a great editor and a delightful human being. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support - as per nominator. Hard-working Wikipedian devoted to cleanup. --FCYTravis 04:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per reasons above. -JCarriker 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  42. Lucky can be erratic and a bit touchy...not meaning to offend; those are just characteristics that stand out about him and might not be particularly compatible with adminship. But nevertheless I support. He's been through a whole bunch of nominations now and I figure it's time we finally gave it to him. Everyking 06:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Keep. I rarely vote at RFA—most of the potential admins I would support don't need my vote. This is an editor who does very good edits, and can be very patient with those who need it. I definately trust that he will do well handling his new mop-and-bucket tasks. BlankVerse ∅ 08:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Very strong support, nuff said -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Wikipedia is better because of you. While it would be nice to have infallible saints as admins it is people like Lucky6.9 who keep it from sinking down due to vandals and trolls. I am very impressed by your work. (What I do not like that you often ignore edit summaries. This makes life of people on RC hard.) Pavel Vozenilek 17:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Lucky has done good, under-appreciated work in all the times I've seen him since we first came across each other. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 18:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:29, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  48. It doesn't get any hotter than this. Mike H (Talking is hot) 01:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support Wile E. Heresiarch 04:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support jni 08:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. When I first talked to Lucky a few months ago, I already thought he was an admin. ErikNY 13:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Dunc|☺ 16:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support, I like this guy, he kind of reminds me of me. People don't seem to realize that at first he may have had an atitude but, with time melowed down. Good luck! Tony the Marine 17:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. I think the comments made here will be taken well by Lucky, and ensure cautious and proper use of admin powers. Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support -- Longhair | Talk 04:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Supprot I thought he was an adm already, giving light to another: WTH? He isn't one already?! D. J. Bracey (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Definitely. I was extremely impressed with Lucky's behavior with SuperDude115. Lucky is an indispensable editor and will make a fine administrator. I trust that he will follow deletion policy to the letter when actually speedily deleting pages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  58. Rock Solid Support. Lucky has spent a lot of time on the Wikipedia, far more than I, and though he has had some previous rejected nominations for Administrator status, I still stand by my previous assertion: Lucky has - on balance - the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I must say that I am pleased to (in my lurkdom) see the development of a more restrained and civil temperment in moments of stress and potential or real misunderstandings in communication with others here on the Wiki. I also am impressed in how he has handled the SuperDude115 situation. That takes real understanding and concern for others here. Going the Extra Mile. On that case alone I believe he deserves support here. It is time! Yes. . . Lucky, your nom here got me out of lurkdom status. . . if only for today. --avnative 12:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support. Should have been re-admined earlier. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I thought he was one?! I also trust his judgement. — Bratschetalk 5 pillars 03:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support. With over 13,000 edits, he's dedicated enough, and I believe will make a fine admin. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, an excellent editor and a good man for the job. —Stormie 05:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  63. Support. Good editor, and I think that he'll make a good admin — he's diligent, committed to Wikipedia, and has become much more thoughtful concerning admin-related tasks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Responsible, and all 'round nice guy. Anyone who knows what a W116 is can't be a bad chap. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. El_C 22:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Wikipedia needs more janitors. As for the "triggerhappy" accusations, he can't be called "triggerhappy" since he doesn't have a gun. Tomer TALK 03:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  67. Support OHMYGOD I almost missed your nomination! I supported the last 3 times , and same goes here. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. I knew he wasn't already, but it's really, really time he was! Bishonen | talk 08:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Snowspinner 15:50, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  71. Support - but only on the condition that he upgrades to Lucky 7.0. - Tεxτurε 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support one of our best users. NSR (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I have removed three speedy tags Lucky made in the last ten minutes. One on a recently uploaded image that was neither corrupted nor redundant as far as I could see and no reason was given, [1], another that Lucky said was "substandard" but cited no actual criteria [2], another for vanity when the article clearly made an assertion of notability as a published author, national speaker, and newspaper writer [3]. I am seriously not comfortable with seeing speedy abilities in Lucky's hands. --Dmcdevit·t 05:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, the photo in question is a Photoshop montage apparently uploaded solely for vandalizing an article. The total of the virus article (without caps) is "a viral infection transmittec by biting midges from the blood of sloths in the tropics to humans." As for the final article, I did Google it before tagging it. I got no relevant hits whatsoever, meaning it's a vanity article as far as I've been able to ascertain and therefore a speedy deletion candidate. Same result double-checking just now. - Lucky 6.9 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, as far as I'm concerned, Google has no part in speedy deletions. If you are googling, that means you are looking for notability, which means it should go to VfD. If there's no assertion of notability, which is what the criterion says, then there's no need to Google, just read the article. I read the article and saw more assertions of notability than many of our stubs. As for the virus, I wikified it a bit and it was a single-sentence, but fine, stub. I don't know why you think the image was for vandalism, it looks like just a user page picture to me, so you should have taken it to IfD. Deleting images is irreversible, and so should be done with much more care than just "looks like it's for vandalism." I'm especially concerned that all three of these came after I had already brought the issue up on here. --Dmcdevit·t 17:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose I also noticed he's a bit too eager to speedy stubs.  Grue  10:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose per Stewart Adcock and Dmcdevit gkhan 10:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose. Despite all useful contributions, he just doesn't learn what innumerable people have told him for over a year, including but not only in his three failed nominations; he just continues speedy-tagging perfectly valid stubs (like this). He previously pledged to stop that but didn't, so, no matter what he promises, with adminship he will not only continue that, but he will directly delete such stubs. NoPuzzleStranger 00:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Trigger happy. Several times in just the last week, I've thought "who'd have put a speedy tag on that? Oh, its...". Having previously said he'd stop, and not having done so rather leaves me wondering. And the example cited by NoPuzzleStranger is a case in point: if that went to VfD, it's be unanimously kept as a real place, and there is just absolutely no way that can be speedied. -Splash 00:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. See commments. -- JamesTeterenko 00:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As I've stated, I would limit my removal tasks to those obvious kinds of speedies, like the "random character" and "title echo" vandal bots, as I call them. Outright vandals, too after proper warning, of course. I'll be glad to leave the "judgement calls" like extremely short but factual nanostubs alone until I get a better feel of the rules. Again, I'm tagging articles for speedy based on what I believe is correct interpretation of the rules. I could be wrong...wouldn't be the first time...but I really do have this project's best interest at heart. My other contributions should be proof of that. Still, I appreciate that you all would take the time to vote and to voice your opinions. - Lucky 6.9 01:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Too quick to delete and creates work for others mopping up. If he can keep his promise for a year, reconsider then. Mccready 02:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No reason to give adminship to someone who has shown they would delete things that aren't CSDs. Seems to not use edit summaries much, but even then I could find 2 or 3 instances of bad tags in the last few weeks, not to mention the ones pointed out by others. The comments (as pointed out below) are also way too harsh. CryptoDerk 08:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Regretfully Oppose. I hope you know I respect your editing skills and effort for the project, but no one needs to be an admin to contribute. I've seen just too much evidence of speedy tagging legitimate subjects. A German town? What would even hint that that would be speediable? If you don't know what something is, just clean it up and let someone else decide. Also the remarks pointed out by ElBenevolente are unacceptable no matter who they are to. Even vandals can be treated with civility. That calms the situation down instead of escalating it. - Taxman Talk 14:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  10. What Taxman said. I agree that things have improved and I'm glad Lucky is a diligent and valuable contributor, but I think admins encounter enough hostility as it is and it would be better not to fan the flames. Sorry. --Michael Snow 16:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, agree with User:Michael Snow. --Ttyre 16:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I agree that Lucky has matured/improved a bit, but I've still seen him be a bit too harsh with other users and quick to call others vandals [4]. He is still quick to tag articles for speedy. Also, it seems that he feels that some comments left on his talk page constitute an "invasion of privacy", and that users should resort to contact by e-mail instead [5]. He has however contributed a great deal to wikipedia, with the 6 featured articles, and more than 12k edits, I just do not feel adminship is appropriate/necessary at this time. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. I've waited a while to think things through but really, just too trigger-happy. I do not trust him with the delete button. Dan100 (Talk) 23:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose As an editor who consistently creates stubs and marks short articles as stubs, I'm a bit disappointed that such an experienced user persists in pushing for their deletion. You don't seem to think before you act, which will be catastrophic when you can actually delete articles, instead of just targeting them for deletion. Ryan 04:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose --malathion talk 02:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamant oppose. "I'll certainly bone up on the rules if I pass the nomination." This is ridiculous, he should know the rules before having the power to enforce them. This is a case where 79% is not enough. Uncle Ed, bureaucrat. 14:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC) change to neutral Uncle Ed 03:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Not so much as an edit summary on articles marked as speedy, and many questionable applications of the speedy criteria. Dragons flight 18:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose. Sorry, but the reasons for my last opposition absolutely have not changed. Certainly Lucky is one of the most tireless and well-intentioned contributors and defenders of Wikipedia, but still interprets the speedy delete criteria FAR more broadly than anyone else (makes RickK look like a raving inclusionist). Niteowlneils 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC) Changed to Neutral. Niteowlneils 04:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - not comfortable for the above reasons. Secretlondon 08:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Childlove movement: knee-jerk reactions should be avoided. 24 at 17:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect to everyone involved, it appears to me that the above user is banned. I would greatly appreciate any further oppose votes not being based on this individual's example. Thank you. - Lucky 6.9 18:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Huh? I'm not banned. 24 at 19:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an anon contrib, this user was blocked. As a registered user they are not blocked, but considered a POV pusher[6], with only 227 article edits[7]. The example cited is ancient history in Wikipedia/Internet time (almost a year) and Lucky has 11 months+ since displayed a much more even temperament on Wikipedia, more than enuf to make up for one old flare-up. I would suggest that this vote not be counted for the above reasons. Also, given the sheer volume of edits made to Wikipedia, many of us that do RC or NP patrol resort to "knee-jerk reactions", and even sometimes make edit summaries that we later regret. Niteowlneils 23:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Excuse me, but I was not blocked as an anon contributer. Furthermore, Lucky seemingly reasonlessly accused me of trolling on my talk page. Please assume good faith.
      I am not the blocked User:24 if that's what you're thinking. I also contribute to Wiktionary (wikt:User:24). 24 at 02:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Continues to slap articles with creative deletion reasons that don't appear in WP:CSD, such as today's "Photo gallery without text, possibly by User:MascotGuy". —Cryptic (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Lucky 6.9's behavior has improved, but he still has a tendency to make rude remarks to users. [8] [9]. ElBenevolente 00:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your concern. I'd never make comments of those nature to any registered user or well-meaning anon and I regret lowering the boom so hard, even on vandals. With an adminship, I wouldn't have to and I can easily block repeat offenders rather than "show my teeth," as it were. - Lucky 6.9 00:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Another reason to say no: you appear to think that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is inapplicable to anonymous users who you consider "not well-meaning". I'm going to veto your application. Uncle Ed 20:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Although Lucky occasionally bites newbies, I haven't seen Lucky 6.9 regularly making personal attacks. Besides, there are also a few other admins that sometimes bite newbies and aren't too friendly to vandals. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Maybe my paranoia dial is on a too-high setting, but I am concerned that Lucky's deletion powers would be used in cases where he is currently attaching a {{speedy}} tag. 95% of the time these {{speedy}}s are great, but a signifcant proportion probably deserve more attention (I'd also encourage {{deletebecause|blah blah blah}} to be used more often to aid any administrators performing the speedy deletions). A lesser concern is that Lucky 6.9 seems to rarely provide edit summaries, a trait that I find pretty annoying. However, I don't think my concerns merit an Oppose because I have no doubt that Lucky 6.9 is a well-meaning user who could be trusted to act in good faith. Stewart Adcock 10:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I concur with Stewart. He/she is a good user, but the deletion controvesy may cause some concern. Squash 04:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I still have the same reservations, but there's enuf transparency that if it gets to be a problem it will get detected and resolved accordingly. Niteowlneils 04:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Vote withdrawn, in case neutral votes negatively affect the percentage. Niteowlneils 00:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Does tend to tag non-CSDs as speedies (e.g. [10] [11] ) but I think there's enough mitigating stuff documented elsewhere in this RFA that I can't justify objecting. JYolkowski // talk 01:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've been tagging articles that I believe fit the criteria, and I guess that I don't always get it right. I'll certainly bone up on the rules if I pass the nomination and concentrate at the onset with the obvious problems. I don't wish to do anything that goes against the rules. - Lucky 6.9 00:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lucky has been helpful in teaching a problem user (Maoririder) how to a become a valuable contributor. ike9898 17:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I also am concerned about the lack of hesitation in which he marks speedy deletions, which is noted below by Dmcdevit. I just turned Mollymook into a stub. There was easily enough info in the article to verify it within Wikipedia or a quick Google search. -- JamesTeterenko 05:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC) . I have decided to change to oppose. There is enough evidence that he will continue to think articles should be speedied that do not meet the Criteria for speedy deletion. He promised to be more careful during his last nomination more than 9 months ago. -- JamesTeterenko 00:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Lucky has agreed to tag articles for CSD rather than outright delete, why wouldn't that help allay concerns? Joyous (talk) 01:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • The answer to his first question below suggests that he want to be an admin so that he can delete articles instead of tagging them. If he is planning to start off just tagging articles instead of deleting them, he can do so in the next month and then re-apply for adminship. I would support him after a solid month of showing good judgement in this area. -- JamesTeterenko 03:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I do lots of RC patrolling, so removing the vandal bot stubs, sandbox escapees and outright vandalism (and vandals) would be a cinch. It would also greatly lower my frustration level to be able to meet these problems head on instead of hanging a speedy deletion notice.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm very proud to have contributed to the creation of six featured articles, three of which were original. They are: Wigwag, Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9, VW Transporter, Ridge Route, Ford Mustang and Felix the Cat. The wigwag, Mercedes and Ridge Route articles were the originals. I'm in the process of bringing Disneyland Railroad to featured status. It passed muster over at peer review and only lacks current photos.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Yes, I have. In any human endeavor, there's bound to be friction. I've learned to deal with it here. It was extremely frustrating in the past when lines of communication broke down and the result was a conflict. I avoid conflict with other users as best I can but when a problem arises, I do my best to diffuse the situation. I've dealt with stress by taking the occasional "wikivacation" and concentrating on my real life. If other users have caused me stress, not counting vandals, it's because the user in question might have placed me on the defensive. Other non-contentious users have caused stress, namely User:SuperDude115 who turned out not to be the troll we all thought he was, but an autistic. I took him under my wing and I'm pleased to say he's turned out to be a fine contributor. I'm trying to do the same for User:Maoririder whom I suspect is autistic as well.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lucky_6.9_4&oldid=1086095035"