Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/LuK3
Username: LuK3
User groups: reviewer, rollbacker
First edit: Jun 07, 2008 14:17:15
Unique pages edited: 10,563
Average edits per page: 1.69
Live edits: 16,404
Deleted edits: 1,460
Total edits (including deleted): 17,864
Namespace Totals
Article 5941 36.22%
Talk 219 1.34%
User 1687 10.28%
User talk 6577 40.09%
Wikipedia 1450 8.84%
Wikipedia talk 77 0.47%
File 22 0.13%
Template 23 0.14%
Template talk 2 0.01%
Help 1 0.01%
Help talk 1 0.01%
Category 2 0.01%
Category talk 1 0.01%
Portal 395 2.41%
Portal talk 6 0.04%
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2008/06 3
2008/07 7
2008/08 21
2008/09 1
2008/10 5
2008/11 20
2008/12 1
2009/01 4
2009/02 0
2009/03 0
2009/04 0
2009/05 0
2009/06 0
2009/07 0
2009/08 1
2009/09 0
2009/10 14
2009/11 4
2009/12 0
2010/01 0
2010/02 2
2010/03 0
2010/04 0
2010/05 0
2010/06 0
2010/07 0
2010/08 0
2010/09 0
2010/10 0
2010/11 0
2010/12 0
2011/01 0
2011/02 0
2011/03 3
2011/04 3
2011/05 7
2011/06 40
2011/07 768
2011/08 1167
2011/09 1584
2011/10 1038
2011/11 1026
2011/12 1329
2012/01 676
2012/02 775
2012/03 648
2012/04 1003
2012/05 889
2012/06 1175
2012/07 1682
2012/08 1158
2012/09 651
2012/10 358
2012/11 338
2012/12 3
Top edited pages
Article
61 - Yankees–Red_Sox_rivalry
51 - April_2012_Afghanistan_attacks
25 - Reactions_to_the_Occupy_movement
18 - Foster_the_People
17 - 2012_Afghanistan_Quran_burning_protests
16 - 2012_Aurora_shooting
16 - Deaths_in_2011
16 - Ryan_Dunn
15 - MGK
15 - The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)
Talk
14 - Syrian_civil_war
11 - Deaths_in_2011
9 - 2011_Norway_attacks
7 - 2012_Aurora_shooting
6 - Occupy_movement
5 - Kony_2012
5 - Yankees–Red_Sox_rivalry/GA1
4 - Ryan_Dunn
4 - 2012_Afghanistan_Quran_burning_protests
4 - Death_of_Deriek_Wayne_Crouse
User
1080 - LuK3/CSD_log
432 - LuK3
47 - LuK3/Status
15 - LuK3/sandbox2
13 - LuK3/Userboxes
8 - LuK3/Infobox_heat_wave
7 - LuK3/header
5 - LuK3/vector.js
4 - LuK3/PROD_log
3 - LuK3/image
User talk
215 - LuK3
8 - Dennis_Brown
8 - Fastily
8 - Acroterion
7 - Calu2000
6 - Bongwarrior
6 - Jezhotwells
6 - 03alpe01
6 - 64.121.197.60
5 - AlexiusHoratius
Wikipedia
603 - Requests_for_page_protection
210 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
208 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention
80 - Teahouse/Questions
28 - Help_desk
19 - In_the_news/Candidates
12 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
8 - Editor_review/LuK3
6 - Sockpuppet_investigations/Tastedsauce
6 - Reference_desk/Computing
Wikipedia talk
13 - Twinkle
10 - Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5
10 - Teahouse/Host_lounge
3 - Articles_for_creation/Koolkart
3 - WikiProject_Articles_for_creation
3 - Articles_for_creation/GreenPRAY
3 - Articles_for_creation/Jordan_Lawlor
2 - Request_an_account
2 - Requests_for_adminship/Berean_Hunter
2 - Articles_for_creation/Charlie_Kilgore
File
1 - GrapeFruit.jpg
1 - Virginia_tech_2011_shooting_subject.jpg
1 - Bigsean-dance.png
1 - CC1.png
1 - Wp-login.png
1 - Lordvoldemort.jpg
1 - VadoHD.JPEG
1 - Interstate_78_BH.jpg
1 - New_Rochelle_High_School_2009_.jpg
1 - General-Runescape-HUD.PNG
Template
7 - Vandalism_information
2 - Occupy_movement
2 - Did_you_know_nominations/2012_Major_League_Basebal...
2 - 2011_AL_East_standings
1 - Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_2011
1 - Glee_episodes
1 - Infobox_McDonald's
1 - Emmerdale_episodes
1 - Did_you_know_nominations/Super_Bowl_XLVI
1 - Latest_stable_software_release/Snapchat
Template talk
2 - Did_you_know
Help
1 - Searching_from_a_web_browser
Help talk
1 - Edit_toolbar
Category
1 - Watford_F.C._players
1 - Edible_Apiaceae
Category talk
1 - WikiProject_Pakistan
Portal
7 - Current_events/2011_October_3
6 - Current_events/2011_September_20
6 - Current_events/2011_September_25
6 - Current_events/2011_October_26
5 - Current_events/2011_October_22
5 - Current_events/2012_June_26
5 - Current_events/2012_August_24
5 - Current_events/2012_April_2
5 - Current_events/2011_September_10
5 - Current_events/2011_October_19
Portal talk
6 - Current_events
Salvio giuliano's oppose and responses (moved from main page)
| I am sorry to be the first one to oppose, but your answer to my question was pretty much wrong; furthermore, if, as an admin, you were to actually act as you say you would in your reply to My76Strat's question, then you'd probably end up making things worse. To remind established users to assume good faith of each other during a heated discussion is, in my opinion, not the best of ideas — it sounds awfully condescending, even though that may not have been your intention. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
- I took his response as saying "Look, you know that you are both good editors, you just need to get an outside opinion and not attack each other" (assume good faith, stop the attacks, go to DRN). Maybe the wording is a bit more awkward here than he would have used in a real situation, or maybe I missed something, but that is how I took it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Salvio, I got a kick out of Q8 because it was so refreshingly concrete. You don't have to, but I would be interested in hearing your reasons why Luke's answer was "pretty much wrong". I'm, of course, dodging saying what I think. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are various answers to your question, Salvio, and I don't think that Luke's response was particularly wrong. The first example shows that Luke searched for reliable sources outside of Wikipedia, and it is always a good indication of constructive and thoughtful attitude towards building Wikipedia. The second one is more complicated, however, applying the {{db-a7}} template is a bit problematic, because there is a claim of importance sufficient enough to prevent speedy deletion. However, the article should be dealt with better care. The answer to your last example is confusing, as the link provided by Luke doesn't point to any foreign article, however, I'm OK with candidate's: "If there was no other article on the French Wikipedia, I would of used the {{Not english}} template". --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- No points off for not using the King's English, and no points off for using [[wmfr:Mont Gosford|Mont Gosford]] when what was actually meant was [[fr:Mont Gosford]], which is actually an article. Proper English helps, but it is the intent that is important, not the dots over the i's. Not providing correct links makes it harder to find, but the meaning was clear, and yes Mont Gosford is not a made up article, but a real article on the french WP. fr:Mont Gosford, of if you prefer Mont Gosford. But what is really odd is that LuK3 did not notice that there is a wikilink from fr:Mont Gosford to English Mount Gosford and suggest making Mont Gosford a redirect to the En: article. Which it is. I think if they become an admin this go around they will do fine, though. Apteva (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now, now, TP, let's not jump to conclusions. I asked Salvio to explain because, frankly, I thought he owed Luke that. If you say something is wrong, you should say why. At the same time, I also said that I was not giving my own analysis of Luke's answers to the hypos. That was mainly because I wanted Salvio to address the issue first. Then, of course, others jumped in and offered their own analyses. So, to the extent your talkback on my talk page means you think I "missed" something, it's an unfair inference. The defense rests. Oh, yeah, and I never got what I wanted, but that is, of course, Salvio's prerogative.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) No I didn't miss it, it's in the article's history. I just wanted to point out that there is not always only one way to do something right. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- If memory serves me right, the consensus was so strongly against me regarding CSD that I had to agree to months of CSD mentoring, which I did at User talk:Dennis Brown/CSD on my own honor. Yet TParis and others supported me, I got the bit, and I have yet to delete the main page. I think if you compare LuK3 and myself at the time of RfA, it is easy to conclude that his skills at CSD far outstrip my own. None of us is perfect, after all. I also think LuK3 is a bit more rigid here than usual, as RfA is nerve racking at best. At least mine was, and was made more tolerable by those who gave me the benefit of the doubt. I am gladdened that the tone is generally positive and respectful, even by those with doubts. Regardless of how this turns out, my opinion of LuK3 hasn't changed. He has my complete trust, as I'm sure he would move forward slowly, deliberately and willing to ask advice along the way. None of us had all the skills at RfA, but LuK3 is skilled and has the clue and the heart, which matters most to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- All, but there was only one answer to the question. Salvio purposefully created that scenario for a specific answer. The candidate didn't catch it. That's a serious error. Dennis, your a very exceptional case ;) --v/r - TP 17:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm flattered, but I think LuK3 is exceptional in his own ways, and even less a risk than I was, honestly. Again, I respect the opposition, and not arguing against anyone's vote. If this doesn't pan out, I will be glad to help LuK3 work towards another go if he decides to do so. I'm still very confident in him as a person and confident he will make a level headed admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whoa, I must say I'm a bit surprised my question and !vote have sparked such a discussion, but, anyway, here are my thoughts. First of all, Dennis, I acknowledge that your alternative interpretation of Luk3's reply to My76Strat's question is reasonable; I have to say that I'm not persuaded: I don't believe that it's really what he meant, but I recognise that it's only my gut feeling and am reconsidering that part of my oppose; I may not change my mind, but I'm certainly taking into consideration your opinion. That said, regarding Luk3's reply to my question, the part about the first article was acceptable; sub-optimal, but acceptable: the article was not eligible for deletion under criterion A7 and I believe that Luk3 should have emphasised that. That he did a quick google search is a good thing, but the point is that he missed the most important element of the question — and he actually misquotes the criterion, in that it does not refer to claim of notability but, rather, importance or significance, but now I'm nitpicking, I know. The second part of his answer was probably the most wrong; while it's true that the article cannot be speedied under A7, it should be quickly zapped per G11. An admin is not bound by the criterion chosen by the nominator. Finally, the third part of his answer ignores part of my question: I specifically indicated that, in the example, the article did not duplicate any existing topic — as was the case, when the original article was created... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm grateful for the sincere discussion, which I think is fine. As for the comments, I was thinking he was giving a formula rather than quoting his exact words, as the example itself was not very personal, but I see your perspective as well. If one assumes he was giving a generic formula, I would say he is exactly right, assuming he would be using wording like I gave. That is similar to how I handle those situations, actually. If you feel that his answer would be the exact words he would use, then I understand, as that exact wording wouldn't be good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree that even missing something obvious like A7 is not a serious issue. Everyone can look straight at something and miss the obvious. I do like the idea of the CSD mentoring. Every new admin has strengths and weaknesses, and if they don't go around like a bull in a china shop with their new tools they do just fine. There also are specialist areas, that not everyone is ever going to be able to do well, and there are simple admin tasks that any 12 year old could do just fine. As the percentage is slipping to 60%, passage is moot but I hope that LuK3 will try again in the future and will consider carefully whether they would be or are block happy, and in particular all of the other advice. Apteva (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm grateful for the sincere discussion, which I think is fine. As for the comments, I was thinking he was giving a formula rather than quoting his exact words, as the example itself was not very personal, but I see your perspective as well. If one assumes he was giving a generic formula, I would say he is exactly right, assuming he would be using wording like I gave. That is similar to how I handle those situations, actually. If you feel that his answer would be the exact words he would use, then I understand, as that exact wording wouldn't be good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whoa, I must say I'm a bit surprised my question and !vote have sparked such a discussion, but, anyway, here are my thoughts. First of all, Dennis, I acknowledge that your alternative interpretation of Luk3's reply to My76Strat's question is reasonable; I have to say that I'm not persuaded: I don't believe that it's really what he meant, but I recognise that it's only my gut feeling and am reconsidering that part of my oppose; I may not change my mind, but I'm certainly taking into consideration your opinion. That said, regarding Luk3's reply to my question, the part about the first article was acceptable; sub-optimal, but acceptable: the article was not eligible for deletion under criterion A7 and I believe that Luk3 should have emphasised that. That he did a quick google search is a good thing, but the point is that he missed the most important element of the question — and he actually misquotes the criterion, in that it does not refer to claim of notability but, rather, importance or significance, but now I'm nitpicking, I know. The second part of his answer was probably the most wrong; while it's true that the article cannot be speedied under A7, it should be quickly zapped per G11. An admin is not bound by the criterion chosen by the nominator. Finally, the third part of his answer ignores part of my question: I specifically indicated that, in the example, the article did not duplicate any existing topic — as was the case, when the original article was created... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm flattered, but I think LuK3 is exceptional in his own ways, and even less a risk than I was, honestly. Again, I respect the opposition, and not arguing against anyone's vote. If this doesn't pan out, I will be glad to help LuK3 work towards another go if he decides to do so. I'm still very confident in him as a person and confident he will make a level headed admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- All, but there was only one answer to the question. Salvio purposefully created that scenario for a specific answer. The candidate didn't catch it. That's a serious error. Dennis, your a very exceptional case ;) --v/r - TP 17:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yes, and "at least 6 editors with over 1,000 main space edits and three months of active editing must start a petition on my talk page" as a recall procedure? Seriously, admins should not be making up recall procedures. The question is yes or no, and I would leave it at that without specifying conditions. Apteva (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's a voluntary process without community consensus. Admin's should have to deal with abusive recall requests in retaliation because someone is upset they got blocked for edit warring. It's expected that administrator actions, such as blocking, are not going to be popular with the crowd that earns it. So how do you prevent abuse without procedures? Simply put, if you take away the rights of the administrator to set the standards for a voluntary process, they simply won't volunteer to do it anymore.--v/r - TP 13:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with TParis. Every admin determines his own criteria for recall, as it's an entirely voluntary process — an admin could even choose not to turn in his bit, despite a successful recall petition and there would be no way to force him to do it; granted, he'd receive a massive amount of flak, but he'd still be an admin. If anything, Luk3's criteria, which are similar to those of many other admins, might provide too little protection against abuse of the recall process by experienced users who disagree with an action he took... But every admin gets to choose if he's going to be open to recall and, if so, how he can be recalled. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's a voluntary process without community consensus. Admin's should have to deal with abusive recall requests in retaliation because someone is upset they got blocked for edit warring. It's expected that administrator actions, such as blocking, are not going to be popular with the crowd that earns it. So how do you prevent abuse without procedures? Simply put, if you take away the rights of the administrator to set the standards for a voluntary process, they simply won't volunteer to do it anymore.--v/r - TP 13:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Gone sunday
I will be out of town Sunday, December 2nd, 2012. Therefore, I cannot answer any inquiries during the day. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 04:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)