Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lucky 6.9 3

Lucky 6.9
voluntarily withdrawn by candidate 26 Nov 2004 - (8/4/3) ending 02:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) (UTC)

Note: in the interest of fairness and full disclosure, he's been nominated before: see Requests for adminship/Lucky 6.9. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How many times has he been nominated? Cribcage 03:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * er, I thought only once. I may be wrong... but I can't find another subpage for previous nominations. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is Lucky's third time. The first one was back in August before we started using subpages.  It can be found here. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 04:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh. Didn't know that. Still, it doesn't change my nomination. He'd make a great admin :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 has been around for a while, and knows how Wikipedia ticks. Though he once had some harsh words for an anonymous vandal, I think he's learned from this and grown (his response to this is "My utter stupidity in posting that comment, repeat vandal or not, cost me an adminship")! Certainly I have seen that his willingness to modify the way he does things to try to achieve consensus has been highly commendable, and a model for all good Wikipedians. A major contributor to Pacific Ocean Park and has contributed quite a few edits to a great many other articles. Not only this, but he's excellent at picking up vandalism, so the rollback facility would really assist him here. I really think he's ready for adminship! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*Thanks. Really. Here's hoping this time's the charm. - Lucky 6.9 03:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'''Sigh...I think it's best that I withdraw for now. Thanks anyway.''' - Lucky 6.9 05:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Ta bu shi da yu
 * 2) Strongly. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 03:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Mmhm. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:10, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support: I like what I've seen.  Antandrus 03:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Trollhunter! Vandalslayer! Take thy rightful place among Grunt and Hadal! #[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:16, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) About time. This guy has spent so much time fighting vandals (and writing featured articles) - he certainly deserves it. Furthermore, I believe the issues that caused some to oppose before are indeed solved now. Ambi 03:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) This is long overdue; however I will echo my concerns from the last RfA - I want to stress to Lucky how important it is that he strictly abide by Deletion policy and Candidates for speedy deletion. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 04:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Excellent user. Short temper, and I opposed last time due to a particularly bad comment to a vandal (something like "put your fucking doggie where the sun don't shine" but I don't remember specifically), but he has expressed regret for the comment and that's enough for me. <b style="color:mediumblue;">Andre</b> ( talk )A| 05:23, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Cribcage 03:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Why do people have to force these things? How many failed nominations does it take to get a clue here? Lucky has unfortunately not changed his behaviour and continues to redirect valid stubs to other topics that don't have the information, or to mark them for speedy deletion (which I'm quite sure he would not even bother with as a sysop - he would just delete them). Gzornenplatz 04:11, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) * Can you provide examples of Lucky redirecting valid stubs to other topics that don't have the information, or to marking them for speedy deletion? This information would be helpful.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   15:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) **Here is a redirect that deletes information, and here he is adding an inappropriate speedy tag. Gzornenplatz 18:43, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Still bites newcomers.  Last RfA was held less than one month ago, and I'd not fault Lucky if he graciously withdrew this current RfA and let some time pass. -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
 * 6) * Can you provide examples of Lucky biting newcomers since his last nomination? Thanks,   – Quadell (talk) (help)   15:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose for the same reasons I did three weeks ago. Please give some time between rerenominations; three weeks is certainly not sufficient.  ElBenevolente 04:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It has been over a month, which according to shane's link below is typically considered sufficient.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   15:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly how long is sufficient? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The consensus was one month, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 19. I think you waited an appropriate amount of time. Shane King 05:31, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * In this case, as Lucky had repeatedly used profane language towards other editors, I feel an interval longer than a few weeks is necessary for Lucky to prove he can keep cool under pressure. ElBenevolente 02:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) It hasn't even been a month since Lucky 6.9's last RfA. Have things changed that much in so short a time? --timc | Talk 02:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I'll never support his nominations because of his deletionism regarding B-Movie Bandit stubs, but I guess other than that he might not be a bad admin. Everyking 03:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't have an opinion either way at the moment, but I'd point out the last RfA was more than a month ago: This one starts on the 25th Nov, the previous one started on the 20th Oct. Shane King 04:38, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * There's also this attempt, so it's the third time I believe. Shane King 04:09, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

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. Well, it would be nice to be able to delete vandal bot entries on sight.  It would also be nice to be able to block prolific vandals after repeated warnings.  It beats having to post a speedy delete notice on those ridiculous "fghjfghjf" kinds of entries just to wait for someone with sysop rights to do the job of removal.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Several.  I've either created or expanded a number of articles that went on to featured status.  Felix the Cat was the most recent.  Wigwag, Ridge Route and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 were all originals.  Ford Mustang and VW Type 2 were two I helped along a great deal.  Pacific Ocean Park, another original, made it to the "Did you know?" page.  So did a rewrite I did on Jo Siffert just the other night.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. LOL!  Oh, my...Yes, I admit it.  There have been times.  I'm pleased to say that I greatly avoid the more contentious areas of Wikipedia.  That was the cause of a great deal of stress.  Since I've been patrolling the new pages for vandal bots and merrily humming away on new articles and expansion of older ones, I'm having a LOT more fun.  No more Wikistress.  Also, no more conflicts with other users.  Not now, not ever.  Wikilove at all times.  As far as future conflicts are concerned, I plan to avoid them.  Should I become involved in one, rest assured that I will maintain the decorum expected of me.