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 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&cent;    &copy;   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 Mont Gosford when what was actually meant was 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. 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)
 * Wow, ya'all seriously missed the first question. It's not a question of notability.  The first article is not a: real person, company, animal, organization, or web content.  That's why A7 doesn't apply.  Did no one else catch that but Salvio?--v/r - TP 15:38, 2 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&cent;    &copy;   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&cent;    &copy;   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  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&cent;    &copy;   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)
 * 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 . 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)

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)
 * Back. --   LuK3      (Talk)   23:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)