Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lucasbfr - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Final (58/0/0); Ended 12:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Lucasbfr (talk · contribs) - Co-nomination by Húsönd & Khukri

It is with great pleasure that we present Lucasbfr for your consideration.

Co-nomination by Húsönd: I cannot remember when did Lucas draw my attention for the first time, but after coming upon his name countless times I decided to peruse his contributions and verify if he was an administrator. When I discovered that he was not, I promptly offered to nominate him (I stand against blatant waste of admin potential). That offer was over four months ago, and I'm glad that he finally decided to launch this RFA. :-) Lucas's contributions are laudably diverse. He's not just an efficient and experienced editor, he's also an efficient and experienced wiki-cop who ruthlessly fights vandals, copyvio and sockpuppets. His participation in WP:XFD is also commendable. On top of all this, Lucas is a friendly and trustworthy user who would definitely make an excellent use of the admin tools. I strongly recommend adminship for this user, and ask my fellow Wikipedians to meticulously evaluate his contributions and give him the support he truly deserves.


Co-nomination by Khukri: Lucas first came to my attention around 7 months ago as a very thorough and diligent editor, whilst working on the WikiProject user warnings. I now see him regularly around WP:AIV, WP:XFD and also know about his work with Copyright Violations. Lucas started with the project in September 2005, but didn't start actively contributing until August the following year. Since then he has amassed some 13,000 edits, with 5,000 of those being mainspace edits. Even though he is a self confessed wikignome, he is not adverse to working on articles and has given valuable contributions to the World of Warcraft articles and the very sensitive Accusations of French genocide against Algerians. As my first ever nomination I am proud for that nomination to go to someone such as Lucas. I know him to be a very thoughtful person, whose insightful commentary, self effacing manner and good knowledge of Wikipedia policies make him in my opinion an ideal admin candidate and I whole heartedly recommend him to the community.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination -- lucasbfr talk 12:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will definitely work on the usual backlogs we see on Wikipedia. These would include WP:PROD, the pages needing speedy deletion (especially G11 and G12, since I now have a fairly good understanding of the rules behind both of them by my work on suspected copyright violations), WP:AfD (and affiliates) and requested moves. I will also keep an eye on WP:AN and WP:AN/I, assisting users when needed. Being a RFCU clerk, I also plan on ensuring that the users confirmed by checkuser are blocked after the case is closed. And of course I won’t stop what I am already doing, being watching the new pages, the recent changes and CAT:HELP. I also plan to help good faith new users struggling with our policies, and help on CAT:UNBLOCK if that is needed. My aim is to help keeping Wikipedia running as smoothly as possible by ensuring that backlogs stay at a minimum. This is of course to get started, Wikipedia is big enough to always find something to do somewhere else.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think the contribution I am the most proud of is my participation to the WikiProject user warnings. I think that the "new" warning system is a huge improvement from the "old" one, and that we did a fairly comprehensive and simpler system with the exchange of ideas.
Still on the Wikipedia namespace side, I am one of the contributors working on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, which helps finding and removing some obvious copyright violations that might slip otherwise. I also worked on Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance to help depopulating the June 2006 part.
I am not a big article writer, English not being my mother tongue. I have more a wikignome attitude, formatting entries, correcting templates, adding or removing links, ... I browse the encyclopedia a lot and tend to correct the articles that cross my path.
Khukri mentioned Classes in World of Warcraft and Accusations of French genocide against Algerians, which appear the articles I worked the most on (as I said, I am more prone to edit all articles than stay on one). I crossed Classes in World of Warcraft during AfD patrol if I am correct. That was a fairly disputed AfD that ended with No Consensus. After the AfD, we tried to address the concerns as much as possible to prevent the article from being deleted.
I have no idea on how I crossed Accusations of French genocide against Algerians. First time I saw it, I was on the edge of bringing it to Deletion. But there was substance, and even if it really needed a huge cleanup, I thought it might be a good exercise to work on my neutrality (being French, I have an obvious bias). I must admit the article is far from perfect, but it is in much better shape now than it was beforehand. And if it was brought for Deletion, well, at least I would have tried doing something with it instead of leaving it abandoned.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I am someone that feels very bad when I make a mistake, and to prevent this I try to gain consensus as much as possible or often ask fellow editors to double check what I did. For now, beside the usual wiki-stress of vandal patrol, I don't recall having any heated argument that couldn't be sorted by communication and patience on Wikipedia. I am prone to admit my errors when I do one (and well, that happens sometimes and won’t probably stop. I have a bellybutton too) and I am much more often thanked than insulted ;).
4. What would you do as an administrator about ideological or profit motive attempts to manipulate Wikipedia? Bear in mind this statement from Brad Patrick as well as this news story, this conference summary, this press release, and these blogs. DurovaCharge! 18:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:I think there are two levels of POV pushing and advertising on Wikipedia: The well known obvious part is not a big threat it is spotted quite easily by all patrollers, that either {{db-spam}} it or AfD/Prod it. Shadowbot also does a good job reverting it.
I think this SPAM/POV is mainly done in good faith. We need to educate the editors on the spam and copyright issues involved (spam is very often copy pasted from the company website). Of course, assuming good faith does not mean being blind.
But there is a more subtle POV pushing made by certain organized individuals (paid, or not), there is more than one User:MyWikiBiz. This part is much more harmful because it is much harder to detect and can stay a long time without being detected. It is even done sometimes without the "spammer" knowing he is breaking policy by willing to tell "the truth" (In cases of conflicts of interests). I think this will soon be one of the main issues for Wikipedia. Our main asset on this case, is the number of people reading the encyclopedia and knowing how to report a non neutral article. We need to educate and help them. 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (pardon my english it is very late)
Optional question from daveh4h
5. What is your opinion of ignore all rules as a policy? Can you think of a circumstance where it may be appropriate to ignore all rules?
A:First of all, I think IAR is a policy that can be useful: policy can't fit each case (or it would be unreadable) and common sense needs to apply, when we are acting like admins. But IAR is not a free pass or a shield, in my opinion, a more suited name would be "Ignore all rules, and face the consequences". IAR is not a toy, and is not a way to get rid of some annoyance. Personally, if I would invoke IAR, I would report it at WP:ANI at once to ask for feedback. And I know that when you feel like the last defender of the Wiki, there is a high probability that you are the one mistaken.
Now, for the specifics, speedy deletion of a "useless" article that does not fit a speedy deletion criteria is not an option, we have other deletion processes and a "useless" article can stay the 5 days of the prod process without hurting the project. Correct me if I am mistaken, but the desysopping of User:Robdurbar was probably not in accordance with any of our processes, and is a good example of IAR used with common sense. 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (pardon my english it is very late)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Lucasbfr before commenting.

Support

  1. Support as co-nom Khukri 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why not? MER-C 13:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as co-nom.--Húsönd 13:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Looks good to me. Kafziel Talk 13:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support Excellent user, civil, dedicated, great work in all areas. Should be an incredible asset. – Rianaऋ 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support - Excellent candidate, would make an excellent administrator. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support worked with him at WP:SCV and this guy clearly is reliable and will make good use of the tools. --W.marsh 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Has been working very hard recently and would make an excellent Admin..----Cometstyles 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Terence 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A good hardworker, will be excellent I'm sure. good luck! Majorly (talk | meet) 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support very dedicated, qualified, and excellent user. Give him a mop! —Anas talk? 14:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. «Snowolf How can I help?» supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 15:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  13. Support seems like a excellent pontential admin Gutworth 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Hmm, lucky thirteen! This is a hard-working editor with lots of potential to be a good admin too. (aeropagitica) 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. -- Y not? 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Good attitude, dedicated, very helpful at WP:RFCU, a little light on article talk edits (sorry, I hate when people do that), will make good use of the tools. MastCell Talk 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Excellent candidate; genuine cliche moment for me. Xoloz 18:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Rettetast 19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support Lucasbfr definitely deserves the tools. He's done great work all around Wikipedia, and he also demonstrates a need for adminship. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support A hard worker, willing to help. JodyB talk 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Great template work. Long overdue. the_undertow talk 20:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I've seen Lucasbfr around before... as I recall, I thought he was an admin at the time (and not because he was bossy). I have no qualms about giving him a mop. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support looks very well qualified. Let's give them the mop! Jmlk17 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support because the first line of his userpage makes me smile every time I read it. And, more importantly, because he's an excellent user and I thought he was already an admin. Will (aka Wimt) 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support: Seen him on RC patrol; could definitely use the mop. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Looks good. --Shirahadasha 03:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Good noms, good user - Support Ryan Postlethwaite 12:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, looks like a well-balanced candidate that will help out a lot in needed areas. --Spike Wilbury 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Supporting. – B.hotep u/t• 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - errr, not one already? The Evil Spartan 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - First ran into this user at WP:RFCU. I think he's got the experience needed to pull it off. Sean William 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support in agreement with all of the above. Acalamari 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Solid user and solid answers. Xiner (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Good mainspace contribs, good answers. Would make good use of the tools. daveh4h 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. No reservations. I've seen Lucas in several places and invariably found him to be pleasant, sensible and constructive.--Kubigula (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Great editor. utcursch | talk 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Noteworthy contributor. -- Jreferee 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. WjBscribe 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Good person to become an admin. Captain panda 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Does good work on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations Garion96 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support would be excellent as an admin. Lεmσηflαsh(t)/(c) 23:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I've been particularily impressed with this users' work in projectspace, from what I've seen over the past couple of months. Daniel 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. An absolute no-brainer. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support--MONGO 09:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. PeaceNT 15:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support The best answer to my question that I've seen yet. I'm glad to see a candidate who understands the issue this well and hope you spend some of your sysop time addressing it. Those of us who work in this area could use the help! DurovaCharge! 20:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Suport - Good impression, good contributions that I can see, and the noms and a lot of other supporters are convincing. Georgewilliamherbert 23:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support unreservedly. Valuable contributor who will make a valuable admin. -- Satori Son 04:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - per the above comments. Real96 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per noms and everyone above. Sarah 08:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support nice set of edits, good pre-admin work.--VS talk 11:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Cleared for adminship Experienced editor. // Pilotguy hold short 15:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Joe I 05:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Unnecessary $upport Read the above. Dfrg.msc 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

neutral needs work on more user talk 400 in 13000 edits is too low in my mind sorry cant support right nowOo7565 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not 100% sure of what you are talking about to be honest: do you mean 400 non-warnings edits on user talk? Or did you by any chance get mix up with my 380 edits on user space (and 5935 on user talk)? :) -- lucasbfr talk 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken comment by RFA spammer.--Húsönd 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.