Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LuK3 2

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

LuK3

Final (142/0/3); ended 14:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC) ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

LuK3 (talk · contribs) – Today it’s my honor to nominate LuK3 (not to be confused with Luk3) for adminship. LuK3 first came to my attention as the guy who was asking for revdel multiple times a day on IRC. Wouldn’t it be easier, I thought, if we just gave him the toolset so he could perform those revision deletions himself? The answer is yes and I think LuK3 has more than shown himself ready over the past 12 months to be an asset to the community not only with revdel but other parts of counter-vandalism patrolling including page protection and handling blocks.

LuK3’s skills range beyond this one area, however. He has shown himself to be skilled at content creation having worked to help two lists to featured list status and he has a GA which earned him a million award. LuK3 has also participated in other areas of the project including third opinions and as a member of the volunteer response team (OTRS). His is a calm presence and one that remains ever open to feedback. You can see evidence of this in the various ways he has improved himself in the last 8 years since his first RfA. He is someone I expect to continue helping our readers and editors in a number of ways in the months and years to come. I hope you will join me in supporting his candidacy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Anyone who has worked with LuK3 is familiar with his industriousness and dedication to the project. As my colleague Barkeep49 has discussed, LuK3's project experience is broad and deep; his contribution history spans Featured and Good content creation and extensive behind-the-scenes maintenance. Among the contributions that he’s made that aren’t as visible on Wikipedia itself, LuK3 is a 9-year member of the ACC team, processing over 1,000 requests, and in just the last year he has submitted over 75 requests for suppression to the oversight queue (a small portion of his total revdel requests). The broadness of his experience will make him a more empathetic administrator when working with editors in every corner of the project; the depth of his experience will no doubt make him a particularly productive administrator, with no end of tasks in sight.

What is, in my view, equally as impressive as LuK3's contribution history is his sheer kindness and patience in interacting with others. During the time that I’ve been following his work, LuK3 has exuded a calmness and good temperament that has impressed me. LuK3 doesn't cause trouble and possesses the skill and judgment to be one of our best. I have every confidence that LuK3 will make a terrific administrator, and I hope you agree. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both Barkeep49 and L235 for the nomination and co-nomination. I accept the nomination. For disclosure, I have not and will not edit for pay and have one legitimate alternate account for security reasons, see User:Luke (alt). -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Since most of my Wikipedia work has been in counter-vandalism, I intend on using the administrator tools at WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, and WP:UAA. I find myself in the revdelete IRC channel quite often asking for revision deletions, so having the tools to deal with those problematic edits would be extremely beneficial. In addition, I have prior experience in speedy deletion so that is an area I would like to work in as well. Those are the areas in which I would participate in as an administrator.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I believe my best contributions are my anti-vandalism and janitorial work. While not the prettiest or glamorous work, keeping articles clean and free of disruptive material is an essential part of the project. With more than 7 years of fighting vandalism, I believe I have the knowledge to help out in the administrator side of anti-vandalism work. As a member of the Account Creation team, I also take pride in helping editors create an account so they can contribute constructively.

For content creation, I'm proud of the television-related articles that I brought to either good or featured status. I helped bring Emilia Clarke and List of awards and nominations received by Emilia Clarke to good article and featured list status, respectively. I am also in the process of bringing Game of Thrones to FAC. In addition, I helped promote List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones to FL.

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 have been in a few edit disputes over the course of my Wikipedia career. Some are editors who I either reverted or tagged their article for speedy deletion. I am a firm believer in assuming good faith and always try to help editors and guide them to make constructive edits in the future. In addition, as a member of the Volunteer Response Team, I often have to work with readers who are not aware of the full list of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and their intricacies. When dealing with tickets, I always try to explain these policies and guidelines in a non-judgemental and neutral way so readers have a better view on how Wikipedia operates. I never try to let on-wiki disputes or attacks affect me personally. At the end of the day, we are all here to build an encyclopedia and having ill-feelings or a negative attitude will only cause consequences which might reflect in my editing.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Vanamonde93

4. It's been a while since your first RFA, so I don't think any reasonable person would hold it against you. I'd be interested to hear if (and if so, how) your approach to anything has changed significantly since then.

A: I would characterize my first RFA run as nervous and hesitant. In hindsight, having WP:ORCP around when I ran would have probably been beneficial to see where I stood as a nominee. Over the following years of editing, I stepped out of my normal editing routine and explored other areas of the project, including 3PO and more content work. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

5. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?

A: I think I am weakest in the template namespace. I have the utmost respect for editors who work and develop intricate templates for wider community use however I do not picture myself getting involved in template development or maintenance as an administrator. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from SilkTork

6. You nominated Yankees–Red Sox rivalry for GA, and then handled the review, dealing with all the issues raised, for which you were complimented. Yet you don't list this article as one you helped bring to GA status. Why is that? SilkTork (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A: Most of my work on that article to bring it to Good Article status involved small changes (copyediting, reference/source changes, etc.) and not large content additions. I did not feel it was right to list that article because I was not one of the editors to significantly contribute to the prose. -- LuK3 (Talk) 10:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. I like that you have that perspective. SilkTork (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Ktin

7. What in your view is the role of an Administrator in making Wikipedia a friendly place for new editors? What specific actions will you take as an Administrator to go over and beyond that to make Wikipedia welcoming to fresh editors? Ktin (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A: All editors, not just administrators, should have a hand in assisting and welcoming new editors. As stated in my answer to question 3, I always try to explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines in an easy to understand way. One administrative area to help and assist new and inexperienced editors is requests for undeletion. It is always good for an editor, especially new editors, to improve an abandoned draft or AFC submission for possible publication. Lending out a helping hand to new editors and assuming good faith is extremely important to editor retention and making Wikipedia a pleasant place to edit and participate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from SilkTork

8. You've been made an admin (congratulations!) and you're closing AfDs that are over seven days old. You come upon one where the nominator simply says "This should be deleted", and there are 10 Keep !votes which are saying "No, it shouldn't", "Keep it", "No harm", "I like it," etc. And you look at the article and notice three solid (though not Speedy) policy based reasons to delete (perhaps unsourced spam copied from a company website, though it could be anything). What do you do? SilkTork (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A: Articles for deletion is not a straight vote process. In this situation, I would participate in the deletion discussion and base my argument in the applicable policies and guidelines. Since all of the keep !votes, in addition to the nominator statement, do not cite or reference any policies and guidelines, my argument should carry more weight than the WP:ILIKEIT keep !votes. I would also hope my argument would persuade others to base their reasoning in policies and guidelines as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional questions from Robert McClenon

9. What experience have you had in resolving or trying to resolve disputes between editors, either article content disputes or conduct disputes?

A: I have provided multiple third opinions over at Wikipedia:Third opinion. One that specifically stands out in my mind was an issue regarding too many images on the FOCSA Building article back in May. I agreed that there was too many images and should be cut down, given the size of the article. The discussion was reignited last month, see Talk:FOCSA Building#Too many images. I bought up the user conduct issue to AN/I, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#OWN and IDHT issues on Talk:FOCSA Building. Fortunately, it looked like the editor did get the issue and removed images so no further action was needed. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Nalbarian

10. This question is on BLP (biography of living person). Important personalities from remote areas of a country experience significantly less and different media coverage than their other places' counterparts. Eventually, they are viewed as less significant. What's your view on this? Do you have any idea to implement tertiary sources for an article in future? Nalbarian^talk 06:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

A:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/LuK3
• Requests for adminship/LuK3 2

• Links for LuK3: LuK3 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for LuK3 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. As nominator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
2. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
3. As co-nominator. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Support. Per nominators. I think the candidate has the right temperament and attitude, and need to be an administrator, with both content creation and anti-vandal work. epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
5. Definite support from me. I actually asked LuK3 a couple months ago whether anyone had talked to him about doing an RfA. He shows up frequently in the admin areas I watch (UAA, RfPP, CSD, and revdel requests on IRC). More importantly, his requests in those places are almost always correct - I may have declined a couple of his revdel requests as not quite bad enough to merit deletion, but that's an area where we'd rather someone ask if they're unsure. As such, he has clearly demonstrated his need for the tools and competence in those areas. On the personality side, LuK3 is level-headed and unfailingly polite. He will be a solid addition to the admin corps. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

   Just to add I also appreciate LuK3 bringing up marginal rev del cases and have every expectation that he'll continue to discuss rather than act on such matters, as you and I both do GeneralNotability, should he get the toolset. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

6. Support. This candidate has an admirable skillset, and more than enough activity since his return to assuage any concerns I might have. I might bring up his deletionist nature, but if that's the case, I've really reached the bottom of the barrel. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC) And yes, after an edit clash I accidentally duplicated Epicgenius' !vote, apologies to both!
7. Support - in past encounters LuK3 has been willing to discuss his actions & consider alternatives. The sort of consideration it's good to see in an admin. Cabayi (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
8. Support Good mastery of CSD, writer of some large articles, good at Afd. What's not to like. scope_creep^Talk 15:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
9. Support One of the most trustable anti-vandals, good at CSD; having some big awarded articles doesn't hurt either. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 15:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
10. Support, I trust the noms, and see nothing to make me believe that LuK3 would abuse the tools if given. Additionally, I've seen them around, and strongly believe that they have great judgement. SQL^{Query me!} 16:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
11. Support. Today I am honored to give you support. There are no obstacles here, just good work. Mikola22 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
12. Support I've seen Luk3 at work, no qualms about supporting - thanks for putting yourself forward. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
13. Support. Nominators are people I trust and made encouraging nominationation statements. I've otherwise never seen this candidate before. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
14. Strong support level headed, has a clue. Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
15. Support – it's a full time job keeping up with LuK3's revdel requests and it's definitely time for us to let him handle them himself. As with the nominators, my interactions with the candidate have always been positive, and I trust his judgement. – bradv🍁 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

    Too bad the RfA didn't run a week earlier, otherwise we could force him to apply for OS too! GeneralNotability (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

16. Support – I'm very pleased to support. LuK3 is one of our most helpful editors in the behind-the-scenes maintenance areas of the project where the admin toolset is most needed, and his content work is quite good as well. Let's give him the mop. Mz7 (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
17. Support good candidate overall. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 17:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
18. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
19. Support I most frequently see LuK3 at IRC asking for revdels, and he seems to have very good judgement for them, and is always very courteous. But I've also seen LuK3 around in an increasing number of areas, and think that they would put the tools to good use! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
20. Support - Is definitely versed and familiar with rev del and our policies and procedures. Happy to finally see him here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
21. Support - at this point in my WP experiences, someone who is versed in sniffing out vandals, socks and trolls is much needed. This is a good start. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
22. Support - It's No Big Deal - TNT ^✨ 18:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
23. Support need for the tools demonstrated, calm and level headed and competent user. fwiw, I took a look at their afd votes and they demonstrate a decent handle on policy etc., though that's obviously not their main 'selling point'. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
24. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
25. Support per nominators, bradv and GeneralNotability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
26. Support No issues and a strong contributor. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
27. Support Oh my goodness absolutely! RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
28. Support as one of LuK3's "revdel bitches" I can say hand on heart (rumours I don't have one being unsubstantiated) that they've got the necessary experience, skill and expertise in understanding what to delete, what to keep and what to get a second opinion on. I went through their contributions and looked at other admin-y type stuff and when I could find nothing of any concern, I begged them to run months ago. If I wasn't such a lazy fucker, I would have offer to nominate them, in fact. Nick (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
29. Support per all the above. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
30. Support - no concerns. That first RFA could be a poster child for "broken RFA process"... sorry you had to go through that, Luk, and thanks for standing again. Lev!vich 20:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
31. I've seen their reports at RFPP, and they give me the impression that protect would be used well. I read through the first RfA and agree with Levivich. Clear net positive if we give Luke the tools. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
32. Support - if anyone has shown a need for access to the revdel buttons, it's LuK3. My interactions with him have been unfailingly kind and courteous, and this attitude is reflected in his work at WP:ACC as well. stwalkerster (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
33. Support. Not an idiot. Not too weird. Not a dramamonger. Good admin qualities. Natureium (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

    Oppose Someone must be paying off oppose voters and I could use some cash. Natureium (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

34. Supportsolid answer #3Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
35. Support – Good content creator that can be trusted with the tools. I usually like to see more experience with featured article writing, but featured lists are good enough. Even as we are here discussing their fate, LuK3 is out there fighting vandalism. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
36. Support Long term user has been around since 2008 ,Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
37. big fat support Clone commando sev (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
38. Support. Good activity, reasonable answers to questions, and nice work on CSD also. Best of luck, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
39. Support No concerns. P-K3 (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
40. Support — This project needs more admins overall they are a net positive. Celestina007 00:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
41. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
42. Support. Anyone Barkeep49 nominates has my support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
43. Support per PMC. CThomas³ (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
44. Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
45. Support. I have looked at his contributions and it looks like he is ready. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
46. Support Supported the candidate's first RfA (which was unnecessarily harsh), and am happy to do so again. Miniapolis 01:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
47. Support No reason not to. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
48. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
49. Support for a job well done! Royalbroil 02:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
50. Support per the immortal words of TonyBallioni, "not a jerk, has a clue." -- Euryalus (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
51. Support hope this makes up for never getting around to reviewing that FLC last February :) – Teratix ₵ 03:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
52. Support happy to support. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
53. Support. Excellent work in counter-vandalism. — Newslinger talk 03:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
54. Support. Their answers are good and many people whose opinions I respect are also supporting. They sound like they would do well with the tools. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
55. Support per Barkeep49, TonyBallioni, MJL, CaptainEek, Atsme, Wugapodes, and Fastily. —⁠andrybak (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
56. Support giving the tools to do even more of the good work they're already doing. Thanks for volunteering. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
57. Support — an impressive counter vandalism record across AIV, UAA, RPP, balanced with an excellent contribution to article quality. That balance is not an easy find. @LuK3: I wish you all the best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
58. Support Very impressive anti-vandalism work, and good judgement if I may add. This editor clearly has the skills for being an excellent admin. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
59. Support My interactions with the candidate have been entirely positive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
60. Per Bradv and Oshwah. On my own to-nominate list, so glad to see this! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
61. I've checked a random sample of this candidate's contributions and found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 11:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
62. Support No objections. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
63. —Kusma (t·c) 12:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
64. Support 100% Glen (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
65. Support This user is really good at reverting vandalism and non-constructive edits, as I have seen this user beat me to reverting vandalism and non-constructive edits many times. I think it would be a good idea to make LuK3 an admin. Wikiffeine •‿• 14:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    On the other hand, admins who focus a lot on vandalism tend to do silly things like block experienced content creators for mild outbursts, so maybe not the best argument to use. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

66. Support Based on my own experience and the testimony of others, I'm confident that he'll make responsible and productive use of the tools. Goodnightmush^Talk 15:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
67. Support I have consistently seen high quality AIV reports or CSD tagging from the candidate; has my trust. Best, Spencer^T•C 17:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
68. Support Essential work and good to have someone so experienced in it as an admin. Mccapra (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
69. Support A solid editor with a long history of positive contributions to the project. I've seen them around and always been impressed by their work and demeanor. No red or yellow flags. I think we have a winner here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
70. Support I researched the candidate some time back and all the concerns then have now been resolved. No further issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
71. Support, I have seen a couple of judgement slips at RFPP nominations, but certainly on the positive side.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
72. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
73. Support - My only slight concern is the gaps in editing however as noted below we are indeed volunteers, Other than that I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 19:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
74. Support - Great anti-vandalism work, should do great work with the admin toolbox. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:25, 20:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
75. Support likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
76. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
77. Support Great candidate; I have no concerns regarding his ability to use a few extra buttons cluefully.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
78. Support for meeting my mins and not a single voice in opposition. Ifnord (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
79. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
80. Support - I nominated him the first time and felt he was ready then. No worries now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
81. Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
82. Support My immediate reaction after taking a look at some of the candidate's work was positive but I decided to wait a while to see if any of our resident detectives could turn up something negative. So far, the answer is no, so I will go with my initial impression. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
83. Support. Has demonstrated plenty of clue since the 2012 nomination, clearly can be trusted with the tools. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 08:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
84. Support Does not seem problematic. SemiHypercube 11:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
85. Absolutely – A highly tenured editor with a good head on his shoulders. LuK3 should definitely become an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
86. Support I approve of their editing record and trust their judgment and handling. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
87. Support I've seen LuK3's good work and trust that the tools will build upon it. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 16:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
88. Support I've run into LuK3 quite a few times "behind the scenes" at ACC and OTRS. From what I've seen, he handles those extra buttons carefully and well and has been open and responsive to discussion about his actions when I've had occasion to do so. No doubt that will continue to the admin buttons. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
89. Support for the counter vandalism work. Eatcha 19:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
90. Support I trust the conominator, and if they can trust that LuK3 can be trusted with the tools I can too. Furthermore, I see no issues which would lead me to oppose. One of the arguments made by the neutrals are that they have had editing hiatuses. I would counter that real life happens, so having editing hiatuses is not necessarily a bad thing. Also their last hiatus was September 2019, so they have been consistently editing for more than a year. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
91. Support Vexations (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
92. Support Per IRC mentioned by noms and WP:SOFIXIT. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
93. Support: Competent and clearly operates with the project's best interest at heart. Waggie (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
94. Support He pops in to #wikipedia-en-revdel on freenode all the time with revdel requests. All of them were valid, so he clearly has a clue. Give him the mop so he can stop banging on the door of the janitor's closet to wake us up at 3AM local time to delete BLP violations! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
95. Support Competent and trusted user. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
96. Support, I expect good things with the tools. BD2412 T 04:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
97. Support. Great user. Pamzeis (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
98. Support, often see him active contributing, he would be a great sysop. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
99. Support, great work, will certainly be an asset to the project. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
100. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
101. Support. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
102. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
103. Support I'm somewhat concerned about the high volume of delete votes at AfD, but not enough to withdraw my support. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
104. Support - more admins is always a good thing.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
105. Support - I've spotted LuK3's reports at AIV and RFPP many times, and without exaggeration I don't think I've ever had cause to disagree with one, to the point that I've deliberately picked his report first out of a backlogged AIV before, just because I know it'll be actionable. Giving him the admin bit would significantly reduce the backlog of these damn correct reports that other admins need to do stuff about. ~ mazca ^talk 19:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
106. Support - per nom. Competent editor per Mazca; often seen reverting vandalism. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
107. Support: per other !votes and comments to this point in time I am supporting with limited scrutiny. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
108. Support No doubt! S0091 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
109. Support Very good prospect, can only be a benefit to UAA, AIV and related areas JW 1961 Talk 22:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
110. Support per noms. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
111. Support. No concerns. Nihlus 02:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
112. Support. per Dennis. Their work over the last 12 months is alone enough to qualify , and Amanda makes a pertinent observation with: Carelessly and being aware that we are all humans and that super dedication (addiction) to the project burns people out which makes them bad admins, are two very different things. - not likely to be any more careless than the admin who stained an otherwise clean block log. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
113. Support. Does excellent work, good demeanor and interactions, trustworthiness well established. Donner60 (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
114. Support I usually have a feeling for RfA candidates, recognising names &c., but here i have no idea if i have run across the candidate previously, i'm confused by the similarity with at least one other user. Regardless, i am contented by all i read that giving out the mop here is the correct thing to do; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
115. Support and all the best with the admin tools. Tolly4bolly 09:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
116. Support a big net positive to the project. Roller26 (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
117. Yes. Looks OK. SilkTork (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
118. Belated support. To be quite honest, I was hoping for a little more substance in the answer to my question, but after a few days I have not found anything of actual concern, and that nobody else seems to have done so either speaks volumes. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
119. Strong support per the good temperament, clear need for the tools, outstanding work in areas that attract more newbies and non-Wikipedians (e.g. OTRS), and great skill in content creation. Thank you for all your contributions so far as a non-admin! — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
120. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
121. Support great temperament, demonstrable need for the toolset, and outstanding work with new users. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
122. Support I support this nomination. R. J. Dockery (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
123. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
124. Support, seems to be a net positive. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
125. Support Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 07:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
126. Support I support this nomination as per the above comments and my experience. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
127. Support: Net asset, (probably) won't screw up. Harrias ^talk 14:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
128. I imagine adminship to be very useful to the candidate Naleksuh (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
129. Support - No reason not to support, and reasons to support. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
130. Stephen 02:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
131. Support. Appears to be thoughtful and open-minded. Particularly impressed by willingness to change their mind when presented with new evidence as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrowdStrike. Cbl62 (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
132. Support - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 18:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
133. Support - definitely. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
134. Support. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
135. Support Gladly. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
136. Oppose -- Based on answer to Q8. The correct answer was "count votes". Also acceptable, would have been "skip". Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
137. Support Trusted user, clear need for the tools, net positive, no concerns on my end. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
138. Support – Cavalryman (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC).
139. Support - an impressive record already. I'm sure they would make good use of the admin tools. the wub "?!" 10:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
140. Support Definitely. Solid participation in several areas. Good luck! LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
141. Support' Has a clue, knows what he is doing. 14:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)}
142. Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral low article creation and main space participation. High delete !votes at AfD and many speedy noms. The only thing that kept me from opposing at this time was the fact that the AfD !votes are not just drive-by. My criteria for an administrator involve protecting content and content creators and I am not sure this candidate would do both. Lightburst (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
   • WRT AfD participation, I don't think it is fair to judge how deletionist an editor is based on these summary statistics: there is a big bias depending on how editors tend to find AfDs. Looking over the delete opinions where the outcome was keep, the only ones where I found LuK3's overall participation could be said to count as deletionist were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damn You Auto Correct and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great White of Wildwood NJ (when the article looked like [1]). In both instances his delete argument was made before alternatives were suggested. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
2. Your editing pattern is very inconsistent, and have had big gaps between your editing periods. What if you were to take a hiatus again? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

   Foxnpichu, what if? We're humans with lives. And volunteers. Glen (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

   Somebody should not have admin tools if they’re not even going to be here. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

   And we have a process for that. Come on. Adminship doesn't have a job description or a daily task list.--WaltCip-(talk) 22:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

   But it should not just be given out carelessly. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

   Carelessly and being aware that we are all humans and that super dedication (addiction) to the project burns people out which makes them bad admins, are two very different things. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

   Any one of the admin corps could take a long break right now without warning or explanation. That's just how things go. I think a year of constant editing is more than enough to show that LuK3 is at least actively engaged right now (and so isn't likely to disappear right after getting the bit). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

   I guess you have a point, but I still think my point stands. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

3. Neutral, leaning oppose. Same as User:Lightburst, I am rather disappointed by the candidate's delete-bias at AfD and low non-automated mainspace participation. The only things that are stopping me from going to the oppose section is that the nominators are editors I hold in very high regard and there are no allegations of misconduct since this candidate's last RfA. Deryck C. 23:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

   Deryck Chan, re 'delete bias' I suspect that LuK3 shows up at AfD the same way I do - either they're nominating or they find a page already nominated for deletion while patrolling and decided to chime in. That usually leads to an editor's stats favoring "delete" (as opposed to people who show up at AfD via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). GeneralNotability (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

General comments

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.