Lupin[edit]

final (24/4/2) ending 16:13 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Lupin (talk · contribs) — Nigh on 10,000 edits. Active on all fronts. Recent major contributions include the astonishingly useful Navigational popup (which accounts for his high User page edit count). From my experience, user is level-headed, open to discussion and ideas. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-16 16:13

Thanks for the nomination! I accept. Lupin 15:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-16 16:15
2. Phroziac (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oleg Alexandrov 18:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. UkPaolo 18:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Jonathunder 21:15, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
7. Support has done a lot of extensive work and has proved to be a good, dilligent editor. How convincing do you want a reply to "please indicate acceptance of the nomination" to be??? He's answered everything accurately and succinctly. That's an admirable skill. The JPS 21:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Merovingian (t) (c) 00:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
9. Support - Metts my standards. Plus, I always support werewolves. --Celestianpower ^hab 12:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Good contributor, will use the mop well. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
11. Support -- great answers to the "candidate questions", especially. kmccoy (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. 'Support. Please commit to use edit summaries in all non-minor edits! ≈ jossi ≈ 22:31, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
13. Support - The pop up navigation tool is incredibly useful. Shows real commitment. Jacoplane 11:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support knows stuff well.  Grue  16:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. Neutral, sorry, but I don't much like the answers to the Questions for the candidate. I would prefer if a little more thought was put into them. --Sn0wflake 00:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Support. --Sn0wflake 19:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tried to address this. Is there more that you want to know? Lupin 19:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I had given up and switched to Oppose, but I believe that all which has been brought forward has been addressed now. Switching to Support. --Sn0wflake 19:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support -- A valuable contributor with Wikipedia's best interests in mind. - Longhair | Talk 05:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, I expect this user to apply admin tools well. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:22, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
18. Support good edit count. Hamster Sandwich 06:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support; oppose silly and meaningless criteria. Ambi 07:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Many good contributions. I'm confident that Lupin will use the tools well. But please do use edit summaries (you may put a bit in your JavaScript to remind you if you forget, as I did). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support- will make a great admin. Kaldari 23:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. I think Lupin will use the tools wisely. -- DS1953 04:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
23. support as Lupin has expanded his answers below. --Briangotts (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support No point in me beating a dead horse now. Your willingness to change is commendable. I do hope you were being honest when you said you'd start using edit summaries. Acetic Acid 02:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose- didn't sound very convinving in his response to nomination. Astrotrain 17:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

   Apologoes - I have tried to add more detail. My wikipedia time is limited right now. Lupin 19:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose My voting standards come down to three things: edit quality, edit quantity and answers to the admin questions. You have the quantity down, but not the quality as you forget to use summaries. You didn't put any thought into answering the questions. I'm sorry. Acetic Acid 00:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)Moved to Support.
   • I have expanded my answers and acknowledge that omission of edit summaries is a fault, and it is one which I have resolved to correct. Lupin 19:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • Sorry, but edit summaries don't represent quality. Something as complicated as a navagational popup doesn't just spring forth fully-armed from your forehead. You actually have to think it up, type it, and debug it. If this doesn't show his commitment to the encyclopedia, then nothing can. This is a larger sign of "quality" than any accumulation of newcomer welcomes, RFA votes, and VFD votes that are collectively tied to a username. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-18 02:49
     • When it comes to RC Patrol, edit summaries are necessary. Patrollers shouldn't have to look at the username for reassurance. He, as an experienced user, should be courteous of those who work so hard to eliminate vandalism immediately after it is posted. I consider it an essential part of quality. It's like the icing on the already delicious cake. It tastes fine without it, but it's so much better with it. Acetic Acid 03:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
       • As I said below, if you're on RC patrol for vandalism, you should probably be using CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter. This would eliminate worrying about users you know to be legitimate, as their edits wouldn't even appear. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-18 03:38
         • Not everyone knows about CDVF. I sure didn't when I started out patrolling. It doesn't take much effort to type three or four words about the edit in the summary box. Acetic Acid 05:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
           • There's no excuse for ignorance. Also, 3 or 4 words times 10,000 edits is 30,000 or 40,000 words. When your edits consist simply of clicking Diff, Rollback, or typing CTRL+V, then sure, you might feel alright with adding a few words, but when you're actually adding significant contributions, edit summaries become quite an annoyance. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-18 17:25
             • I'm sorry but I agree with Ryan. I just use generic edit summaries like "revert" or "welcome!" or "expand considerably" or "spelling/grammar" or "copy edit" or "create redirect" so I only have to type the first one or 2 letters and it comes up in the drop-down box. Vandals very rarely use summaries so its better to target ones that don't summarize their edits. --Celestianpower ^hab 17:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
               • I concur. There is no difficulty in using edit summaries. It's helpful to people following the article's development through the Watchlist feature, it's an effective way of organizing the article's History and it also benefits casual vandal fighters. It's no hassle to add a simple description to your edit. --Sn0wflake 18:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                 • Edit summaries should indeed always be used, and hopefully Lupin has taken this advice on board. It would be a shame, however, if the community lets someone with his skills slip through their fingers over something which can easily be rectified. The JPS 19:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                   • As he said below, "I am happy to commit to providing edit summaries for non-minor edits outside my userspace." So, it's not even a problem anymore. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-18 19:26
                     • I would just like to make a side note... what's with Brian0918 saying "There's no excuse for ignorance"? Because Ryan doesn't like his lack of edit summaries and he hasn't used the CDVF? That seemed rather out of line to me. Redwolf24 09:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   NOTE: Boothy443 opposes all adminship requests and is currently on RFC. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 14:36

   NOTE: No he doesn't (keep scrolling down the RFA page). But seriously, do you not think that the bureaucrats know about boothy's voting record by now? Are you going to put some negative comment below his "support" vote? kmccoy (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Brian, respectfully, your continued nagging and perseverance in regard to this matter borders on trolling, not to mention annoying. Boothy's behaviour is common knowledge. It's not necessary to continue pointing out the obvious. Most people that frequent RfA know Boothy's behaviour like they know the sky is blue. I'd recommend you gave it up. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose. Reluctance to use edit summaries and barely responding to the questions below do not make me comfortable supporting his adminship. -- JamesTeterenko 18:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Moved to neutral. -- JamesTeterenko 18:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   • How does this sound reluctant: "I am happy to commit to providing edit summaries for non-minor edits outside my userspace"????? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 19:52
     • Brian, I am pretty damn sure that the candidate can defend himself if he feels the need to do it. Let him answer. It's not you that the community is evaluating. --Sn0wflake 20:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • I hope I have addressed these issues. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. Lupin 19:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
     • I am tempted to move my vote to Neutral. But I am also tempted just to leave it as is. I think that edit summaries are quite important. Just the other day, I just about missed a VFD on a page on my watchlist because the nominator did not have an edit summary when he flagged it for deletion. Habits are hard to break. I would prefer seeing a month of history with consistant edit summaries before supporting. (Really, what is one month?) It is also a lot more difficult for me to examine your edit history for the quality of edits. However, your pictures and navigation popups do show quality. Thank you for updating the answers to the questions. It looks much better. There is nothing, however, that jumps out and tells me that it would be a bad thing to wait a month before promoting you to an admin. The last thing which makes me lean towards leaving my vote as is, is that your nominator seems overly eager to have this vote pass. This is a very minor point, but it just does not sit well with me. I can tell you now that I would support in a month if I see solid usage of edit summaries. For now, I promise to think about it further and consider moving my vote to neutral before this vote is tallied. -- JamesTeterenko 05:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
       • Regarding Brian's defending Lupin: I went through RfA a week ago, and I would be very uncomfortable defending myself had any substantial opposition come up. My impression was that it's not done to mount a vigorous defense of oneself and I hoped that somebody else would step up on my behalf. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose for now, but I might be willing to change my vote to support if Lupin (1) answered the questions in more detail (especially if he mentions the unauthorized bot he ran a few months ago in the conflict section) and (2) showed consistent use of edit summaries over the next few days and resolved to continue using them consistently in the future (the last part of which he's almost done). JYolkowski // talk 21:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • My editing will be very limited over the next few days, as I have non-wikipedia things taking up my time. I hope I have met all of your other conditions for support, though. Lupin 19:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose. per Teterenko. --Briangotts (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC) moving vote to Support[reply]