Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Icelandic Hurricane: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m fixed break in numbers
Line 10: Line 10:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
:'''1.''' What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out [[:Category:Wikipedia backlog]], and read the page about [[Wikipedia:administrators|administrators]] and the [[Wikipedia:administrators' reading list|administrators' reading list]].
:'''1.''' What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out [[:Category:Wikipedia backlog]], and read the page about [[Wikipedia:administrators|administrators]] and the [[Wikipedia:administrators' reading list|administrators' reading list]].
::'''A:''' I would probably do the chores of reverting, reverting vandalism (quite different from just reverting), protecting pages, deleting pages and images, and other stuff (I hope I answered the question right). If I become an admin, the first sysop privilege I'd probably use is deleting pages and images because I have a couple of blank pages on my userpage and I have a duplicate image. From there, I'll expand out to helping other users. I begin to revert vandalism much more often, and make sure I leave a note on the vandals talk page (Is there a template for that?).
::'''A:''' I would probably do the chores of reverting, reverting vandalism (quite different from just reverting), protecting pages, deleting pages and images, and other stuff (I hope I answered the question right). If I become an admin, the first sysop privilege I'd probably use is deleting pages and images because I have a couple of blank pages on my userpage and I have a duplicate image. From there, I'll expand out to helping other users. I begin to revert vandalism much more often, and make sure I leave a note on the vandals talk page.


:'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
:'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
::'''A:''' Of all my contributions to wikipedia, my greatest work would definetly be [[Hurricane Debby (2000)]], [[Storm of October 1804]], and [[Tropical Storm Helene (2000)]]. Hurricane Debby is a B-class articleI wrote on [[June 22]] with minimal help. I'm not exactly sure how long the article is, but it seems to be close to 30GB (or MB or something else). It has been nominated for GA twice, but both times have failed. Fortunately, the number of reasons it shouldn't be a GA has decreased. Hopefully, by its next nomination, it will pass. The Storm of October 1804 is a GA written on [[May 17]]. It's not as long as Debby, but it's better quality. I'm particularly pleased with this article because I wrote an with minimal help on a little info storm and made it such a great article. Tropical Storm Helene is a start class article written just a few days ago. It's almost, but not quite, as long as Debby's article. Due to its recent creation, there hasn't been any GAnoms yet. I also did work on [[Hurricane Camille]], bringing it from B-class to GA-class.
::'''A:''' Of all my contributions to wikipedia, my greatest work would definetly be [[Hurricane Debby (2000)]], [[Storm of October 1804]], and [[Tropical Storm Helene (2000)]]. Hurricane Debby is a B-class articleI wrote on [[June 22]] with minimal help. I'm not exactly sure how long the article is, but it seems to be close to 30KB. It has been nominated for GA twice, but both times have failed. Fortunately, the number of reasons it shouldn't be a GA has decreased. Hopefully, by its next nomination, it will pass. The Storm of October 1804 is a GA written on [[May 17]]. It's not as long as Debby, but it's better quality. I'm particularly pleased with this article because I wrote an with minimal help on a little info storm and made it such a great article. Tropical Storm Helene is a start class article written just a few days ago. It's almost, but not quite, as long as Debby's article. Due to its recent creation, there hasn't been any GAnoms yet. I also did work on [[Hurricane Camille]], bringing it from B-class to GA-class.


:'''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 how will you deal with it in the future?
:'''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 how will you deal with it in the future?

Revision as of 14:43, 12 August 2006

Icelandic Hurricane

Voice your opinion! (9/19/8) Ending 18:23, 2006-08-18 (UTC)

Icelandic Hurricane (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Icelandic Hurricane for adminship. He has been a member of Wikipedia since January, and has made over 8000 edits under his username. In addition to that, he has made edits under an IP address since late November 2004. This is an experienced Wikipedian who most certainly wouldn't abuse admin powers. He's already an asset to WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Gray Porpoise 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would probably do the chores of reverting, reverting vandalism (quite different from just reverting), protecting pages, deleting pages and images, and other stuff (I hope I answered the question right). If I become an admin, the first sysop privilege I'd probably use is deleting pages and images because I have a couple of blank pages on my userpage and I have a duplicate image. From there, I'll expand out to helping other users. I begin to revert vandalism much more often, and make sure I leave a note on the vandals talk page.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Of all my contributions to wikipedia, my greatest work would definetly be Hurricane Debby (2000), Storm of October 1804, and Tropical Storm Helene (2000). Hurricane Debby is a B-class articleI wrote on June 22 with minimal help. I'm not exactly sure how long the article is, but it seems to be close to 30KB. It has been nominated for GA twice, but both times have failed. Fortunately, the number of reasons it shouldn't be a GA has decreased. Hopefully, by its next nomination, it will pass. The Storm of October 1804 is a GA written on May 17. It's not as long as Debby, but it's better quality. I'm particularly pleased with this article because I wrote an with minimal help on a little info storm and made it such a great article. Tropical Storm Helene is a start class article written just a few days ago. It's almost, but not quite, as long as Debby's article. Due to its recent creation, there hasn't been any GAnoms yet. I also did work on Hurricane Camille, bringing it from B-class to GA-class.
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 how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I had with User:NSLE (Now Chacor) a few months ago where he seemed to be paying a little too much attention to me, but he lost interest in me, and now were cool. I also had an aguement with HurricaneCraze32 about ownership of articles. I found Hurricane Bonnie (1986) in his sandbox thing and changed it around a bit and decided to make it into an article. He found out before I finished changing it and got mad. Apparently, he hasn't gotten over it (see below). I dealt with it by telling him I was sorry and should've asked him first.
Optional question from Nilfanion: What is your understanding of ownership policy, with regards to both articles and user subpages?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: My understanding of ownership policy is that you don't own ANYTHING. I had an issue once with HurricaneCraze32 (see above) about ownership. For example, you shouldn't sign an article, only on discussion pages. And if someone publishes something of mine, I know that I don't own it and I shouldn't have put it on Wikipedia if I didn't want it published.
Comments
Username	Icelandic Hurricane
Total edits	8389
Distinct pages edited	1367
Average edits/page	6.137
First edit	16:01, 4 January 2006
	
(main)	3975
Talk	809
User	1960
User talk	546
Image	281
Template	155
Template talk	35
Category	2
Category talk	3
Wikipedia	359
Wikipedia talk	202
Portal	30
Portal talk	32
Support
  1. Way to go, Ice! :) →Cyclone1→ 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support as nominator. --Gray Porpoise 19:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, seen this user around and he's a good guy. 69.214.31.217 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (signing after login ~ c. tales *talk* 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  4. Support. G.He 20:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Cowcam 21:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. VERY STRONG SUPPORT, Icelandic Hurricane (a.k.a. islenska hurikein #12 "his alter-ego") seems to have very great potential as of being an administrator, he is an experieneced Wikipedian and has contibuted a ton of great edits (along with a few other users) to make Wikipedia look fantastic. Alastor Moody (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. --luckymustard 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. DarthVader 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Oh yes. ForestH2 t/c 02:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose In the last 500 mainspace edits, I could find one instance of vandalism reversion [1]. The user did not warn the vandal. Almost 2000 User namespace edits. (1/4 of the his total edits). The user has only participated in 2 XfDs, one of which was prompted by an internal spammer requesting a vote. I am disappointed by the answers to the questions, and I see no demonstration of admin capabilities, or even a need for the tools. I see minimal behind-the-scenes work. The user also erred in image tagging here, and recently his many subpages were listed for deletion here. That, and the user is very young (12? 13? 14?). Sorry, but I have to oppose AdamBiswanger1 19:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to let you know, I thought telling the vandal on there talk page that there edits were reverted was optional, so now that I know, I'll do it. Plus, my answers are short because I'm a little busy right now, so I don't have time. I'll get complete answer tonight or tomorrow. Plus, does age really matter? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That a whole 'nother show. It's not my only reason for opposition, and I know that if I defend the age viewpoint it'll cause nothing but fights, so I'll cross it out. AdamBiswanger1 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If editor is this productive at say 14, just imagine how productive he'll be at 24. Age is not a consideration, only quality of edits. I should have been so on the ball at his age.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Lack of experience dealing with vandals.  QuizQuick  19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I would like to see more of a need for admin. tools and participation in XfDs. Until then, I must oppose. MichaelZ526 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Sorry buddy, but I personally don't think you have enough experience to be an administrator. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, I must also oppose. Edit summary usage (44% for minor edits!) is really a problem, coupled with not a huge amount of Wikipedia space edits (although 359 does meet my standards). I just can't support. Also, if you don't mind me asking, did you get almost 2000 user space edits? And also, [2], [3], [4], and many more of that sort worry me. —Mets501 (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. OPPOSE. Based on not enough AfD experience. I am concerned by THIS request to vote followed by This vote on an AfD. as well as This cry for help on another AfD resulting in This vote to keep. The two are of four I found in last 500 edits and do not convince me user is ready for the tools. I am also afraid that most of us not familiar with Icelandic would not recognize user's signature rendered “íslenska hurikein". Oh, I see opposer #1 already mentioned the 2AfD's. I am concerned that the "internal spammer" is actually a friend of the nom's. This may adversely affect nom's credibility when it comes to blocking or protecting.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Sorry, not impressed with answers. --kingboyk 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: Administrators should use edit summaries more than 64% overall. But yes, Icelandic Hurricane is a strong asset to Wikiproject tropical cyclones. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. In addition to some of the above comments, I'm not persuaded this editor needs the tools, especially after seeing his answer to question #1. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, but it's apparent from the answer given that this nominee isn't too sure why he needs the tools - or even if he really wants them. 207.6.58.42 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment- Fourth or fifth edit. Maybe someone just forgot to sign. :) Dlohcierekim 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This was my "vote". Somehow I ended up being logged out when I made the entry. I was wondering why this wasn't in my contribution list or in the edit history. I'll "sign" it again, this time ensuring I'm logged in. Agent 86 00:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Weak answers, the statements were neither clear nor definitive. Admins need to be ascertive. Themindset 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. As per User:Themindset. Definitely not administrator–worthy — yet, at least. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per answers to questions.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Mainly answer to question 1, but also due to inexperience concerns above. -- Steel 23:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per all above, my main concern is low WP edits, little XfD experience, and lack of edit summaries. --WillMak050389 23:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I have worked with this editor in the past, and though I commend his enthusiasm, I feel that he is still too inexperienced. I also see no indication that there is any need for admin tools. --Elonka 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong oppose, no need for tools; more importantly, no knowledge of policy. Chacor 01:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition - this is cause for concern: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Chacor 01:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition to my oppose - now that you have expanded on your answers, my oppose is much more definite. You say "If I become an admin, the first sysop privilege I'd probably use is deleting pages and images because I have a couple of blank pages on my userpage and I have a duplicate image." I say, have you not heard of {{db-owner}}? How can an admin not know the speedy criteria? Next, you say "I begin to revert vandalism much more often, and make sure I leave a note on the vandals talk page (Is there a template for that?)." I say, if you're planning to work with vandals, you should already know. You say, "I'm not exactly sure how long the article is, but it seems to be close to 30GB (or MB or something else)." I say, an admin should know about Wikipedia:Article size. Chacor 13:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually knew about speedy deletion, I just had some urge to do it myself. But if I don't become an admin, I'll place the db-owner template on the blank pages. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose per all above. Also, for future reference to the candidate, spamming talk pages with RfA notices is a big no-no. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose due to vague answer to question 1 and lack of vandal reverts. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Per all above. --Masssiveego 09:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral - weak answers to questions. May support if more comprehensive answers are provided. Kalani [talk] 19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The answers have now been expanded. Please review them. --Gray Porpoise 13:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: Passes eight-month minimum and has excellent potential. But she has yet to be involved in a lot of vandal fighting (not to mention summaries), and her answers have been rather short. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a guy. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Like Kalathalan, I may well support should question answers, when expanded, prove more persuasive; in the meanwhile, I simply can't divine enough about the user's judgment to draw a conclusion apropos of his fitness for adminship, and so, consistent with my RfA criteria, I can neither support nor oppose. I do not, I should say, understand the impulse to disqualify a candidate in view of his not having reverted much vandalism or reported many vandals; there are, of course, plenty of admin tasks for which conversance with WP:AIV is not required, and it is only sensible to oppose where the candidate expresses an intent to involve himself in vandalwhacking, where one might conclude that his unfamiliarity with the process might become disruptive—Icelandic doesn't express an interest in vandalwhacking, and every admin need not participate at WP:AIV. Joe 20:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. I dont mind him being an admin, if he'd stop stealing the articles I was working on in my LNBS and publish it himself.HurricaneCraze32 21:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. Ok. Can you please get over that. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 21:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cracky, another wee one. I'm goin' out for some Geritol! :) Dlohcierekim 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Very good user, as I noted on his editor review, but I'm not sure how to vote. Sorry. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 03:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral A great editor but weak answers to questions. I may support in about three months times. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Merovingian - Talk 11:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral for now. I'm a little worried about the answers to the questions, as they are not very enthusiastic. Seems to be experienced, but could do more vandal fighting before the next RfA. Thε Halo Θ 11:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Icelandic_Hurricane&oldid=69214920"