Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Linuxbeak

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nadavspi (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 1 June 2005 (→[[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Linuxbeak

Vote here (27/2/0) ending 22:50 6 June 2005 (UTC)

This excellent contributor has shown extreme maturity and confidence when writing his articles. He has revolutionized the aviation department and keeps an eye on all aviation related articles, thus making it hard for vandals to ruin them. I support him for administrator. Antonio Anakyn Skywalker Martin

  • Fixed nomination-style. gkhan 22:52, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Wow! This certainly comes as a surprise to me...I feel honored! Yes, I accept my nomination. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support 100 percent, of course Antonio Napoleon and Joan of Arc Martin
  2. Support Go linux gkhan 22:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. This user is always there trying to solve disputes and trying to deal with vandals. A good user who i'm sure would be a great admin. Hedley 22:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Very helpful with advice and with help with vandalsism Jtkiefer 23:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Does well on janitorial stuff the hard way; I see no reason not to make the job a bit easier - David Gerard 00:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, how can you not love this guy? User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 00:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. From memory, I think we have crossed swords once or twice the past, but that doesn't stand in the way of me recognising Linuxbeak's abilities. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Project2501a 00:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. The candidate has already produced a FA that's a labor of love in every sense, and has matured impressively as a wikipedian. I asked him about the newbie mistakes he'd made in the conflict with jmabel, and his response convinced me he'll be a better admin for making them. Conflict experience is good, not bad; I always feel a little unhappy about voting where the candidate simply hasn't had any taste of wikistress. Linuxbeak deals well with it. Bishonen | talk 01:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. 100% Support, He is well mannered and a very nice level headed person. His dedicatioon and contributions demonstrate that he has the makings of a great administrator. The guy already has a featured article under his belt. He is an asset to Wikipedia. Tony the Marine
  11. Support. Has shown himself to be a diligent and enthusiastic contributor, well able to work collaboratively with others and learn from mistakes. (Also, anyone that excited about grunt work like stub sorting needs a mop and bucket before he gets his sanity back.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. El_C 01:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Cool. JuntungWu 05:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Great user, very strong candidate. Sjakkalle 06:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Ambi 07:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support, a deserving canditate. Thryduulf 08:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support.-gadfium 08:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. SUPPORT Kingturtle 18:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:02, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Radiant_* 19:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support Meets my admin criterion, jguk 19:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  24. Thought I'd voted already. Support, of course. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 20:36, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. JYolkowski // talk 20:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. "Be bold in editing". That's what I've seen Linuxbeak do while doing RC patrol and new articles patrol. QBorg 21:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support, of course! Nadavspi | talk 23:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Looks like between 1000 and 1500 of his 2500 edits are stub sorting, but what really sinks this for me is that he puts speedy tags on things that aren't speedies. Just a cursory look turns up these speedy tagged articles that weren't deleted: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I won't comment on this, which was related to some sort of legal trouble. Breadth of contributions outside of stub sorting seems good. CryptoDerk 23:08, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    At first glance I can see why he tagged them. I'm sure he's learnt his lesson. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Crypto: That "trouble" turned out to be some bad judgement on the part of my commander, who thought that I was violating Civil Air Patrol regulations but was actually very, very wrong. As far as the speedys go, I will admit that in the course of my stub-sorting activities, I marked some as speedy a bit hastily. Within the month of that last mistake I made, I have learned patience. Plus, I'm human too and I make mistakes... but hopefully I've learned how to make far fewer mistakes. In addition, I think 6 mistakes out of over 1000 stub sorts isn't too bad of a ratio ;-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I inherently don't trust accounts which seem to have 1) made a few edits, then quickly starts voting on deletions and 2) seems to be "stuffing" their edit counts with menial tasks like stub marking. This user started editing on March 13, and showed from the start a strange familiarity with Wikipedia processes. Can't vote support unless we have a acceptable method for removing adminship in case this is a mistake. I encourage others to reconsider this nomination in a couple months. -- Netoholic @ 18:02, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
    ...wait, what? I really don't mean to comment on every oppose vote, but are you saying I'm a fraud or something? I've been around Wikipedia for about 6 months, but made an account 3 months ago. I've known about the Wikipedia process for a while; I just haven't contributed anything until recently. Secondly, I happen to *like* stub sorting, thank you. I don't give a hoot about edit counts; all they're good for is for people to determine "admin quality" with. Plus, do I or do I not have a featured article? I respect your vote, but you have the wrong idea over who I am. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    And to back up my claim that you have the wrong idea over who I am... look at that link you posted. I made 42 edits before voting on VfD at all. First edit: March 12, 2005. First VfD vote: April 10, 2005. Virtually one entire month. Why do you not trust me, seeing I've made significant edits, made a featured article, have done janitorial stuff, participated in the community... Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    I can personally vouch for Linuxbeak, he is DEFINITELY NOT a fraud. Your claim that he stub-sorted to "stuff his edit-count" is ridiculous, almost to the point of being absurd. He has been enormously helpful with stub-sorting, without his help it would probably not be finished as fast as it was. It is tedious, janitorial work, something that is very helpful for wikipedia, but after a while quite boring to do. He was not aiming for an adminship at all, yesterday on IRC he was completly stunned when he was nominated. He is nice, he acknowledges when he is wrong (a quality lacking in a few current administrators), and is generally a great user. He would make an excellent administrator. gkhan 19:27, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    That just means he read policy and became involved in the inner workings very quickly - a measure of intelligence, not of being a "fraud." – ugen64 21:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • I moved Project2501a's statement and following responses to talk since the statement's POINT is unrelated to this particular RFA. El_C 06:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • CryptoDerk's vague comment on "some sort of legal trouble" shouldn't leave any lingering sense that Linuxbeak made or caused legal trouble for Wikipedia. He was the victim of legal trouble, not the perpetrator. Bishonen | talk 01:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • See Linuxbeak's response above. El_C 06:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • For those interested, Linuxbeak has the following edits as of this comment: Total count: 2583, 1728 Article, 46 Article Talk, 84 User, 105 User Talk, 459 Wikipedia, 30 Wikipedia Talk, 120 Image, 0 Image Talk, 0 MediaWiki, 0 MediaWiki Talk, 4 Template, 0 Template Talk, 1 Help, 0 Help Talk, 6 Category, 0 Category Talk. This will show the current count. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:33, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Well, I'm really active with several things all over Wikipedia. First off, I'm an active stub sorter, and I think that being able to actually delete articles that say "So-and-so is awesome" instead of just listing it for speedy would be a time saver for not only myself but for other admins. Secondly, I love RC patrol and vandal hunting, and I'm a real fan of CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter program (my hat's off to you, Crypto! Awesome program!). The rollback function that I constantly hear and read about would certainly help me revert edits by vandals quickly and efficiently. I also am a somewhat regular visitor of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, and I plan on helping out with it. I was already planning on visiting Wikipedia:Requests for comment more often, but I would be more than happy to help out there as well. I'm sure this isn't the last thing (I'll think of even more later, I'm positive), but I also actively hunt out copyright violations, and although being an admin wouldn't directly change anything about it, I would remain quite active in this field.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, for those who know me, this won't come as any surprise to you. When I was still a very new user to the Wiki, I visited Civil Air Patrol and discovered that there was a copyright violation. I tagged it as such, and after the article remained untouched for a while, I rewrote the entire thing. After about one week, with the help of Bishonen (bless her for her undying support) in the copyediting department, I self-nominated the article to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. It passed with 7 support votes, 0 object votes and 0 neutral votes, and now Civil Air Patrol is now a featured article! In addition to the main article, I am currently making it a spoken article! I have also created two other pages in relation to CAP, and I have also uploaded (in addition to creating) all of the ribbon graphics for the Civil Air Patrol (located here. In addition to all of my CAP articles, I am also proud of my stub-sorting activities (I have sorted at least 1,000 stubs) as well as my vandalism hunting.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A.There was one that I would call a conflict, and that was with User:Jmabel over Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by military branch. This was when I was still relatively new to the 'pedia, and he did something that I took offense to. I realize now though that I really overreacted. I have since apologized to Jmabel and he has accepted my apology. I hold no grudges nor do I actively seek out to tickle situations that will cause tension. The only other thing I can think of was my recent creation of an RFC, but I don't think trolls and userbaiters constitute as a "conflict with another user". One thing that I have learned from dealing with other users is to be patient. Normally, if you're willing to consider their point of view, they're willing to listen to yours. Everyone seems to get along then :-).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Linuxbeak&oldid=14559641"