Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Icelandic Hurricane


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Icelandic Hurricane
Final (18/32/9) Ended 18:23, 2006-08-18 (UTC)

– 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)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I definetly accept this. Thanks Gray Porpoise! :) íslenska hurikein | #12 (samtal) 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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)
 * 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
 * Answers have been changed twice. First change and second change. Chacor 14:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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
 * See Icelandic Hurricane's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
 * See Icelandic Hurricane's edit history with Interiot's Tool2:


 * Ok, I expanded my answwers. íslenska hurikein | #12 (samtal) 13:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Way to go, Ice! :) →Cycl   one1 → 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support as nominator. --Gray Porpoise 19:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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))
 * 4) Support. G .H  e  20:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Cowcam 21:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) Support. --luckymustard 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. DarthVad e r 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Oh yes. ForestH2  t/c 02:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Us Granite Staters gotta stick together. Attic Owl 15:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Moral support but urge that the nominee consider withdrawing at this time. Icelandic, you are obviously very dedicated to Wikipedia. You are a valued contributor and I hope you will stay one for many years to come. Please don't take the Oppose votes here as a negative commentary on the contributions you have to make. Up to now your focus has been on editing the articles and you don't need to be an Administrator to keep doing that (I try to add a couple of articles every day and I'm not an Admin myself). In the future, as you do more of the things that require Administrator access, that will be the time for you to re-apply. Also, I just saw the comment on the top of your user page. I am sorry you are feeling unhappy about some things in your real life, and I wish you all the best at putting them right. As much as it pains me to say it, additional online responsibilities might not be the best thing for you right now. Best wishes to you and see you around the weather pages! Newyorkbrad 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your "moral support". I don't think I'm gonna withdraw cuz "Even When All Your Hope is Gone, Move Along, Move Along, Just to make it Through". I doubt I'll be an admin this round, maybe later. Thank you all who supported me, and thank you all who opposed me, because your critisism has made me a better wikipedian. íslenska hurikein | #12 (samtal) 19:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Some P. Erson 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Über Strong Support  °≈§→  Robom  æ  yhem:   T / ←§≈° 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- ~ Pikachu  9000  06:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- WmE 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, edit count isn't everything and neither is your user page. ;) Please read up on WP:VAND and other maintenace tasks Wikipedians you can get up to before accepting any future RfA's. Get experience on many other parts of Wikipedia that an admin needs to know about. I like Iceland! :) -- Andeh 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - go for it, young one!!! I know you will do well. RaNdOm26 11:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: I speculate that the system of selecting administrators are full-proof without any flaw, and so this will pass only if found suitable, and not because I have supported. I wish him all the best! One Oppose vote may do devastation, one support does not bring more supports as wikipedians are very intelligent. --Bhadani 17:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Strong oppose In the last 500 mainspace edits, I could find one instance of vandalism reversion . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I'm 12 1/2 actually. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Lack of experience dealing with vandals.  Q u i z Q u i c k   19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I would like to see more of a need for admin. tools and participation in XfDs. Until then, I must oppose. Michael 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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,, , , and many more of that sort worry me. —  Mets 501  (talk)  20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Oppose. Sorry, not impressed with answers. --kingboyk 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) 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)
 * comment- Fourth or fifth edit. Maybe someone just forgot to sign. :) Dlohcierekim 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Oppose. Weak answers, the statements were neither clear nor definitive. Admins need to be ascertive. Themindset 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. As per User:Themindset. Definitely not administrator–worthy &mdash; yet, at least. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per answers to questions.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Mainly answer to question 1, but also due to inexperience concerns above. -- Steel 23:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per all above, my main concern is low WP edits, little XfD experience, and lack of edit summaries. -- Will Mak  050389  23:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) Strong oppose, no need for tools; more importantly, no knowledge of policy. Chacor 01:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addition - this is cause for concern:      Chacor 01:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addition to my oppose - now that you have expanded on your answers (note: answers have been changed since), 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 Article size. Chacor 13:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Oppose per all above. Also, for future reference to the candidate, spamming talk pages with RfA notices is a big no-no. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose due to vague answer to question 1 and lack of vandal reverts. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ /?!  02:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per all above. --Masssiveego 09:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The answers to the questions confirm my feelings from my interaction with him in Wikiproject tropical cyclones that while he is a good contributor, he would likely misuse the tools due to unfamiliarity with policy.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition, the tagging of this image Image:Jose1999cleanup.jpg as GFDL, when he had only received permission to use it on Wikipedia, and hence not usable anyway isn't good.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose - weak answers to questions, the user does not appear to be familiar with Wikipedia policy and the purpose for admin tools. If he wants pages in his own userspace deleted, he can contact a sysop anyway, he needn't become one. He doesn't seem very familiar with the role of sysops either, and while I doubt he'll abuse the mop, I fear he'll make mistakes. The mop is too powerful. --Draicone (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose No experience with AFD's, not familiar with policy. -Royalguard11Talk 01:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Chacor. I needn't do any more review than that to see an unfamiliarity with policy that's damaging but, when I see the nominor remind the nominee how to behave like an admin, that's fatal. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 05:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I was neutral pending the expansion of the question answers; as Chacor, I was a bit disconcerted by those expanded answers, and, as Draicone, I fear not abuse but misuse. Joe 16:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose ~ Not because of the article situation, but i agree with the 25 above me.(Neutral before) You're answers aren't strong for adminship.User:Mitchazenia (HurricaneCraze32)
 * 7) Oppose, regrettably. The new answers to the RfA questions really concern me; however, I don't think you would try to intentionally misuse sysop privileges. A few pointers: Take a look at WP:CUV, and see how vandalism can be currently dealt with; Participate on WP:AFD, to get a handle on how deletion policy really works (you may also want to read WP:DGFA and WP:DP as well). Also, watchlist WT:RFA, so you can see what is currently expected of admin candidates. Overall, you're a good editor, you just need a bit more. Tito xd (?!?) 06:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose because adminship means more time here, not less. I think you have the stuff that great editors are made of, but you're not quite there yet. With more experience and exposure to RC patrol and WikiDebates, I'll be happy to support in a few months. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  00:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Good editor, needs more work outside of article space. Oppose, for now. Sorry. DS 00:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Dlohcierekim and other concerns addressed above. Stubbleboy 02:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per Chacor and Titoxd. I'll gladly support if you can address the issues listed above in a few months. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Oppose per everything above. You need a lot more experience and your answers to the questions are vastly insufficient and lacking substance.  Sorry, stick with it a little longer and I will be glad to support. Wikipediarul e s2221 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral - weak answers to questions. May support if more comprehensive answers are provided. Kalani  [talk] 19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The answers have now been expanded. Please review them. --Gray Porpoise 13:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * I'm a guy. íslenska hurikein | #12 (samtal) 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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&mdash;Icelandic doesn't express an interest in vandalwhacking, and every admin need not participate at WP:AIV.  Joe 20:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Moved to oppose.
 * 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)]]
 * I'm sorry. Ok. Can you please get over that. íslenska hurikein | #12 (samtal) 21:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cracky, another wee one. I'm goin' out for some Geritol! :) Dlohcierekim 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Neutral A great editor but weak answers to questions. I may support in about three months times. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  04:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Merovingian - Talk 11:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) 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. Th ε Halo Θ 11:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 20:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral Seems like a nice guy, but not right now. Carmen Chamelion 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) It's a little too early to decide. Try again later.--Tdxi an g   Jimbo's 40th Birthday!  13:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)