Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Linuxbeak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Linuxbeak

final (45/4/1) 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)
  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. — Dan | Talk 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)
  28. Support. I too remember the Jmabel incident and I'm particulary impressed by his willingness to admit he was wrong ([1]); this shows character. He's likely to be an excellent admin, and I also admire his extraordinary dedication to the project. Antandrus (talk) 02:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. SWAdair | Talk 02:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support For actions above and beyond the call of duty. Kim Bruning 16:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. --Kbdank71 20:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. I couldn't find my vote on here...I thought I had already voted! Mike H 15:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support--Duk 16:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  35. Of course. Neutralitytalk 01:40, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. Hard work is its own reward. ;-) -- BD2412 talk 04:54, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  37. Support. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 18:21, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Strong support. Andre (talk) 20:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. Many of the opposition notes below are ridiculous, like accusing him of padding his edit count just because he did some minor (but useful) cleanup edits. Other than that, he did get into a few "messes", but they weren't always really his fault, and I think he got through them OK. *Dan* 00:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. --cesarb 13:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support, seems like a quality user, and the opposition due to the CAP blanking is IMO ridiculous unfair. --Spangineer (háblame) 20:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. This user seems conscientious and mature. Ann Heneghan 22:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support.-JCarriker 06:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. Sietse 09:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. Yay! Finally, a likeable moderator... *ahem* a moderator for the PEOPLE! Yay! --WikiFan04ß 16:54, 6 Jun 2005 (CDT)

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: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. 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)
    Linuxbeak has worked behind the scenes doing janitorial work and has contributated to Wikipedia with articles including a featured article. There is a misconception that only those that work behind the scenes can become great administrators. Article contributions are just as important. How many of us can honestly say that we're all around Wikipedian doing shores and contributing writen work? I believe that Linuxbeak is more than qualified to become a great administrator. Please do your homework before insinuating that a person is a fraud. A good administrator should make a through background research and investigation before making such a claim. If you cannot present any evidence to such an alligation, please refrain from doing so. Marine 69-71 01:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I can vouch for him, too. Stub sorting is not something you do for editcount-stuffing. A chore or a vocation, nothing more. LinuxBeak's explanation that he did not create a user account for considerable time after using Wikipedia is a perfectly reasonable one, too. And one month after creating an account is plenty of time before getting involved with pages like vfd. If he were a sockpuppet or similar, he would have been seen on vfd within hours of the account being created. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to add that I too find Netoholic's reasoning rather strange, especially when he asks others to not reconsider their support. I made my Special:Contributions/Knowledgeseeker on November 20, 2004, and made my first VfD nomination four days later. I just carefully read through tutorial and policy pages in my first few days at Wikipedia as I needed to figure out how to properly do new things. I also find the "edit stuffing" comment highly inappropriate; not only had Linuxbeak not mentioned his edit count, he did not seek out adminship (didn't self-nominate or ask another to nominate him). He also mentioned the stub sorting in his answers; it wasn't as if he tried to hide it. Thank you, Linuxbeak, for all your stub-sorting work. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The edits that CryptoDerk has highlighted are way too recent. Only two weeks ago he page deleted an article based on some rubbish about it not being approved by the subject and his own personal commandant? SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I thought I wasn't going to comment on every oppose vote, but it's starting to look that way. This is what my commander did to the article that I wrote. I blanked my own article -- my own featured article -- because my commander told me to and to avoid having her sue Wikipedia. However, she, not I, was wrong. I didn't want to blank my own article; in fact, I was in tears when I did. However, when she (my commander) stated that she was wrong, the entire mess was cleaned up. I am under the impression that you didn't read Bishonen's comments relating to the incident, and I'm also under the impression that you do not frequent IRC. A large portion of IRC regulars would vouch for me that I was the victim of a decision that was a bit hasty. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    Notice this and what I did. Notice this and tell me that removing the article that I poured my heart and soul into was voluntary. Notice this, this, every ribbon and entry in this (which I personally created, thank you), and this and tell me that I would ever blank that article without a damn good reason. Frankly, I'm offended that you would insinuate that I was removing that article just because "it was against regulations". Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    And, just to drive the point home... seeing that both Anthere and Jimbo Wales himself were personally trying to help me concerning this very mess, and I'm sure that they would both be happy to testify on my behalf that I was not at fault. I'm done now. If anyone else wants to comment about it, feel free. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
    Votes aren't supposed to be queried, but since the circumstance are rather extraordinary, I ask Schmucky to reconsider opposing based on "some rubbish about it not being approved by the subject and his own personal commandant". As Linuxbeak says, many editors know what his role was in that incident and will vouch for him. Please see my comment below. It seems a little excessive to drag in busy people like Anthere or Jimbo, so could you please indicate if you'll believe me without comments from one of them? Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I was contacted by Linuxbeak about 2-3 weeks ago. I had heard about him on #wikipedia the day before, he was looking for Jimbo and Jimbo was not here. Jimbo and I also received a mail from Gregory Maxwell, telling us that the Civil Air Patrol thought they could demand that the CAP article be taken down until reviewed by their public relations office.
    The next day, Jimbo was not available, so I spent possibly an hour talking with Linuxbeak about the CAP issue. I understood that his commandant was present during the discussion. As mentionned above, the CAP was requesting that the article be deleted, or at least blanked until reviewed by their office. During the discussion, it turned out that Linuxbeak was extremely proud of this article... but put himself in an impossible situation, as he is not allowed yet to talk about CAP due to the contract linking him to CAP. Her commander found out about the article, reminded him he was not allowed to write about CAP, and requested he removed the article, as not doing so could lead him to get fired from CAP. Hence his blanking the CAP article.
    I indicated to Linuxbeak it was out of question to delete the article, threats or no threats. We could however explain wikipedia editing process to his commandant, but this did not solve Linuxbeak issue of not being authorized to write about CAP.
    After lengthy discussion, I proposed that all his edits on this article be anonymised (put under another editor account Linuxbeak would create), so that even though his commandant knew about his authorship, he (as Linuxbeak) could be dissociated from the authors of CAP. After we reached agreement about this, Linuxbeak created another account for this purpose (the idea was not to hide from the community he owned both accounts, but to save his face toward his employers), and I sent a request to developers to reassigned edits. However, Linuxbeak later told me he could not agree to this solution, as he felt very proud of this article and appeared to greatly suffer from the idea of deleting it, or losing authorship of it. This is a feeling I can understand. When someone is the main contributor of a featured article, it is understandable he wants the community to know he is the author of it. I doubly understand his feelings, as I read some of the above comments of editors saying most of his participation was related to stub-work. I guess that if he had lost the authorship of this article which probably took many hours to do, such comments would have been even more numerous ;-)
    In any cases, Linuxbeak agreed to keep the article and apparently succeeded to convinced his commandant to let it on Wikipedia. So nothing was done at all. Which is just the *best* ;-)
    As I just recommanded to Linuxbeak, it would be best that he avoids writing on topics he is not allowed to talk about by his working contract in the future (even if he is indeed very knowledgeable and passionate), and I also suggested him to avoid doing speedy deletions (as a future administrator) for a while except for real crap. But in any cases, his blanking the CAP article was essentially an excessive reaction due to the stress he was put under, and a request by his superior. I do not think it should imply he would not be a good admin. Anthere 20:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that Schmucky sould reconsider his opposition after reading the explaination stated above. It is obvious that there was no wrong doing and that it was a question of strighten out the situation with his CAP superiors. This guy poured many hours of dedication into his Civil Air Patrol article, he did what was right to protect his article and to have all parties involved approve it. Tony the Marine
    Schmucky, let it alone! I nominated him for administrator because I have been one for three years, I have seen his edits and there is nothing abnormal there. Why would he do such a thing as you are accusing him of? I dont know how many articles you have created but it seems to me youre the kind of person who tries to find wrongdoings when there arent. Antonio Not Wikipedia's prosecutor Martin
    Thank you everyone for the explanations. I've read them. I've looked at the diffs presented and I appreciate that you all think Linuxbeak did the best thing in that situation. However, I feel differently. Linuxbeak, apparently, does not have the independence to contribute if he is under a situation where his "superior officer" can force him to edit a certain way. That is unacceptable to me. Personally, I've signed dozens of NDAs over the years in my career. I simply don't write about those companies/institutions/products. It was bad judgement for him to get himself into this position in the first place. This all happened too recently. I also agree with Cryptoderk (and W below who voted after me) about understanding delete criteria. Sure, he understands now but it was just last weekend that it was explained to him, multiple times even. Too recent. He may be all good and worthwhile, but he has yet to show that he really understands well enough (and recent enough) to have good, independent, judgement as an admin. SchmuckyTheCat 15:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, alas. I agree with all those voting support that Linuxbeak has been doing some wonderful work, however the very incorrect speedy marking doesn't inspire trust that the deletion feature will only be used in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The CAP thing is a smaller issue to me, though it wasn't handled perfectly either. --W(t) 23:15, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
    I looked at those attempted speedy deletes and, while he turned out to be mistaken about them deserving such a fate, it was an understandable mistake; those articles were very short and cryptic, sometimes not even giving any indication about what they were about. It would be easy to conclude that they were random nonsense if you hadn't heard of their subject.*Dan* 00:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    Not really, there's no way this is this. But Linuxbeak has indicated he agrees he tagged some things as speedy that shouldn't have been tagged, so all is well as far as I'm concerned and I'd vote for him in a couple of months should this RfA not pass. --W(t) 01:05, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
    Well, to be honest, I did think that was patent nonsense :-X I thought that was just some dumb prank... I figured that there wouldn't be a word for such a specific set of variables ("They whore themselves to old men. Not because they have to do this in order to live, but because they want to get money to buy expensive unnecessitys."). But... yeah, I guess that word exists >_< Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:08, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    That's entirely my point. The criteria for speedy deletion are so narrow because you can't be expected to know the cultural context around everything. Patent nonsense is very strictly defined here, and you don't need to know any context to be able to distinguish it from non-patent-nonsense. --W(t) 01:13, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I like deadlines. JRM · Talk 22:49, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

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 :-).