Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Heligoland 2

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbatsell (talk | contribs) at 02:12, 13 February 2007 (s.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Heligoland

Voice your opinion (29/0/0); Scheduled to end 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Heligoland (talk · contribs) - What's there to say about Heligoland? Well, he's got over 9,000 edits to start with, and he's been an active member of the community for four and a half months (also making a handful of edits in 2005). He's a fantastic spam fighter; he's on IRC a lot, and is a regular in wikipedia-spam and in the main channels, so is readily available. He's also a trusted user here, for an anti-spam program, Spamda he has helped to write. As I don't know much about it, I'm sure he will tell you everything you need to know ;)

Heligo has also contributed to the main aim of this encyclopaedia, writing articles. So far, he's helped to expand and improve many articles, which are listed on his userpage. Some of his best are expansions of Arbroath and Alan Titchmarsh. Alliance Boots was pretty much a total rewrite (here's the diff!). For those who care, Heligo was bold and self-nominated at the beginning of December. The main concern was he wasn't experienced enough, but as Heligoland now has necessary experience and is an established and respected member of the community I can't see why he shouldn't be an admin. Majorly (o rly?) 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept-- Heligoland 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: If promoted, I anticipate much of my work will be dealing with the numerous spambots and open proxies, like those that have been detected over the past few weeks and I've been reporting to AIV. One side effect of spamming and automated edit summaries is that the URL can often end up in the edit summary, so being able to delete those specific edits from the page history would be enormously helpful. It's not unusual to find new articles and new userpages being used solely for advertising and being able to quickly remove those pages would be useful too. I would also like to help with the various backlogs, in particular the images for deletion backlogs which are quite hefty, and keeping the AIV board empty, which can often have a little backlog and even taking 10 or 15 minutes to block a vandal or open proxy can cause considerable damage.
I'm also going to try and help with unblock requests and pay more attention to the various administrator noticeboards, and help out further with the Abuse Reports section, where the ability to view deleted material or delete specific edits can often be very useful.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm really happy with Arbroath which was a lot of work, but which I think looks fantastic now, lots of references, public ___domain images (and we've been promised a PD image of the coat of arms). I've contributed to a fair number of other articles too, Alliance Boots, Alan Titchmarsh, Tony Robinson. I started Signal Tower Museum and ICAP (company) which was the final article which ensured every FTSE100 company has an article (FTSE100 companies being inherently notable). Away from article writing, I'm in the process of writing a program which will work in a similar manner to WP:VP2 but for the purposes of dealing with external links, in particular, spam. I also continue to run User:Eagle_101s link monitoring bot and normally create statistics detailing links added per day User:Heligoland/EL they're a little out of date though. I know there will be some concern that I'm not a regular !voter over at XfD but I'd like to think what comments I have made show some research into the request for deletion.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've managed to avoid any major conflicts, despite having been involved in a somewhat unusual RfC/Username in January. [1] It was decided my username was acceptable, but I'll hopefully be changing to User:Nick when the first batch of username usurpations goes through. I thought I had best mention that here too, just in case anyone thinks I'm trying to hide anything. A good edit summary is one way to ensure every other user knows why you did what you did and references are the other, if you introduce material which is reliable and accurate, it's very difficult (within the articles I edit) to argue and as such, I believe that's the main reasons I've managed to avoid major disputes. I also edited more out of the way articles, avoiding the Transnistrias of Wikipedia, preferring to work on reasonably important but arguably under edited articles.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Beat the nom support Definitely appears to be a good editor and someone unlikely to abuse the tools •CHILLDOUBT• 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I-really-did-beat-you-Majorly support - dedicated user, won't abuse tools, very helpful, always on IRC. ST47Talk 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as per Majorly's nomination above. --Majorly (o rly?) 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support of course. Excellent user/vandalfighter.--Húsönd 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ebola support ViridaeTalk 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, because I trust Majorly's nomination. And other reasons, such as the fact even though the user failed to pass their RfA at the start of December they still kept on editing. In fact, that month was their biggest in terms of number of edits for them ever! Though the numbers did drop significantly in the couple of months against. But that is no reason whatsoever to vote against them. We are better off having an admin who only does even just one good edit per day than not having them. Besides, they are obviously far more active than that at the moment anyway. Mathmo Talk 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support The user is an excelent vandal fighter who needs the extra tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I supported last time, and see no reason not to do so this time around. Agent 86 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support again. Only concern last time was time on the project, and now it's doubled. -- Renesis (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Last 500 contributions are very heavy on administrative work. Well qualified. Grandmasterka 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. {{subst:RFA Cliche|1}} --Slowking Man 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A solid contributor, this editor; no problems here. (aeropagitica) 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. The impression I've got from reading what Heligoland has had to say in various corners of Wikispace is that he's a sensible bloke. I'd happily trust him with a block button and a key to the bit bucket on that basis alone. But there's more. Those who like edit counts should be impressed, those who must have article writing can take a peek at Arbroath, which is not so bad (the article that is, not the town), and those who need a convincing rationale have been given one. Spam is a problem (I like how he says "dealing with spam" rather than the more glamorous and misleading "fighting spam") and this seems to be just the man to help sort it out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support a very sensible candidate. Addhoc 23:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support YechielMan 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support good spam/vandal fighter as well as great contributer.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per above. I wish bureaucrats could speedily SNOW RfAs. Yuser31415 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Hasn't been that long since the last RfA, but it looks like this candidate is surely qualified to be an admin now. Nishkid64 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support Has only improved since last time. Not alot of recent participation in deletion related fora but what I did find was of good quality.[2] [3] [4] [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs)
  22. Cliché support. This guy's already an admin, right? Seriously, he may not have been around long enough last time but now he's clearly got more than enough experience. No hesitation. WjBscribe 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Every time I've ever seen Heligo in a discussion, he's always managed to bring some light or new information into it. Not only a valuable editor, but a calm, levelheaded one at that. It would be insane not to give him the mop. Shadow1 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per candidate's record, nom, and a great many of the above comments. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Great user; always nice to see in discussion pages and XFd's ~ Arjun 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Good user hopefully soon a good admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support great user, won't abuse the tools and could certainly use them. Cbrown1023 talk 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, the epitome of WP:COOL. Excellent candidate. --Coredesat 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Nearly invariably, I appreciate whenever Heligo contributes to a discussion. I see no reason not to hand over the mop. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

# Fanatically Oppose - Not A Suitable candidaet --60.234.48.7 23:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but only users with accounts are eligible to "!vote" -- Renesis (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Heligoland_2&oldid=107721786"