Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hurricanehink 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 18:18, 8 April 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Hurricanehink[edit]

Final (92/2/2); ended 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) - Hurricanehink has been a great friend of mine for over 2 years of my time here at Wikipedia. He has over 20,000 contributions to article writing and over 30 featured contributions. He is an active contributor to Featured article candidates and is a great peer reviewer. He is a person with great civility control and knows the up and down of Wikipedia. I'm sure that he'd make a great admin.

In the past he has refused adminship, once in 2006. There has been curiousity if he would ever run again, and he came to me today on Internet Relay Chat claiming that he was pondering adminship. He feels that after seeing me go through it and the self-respect that adminship gave me, that the powers would be a large help for future contributions, being able to move future FAs, FLs and FTs from sandboxes. Hurricanehink is a very respectful contributor to Wikipedia, being in the top 10 of most featured contribution lists. I wanna say that I am pleased to nominate him for adminship after almost 2 years. Mitch32contribs 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Here goes nothing - I accept. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I should clarify right here that I do not intend to be the most active administrator; if I did, then my FA output would certainly come to a halt. However, I certainly would partake in the tools. After two years of relying on others to move a simple page over a redirect, I would simply move a simple page over a redirect. Additionally, I'd delete my personal redirects, which build up over time as useless redirects from my user space. Additionally, I'd help out with speedily deleting, merging page histories, and continue fighting vandalism, which I have done in protecting the tropical cyclone Wikiproject from vandals, by blocking such vandals when the situation warrants.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have successfully nominated or co-nominated 32 featured articles, all of which I wrote or significantly contributed to. Additionally, I have quite a few featured lists up my sleeve. I feel that I am an integral member of the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject, as that has been where nearly all of my mainspace edits have been. Specifically, I am most proud of my work to Hurricane Isabel, which resulted in a featured topic of 10 articles, 9 of which I wrote from scratch.
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 have run into some situations with fellow users in the tropical cyclone WikiProject, and though most were minor, a few caused some stress. I won't bore you with the details, but one particularly major conflict involved whether any tropical cyclone could get an article. I believe I assisted in calming the conflict, by a massive discussion on the talk pages. This is how I have dealt with similar conflicts, by talking in detail (often to the point of filibuster!) on the pages. I admit, occassionally I deal with conflicts on the IRC channel for the WPTC, though that is only if it is a particularly minor issue.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. In regards to adminship, what do you view as prima facie evidence of power hunger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. I'm not so sure I understand your question, but I'll take a stab at it. I believe if a user is power hungry for adminship, they'll show it by repeated failed RFA's without significant experience, and if they were really hungry they would nominate himself/herself each time. I'd imagine they would try and participate in AFD and FAC's, but rather than commenting on it they would merely vote, or use weak reasoning such as WP:ILIKEIT. And by the way, I saw your one question in another RFA, and I hope you don't mind that I answer it. Yes, I do know the tune to "Pachelbel's Canon" (the bass line, which is easy, as well as a few of the themes), and I can play it in all 12 keys on the piano. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Coredesat

5. What are your views on IRC with regards to decision making on-wiki? --Coredesat 09:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. As said above, I have made decisions on IRC, but only particularly minor issues that were unlikely to be challenged. For example, changing the image of a certain hurricane article, or maybe whether a certain active storm should get an article. I believe such minor issues are fine with being talked upon on IRC, as often times it is merely someone asking for a second opinion before being Bold. Discussion on the IRC is common, but actual proposals and decisions should not be done on there. I prefer keeping the discussion on Wikipedia, so there is a clear archive of what happened (such as with the somewhat controversial decision to have articles for all storms). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Stifle

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. Under most circumstances, that is not allowed, as the following clause in the fair use policy forbids it.
"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"
If a person is still alive, then a free equivalent is technically available, or could be created. However, there are some exceptions. If a musician, for example, appears on an album cover, then the non-free image could be used; however, it could only be used for the article on the album, and not for the musician. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from J.delanoy

7. While fighting vandalism, I came across this article. What would the appropriate action be? (please be specific)
A. I would tag it for speedy deletion, under hoax/original research (I checked Google, no supporting references for these exact events), and crystal ball (if the collapse comes in September, so be it, but for now it's merely based on guess work). Alternatively, I would merge it here, if that's allowed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As-optional-as-any-of-the-other-questions questions from Messedrocker'

Greetings, citizen. I haven't the slightest idea who you are; however, I have randomly selected you for experimentation purposes.

8. If you were offered a bowl of butter pecan ice cream, would you consume said ice cream? Personally, it is my favorite flavor.

A. I would personally choose a bowl of mint chocolate chip, but if someone offered me butter pecan, I'd sit down and enjoy it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. Would you consider the above question an illegal disruption of Wikipedia, and, were you given the opportunity to, would you deem it necessary to block me?

A. I believe people need to see the humor and goodness in people in the world. Sometimes, people need a slight disruption to keep connected with the rest of the world. It's the reason we have commercials on television. It's the reason we have traffic jams. If everything was perfect, life would get boring. Those slight disruptions keep life interesting, and so, if necessary, I would block you for 5 seconds, only to keep things interesting. If it was really disruptive, I'd probably warn first, especially if it was their first offense. Only if they repeatedly were disruptive would I take action. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from a stupid user

10. OK, you were offered to rule the world but you were in the middle of constantly checking over you admin page. Which one would you choose? Conquering the world or settling for the .001% of the net, Wikipedia? --Alisyntalk 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Tough call, though I think I'd settle for ruling the world. That way, I would make sure that every person in the world had the right to a free and open Wikipedia (which would be the first rule of the world), make every image in the world as public domain (which would be the second rule of the world), and make sure there is a steady and secure fund for the Wikimedia Foundation. Thank you, and vote Hink in '08! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hurricanehink before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Strong support as nominator.Mitch32contribs 21:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Okay I've had a good look at this and I see no problems at all, this editor seems to me to be helpful, friendly, constructive and useful. He could do with the tools and he has my support. AndreNatas (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The lack of significant development and improvement since the candidate's first and very recent RfA is deeply concerning. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support (EC) Hink has proven to be a very valuable and dedicated editor. I would be MORE than happy for him to join the ranks of the mop-slinging admins. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support This user is an excellent contributor to wikipedia being the nominator with the most current featured articles (32), numerous featured lists (14) and several . He has helped bring up brand new editors to a standard of being able to attain GA's and be able to competently review GAN's. He can keep a cool head in discussion and very easy to work with. The responsibility of the mop will not be misplaced in his hands and i have no reservations about supporting this editor in the role of admin. Seddon69 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shocked support. A brilliant editor. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. But dubious. No one can be this qualified... Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support. Amazing contributor. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Looks fine to me. Malinaccier (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support One of Wikipedia's finest contributors. I've always wondered why you hadn't nommed yourself for adminship before. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    biting tongue with sarcastic comment... biting tongue with sarcastic comment... biting tongue... OUCH!Balloonman (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support is such an understatement in this case. Without question, without doubt, and without reservation. Absolutely. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Per the nom, per the answers to the questions, per statement above by Seddon69 (talk · contribs). Simply incredible work with WP:FA content. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - A dynamo editor. I'm usually reluctant to support candidates who only massively edit, but thoroughly going through the user's contributions has lead me to believe he/she has the experience. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, well rounded editor. SpencerT♦C 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support. I cannot think of a candidate whom I would endorse more enthusiastically for administrator status than Hink. Hurricanehink has, on several occasions, asked to be cloned due to the exorbitant production of Featured Articles and Good Articles coming from his keyboard. From my experience in WikiProject Tropical cyclones, I've found Hink to also be an absolutely pleasant user to work with, and my trust in his judgment is complete. I cannot fathom a scenario where Wikipedia would be worse off with him as an administrator, so I happily offer my support without any reservations. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Glad to support; an outstanding editor and an asset to the project. (As someone despairingly watching him zoom up WP:WBFAN, I also have a sneaky hope that he will get distracted by his admin role and let the rest of us catch up. (Yes, just kidding.)) Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support, was ready a year ago, more than ready now. Wizardman 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - He has created several great WP:FLs. I see him at WP:LOTD regularly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support (edit conflict). I'm confident he can do a good job, can be trusted, and needs the tools. AGK (contact) 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, obviously, but hoping this won't impact upon his fantastic mainspace contributions. Neıl ☎ 00:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support as Neil said - Shudde talk 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Not only because of his excellent contributions and amazing number of featured articles, featured lists, and featured topics, but also because he is very helpful, and willing to answer the questions of newcomers and professionals alike. When I became active in Wikipedia, he was one of the first people I encountered. He, over a period of months, certainly aided in the development of myself as a user, and he still to this day has excellent suggestions and words of advice. In my opinion, he would do just fine with the mop and bucket. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support #25 Hopefully I won't run into edit conflict. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, trustworthy, great FA content contributor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support without question (I'll let others ask the questions ;) ) His heavy work with FA and GA along with the Tropical Cyclones project display great dedication to the community - and judging by his answers - he's cool and patient. That's a big plus  — master sonT - C 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support (3 ec) hoping that he rarely uses them. Royalbroil 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, an excellent, trustworthy, and dedicated encyclopedia builder. --Laser brain (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support As per Track and contributions.The commitment of the user is beyond questionPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. MrPrada (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - sure, vastly experienced and very active..YNot?..--Cometstyles 04:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Sometimes your personal guidelines/expectations on what background/experience a candidate should have is negated. This is one of those cases---he may not have all of the 'experience' one would like elsewhere, but how can you oppose?Balloonman (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Strong article builder, plenty of experience (excluding the Policy realm) and no reason to believe the candidate will abuse the position, or the tools. I would prefer to see more direct participation in more administrative areas, but the good easily outweighs my concern. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, great editor. Everyking (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. One of our most dedicated and prolific quality content contributors. He understands why we're here and thus is the kind of person we definitely want with the admin tools. Cla68 (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Dedicated and trustworthy, and very professional in his demeanor. κaτaʟavenoTC 12:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support steady editor, professional demeanor. Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I have encountered Hurricanehink many times at FAC and have always been very impressed by the quality of his work and the way he has been leading Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones. (ok, he's not really "leading" it, but he sets the standard and encourages other members to work harder.) I have often wondered why he didn't try to become an admin, and I would have been happy to nom/co-nom him for admin if I had known he had decided to go for it. Honestly, at this point in time, I have encountered no one on Wikipedia who deserves to be an admin more than Hurricanehink. I'm happy you decided to go for it again, and I wish you luck. Thingg⊕⊗ 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - No issues here. ArcAngel (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Very impressed an editor who needs the tools so little and who has done so much so well is unlikely to to anything but good with them. Dlohcierekim 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. A good user. Acalamari 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - happy with this user. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Excellent user, haven't seen someone this qualified in a long time. J.delanoygabsadds 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - The sheer volume and quality of output make this a no-brainer, which could only be undone by something truly pathological (which hasn't happened), so come on board.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Hope you get some more expertise in wielding the mop and helping others that need assistance with content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong support. 32 FAs --> O_O Maxim(talk) 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - A terrific user, with great contributions, he should make an excellent administrator. Hello32020 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support - prolific contributor, professional and civil in his actions. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Impressive. :) GlassCobra 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support A perudal of the users contributions shows an understanding of the project, a knowledge of policies and guidelines, a willingness to help, and a civil and polite demeanor. This is a user in whom I am reasonably comfortable having the community's trust in his judgment. -- Avi (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Won't abuse the tools. нмŵוτнτ 06:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Per answers to Messedrocker's questions. --bainer (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Very good editor. There is no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Worked with Hurricanehink on many occasions before when I used to carry out good article reviews, and his mature attitude combined with excellent article skills make this a definite support. Greman Knight. 09:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Weak Support Trusted editor I feel will use the tools positively but one who should engage in the more usual administrative work. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 10:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Suppport - Very nice answers. KTC (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Suppport: Excellent user with excellent contributions. Good luck! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, probably not a sockpuppet, so I don't think he'll go crazy and block me. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, be careful and have fun! Dustitalk to me 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, looks good for the role. --MPerel 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, your general WP namespace contributions may be low, but with 77 AIV reports you've already done a lot more than many. Take that mop and start cleaning ;) Poeloq (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, yes. Johnfos (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, Excellent editor that I have worked well with in the past. I have found him to be civil, focused on the tasks at hand, and see no reason he shouldn't receive the tools. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support would make a good administrator. -Icewedge (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, an excellent candidate, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  69. Support strongly, as he is an experienced article writer and is pretty much as far as one can get from a career mandarin. Great to have an article writer standing for adminship. Invite your friends! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, faithful editor. SexySeaShark 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong support, given his helpful attitude in Wikipedia as well as his due dilligence in writing and editing. I strongly doubt he'd abuse the position. Hurricane Angel Saki = My own personal NHC 03:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support every interaction has been good and a pleasure. Easy to work with. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong Support One of the best editors around.--Dacium (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - no concerns; meet my standards; we could use "a mop" around the hurricane articles.  :-) Bearian (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support My metasense ain't tingling. Kimu 19:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Jmlk17 23:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Sup. --Alisyntalk 00:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. An excellent candidate. --Irpen 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - iMatthew 2008 10:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. I've seen him around and respect his contributions and temperment. A rock-solid candidate. Majoreditor (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong support. Fantastic edits - Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Hurricanehink is an excellent Wikipedian who is definitely ready for the mop. He has a good temper, which will be an asset in dispute resolution. He also has written excellent content, and thus will have the requisite experience to deal with content issues, which come up fairly regularly as an admin. He responded well to the questions, especially Messedrocker's, and I'm sure he has the good sense and judgment to use the mop well. I'm not particularly concerned about the lack of "admin-y" contributions. He has shown that he knows the way to use them, and to be fair, he has said that he will not be that active of an admin. He has been around long enough to know and respect convention surrounding the admin tools, hence my support. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Ready to be an admin. --Sharkface217 06:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Snowball support This user seems like such an obvious sysop. So many FA contribs and never a bad edit. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 08:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Absolutely. Wonderful content contributor, there should be more administrators with this focus. Can certainly be trusted not to abuse the tools -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong Support Hands down one of the bestThright (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong support. If he can figure out how to write 30 Featured Articles I'm sure he can figure out the unimportant trivialities of whatever goes along with the tools. --JayHenry (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Doubt he'll be the origin of many tempests as an admin. Gimmetrow 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support a good editor with a good grasp of policy and its implications. Gwernol 13:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support great article editor, answered questions well, great nom. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - good answers and looks like a fine candidate. No problems here - Alison ❤ 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - Don't see why not.  Sunderland06  21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. I hate to do this, as I know Hink is an excellent editor. I've given this a lot of thought, and while he has remarkable experience in article writing, when you look at the big picture, he has very little experience to speak of in various policy areas. His record in those policy areas consists primarily of a handful of XFDs, very little anti-vandal work, and almost no activity at any of the noticeboards. Pretty much all of his work is focused on WP:TROP (in fact, most of the XFDs he's been involved in were related to that particular WikiProject), and he rarely ventures out of that area. Being able to write good articles is admirable, and adminship might be no big deal, but you have to ask - will Hurricanehink actually use the tools? I'm not sure he will, and in this case I'm really not sure he needs them. --Coredesat 09:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that one oppose will make much difference, but I thought we'd put the "no need for the tools" argument out to pasture a long time ago. He's said he won't be using them much, but even if he only uses them for his own benefit that means less requests to other more "involved" admins. If we had limited admin bits to give out then perhaps we'd have to only promote those who would be most involved with admin functions, but since we don't, the only question you need to ask is: do you trust him not to misuse the tools? Yomanganitalk 10:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect this well thought out oppose regarding the candidates areas of activity. However I must agree with Yomangan that "no need for the tools" is an argument that has been done before, and found lacking. The tools don't rust, don't cost, and we have an unlimited supply of them. Pedro :  Chat  10:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I worded that quite badly. Yes, I don't think he needs the tools, but that's not exactly all I'm arguing. Back when I became an admin (which was only in October 2006), admins were expected to be able to use the tools for more than just their own needs; a lot of RFAs that are passing now would not have passed then. In the case of Hurricanehink, he's already gained a fairly positive reputation from his article work; the only thing adminship would do is add "he's an admin" to that without benefiting the project much. Yes, he writes great articles, but he lacks process and policy experience. A good article writer does not translate immediately to a good admin, and I think he needs that experience first. As an aside, I'm also a bit worried about his sudden change of heart; until now he had been fairly strongly opposed to pursuing adminship. I'm also interested in how he answers my question. --Coredesat 12:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you feel he needs more experience doing admin related activities first, that is clear. But how do you stand on the trust issue; do you feel he would abuse admin tools if they were granted? κaτaʟavenoTC 12:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I think he needs more experience doing admin related activities before we can judge how good he will be at it. Cxz111 (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral Brilliant editor in the mainspace, but with comparatively little experience in environments such as WP:XFD, WP:AIV, and WP:AN. Given this, I can't support, but I see no reason to oppose, either. --Coredesat 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose --Coredesat 09:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending answer to my question. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now The question is just for my peace of mind. J.delanoygabsadds 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)changed to supportJ.delanoygabsadds 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I view nominations by other users as prima facie evidence that the user himself does not desire the admin powers particularly strongly. Otherwise, he would have nominated himself long ago. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I talked about it with the nominating user on IRC, and after indicating I was interest in admin powers, he nominated me. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a Kurt parody.... Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I view people who try to imitate Kurt as prima facie evidence that user lacks originality and feel like making disruption just for the sake of being a bit disruptive. Maxim(talk) 12:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Hink is an excellent editor, coordinator and contributor to WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. It's obvious he pours an incredible amount of time and effort into this encyclopedia. On those merits alone, he is an instant "Yes" to get adminship. However, I can see the points of others, wo put their votes as "Oppose", as the question is whether or not he would actually significantly contribute as an administrator. Also, on a more personal level, if he were to begin significantly contributing as an admin, that would be time away from editing the WikiProject, where his help and coordination is sorely needed. I'm something of a noob to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how much my vote counts, but there's my two cents.TheNobleSith (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hurricanehink_2&oldid=1148851968"