Stormtracker94

Voice your opinion (talk page) (20/11/2); Scheduled to end 12:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Stormtracker94 (talk · contribs) - I would like to present my second nomination, Stormtracker94, as a candidate for adminship. I first saw him listed at WP:ADMINCOACH, liked his work, looked over his first two RFAs, and decided to coach him. The coaching page can be found here. Stormtracker94 has logged over 4500 edits, including 800 to the Wikipedia namespace and 2200 to the mainspace. He also has several hundred deleted contribs, many of which were tagging articles for CSD, and has over 50 reports to AIV. He's also started many sports-related articles, and communicates effectively with other editors. He has even adopted another editor. All in all, Stormtracker94 is a well-rounded editor who would be an asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. Useight (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomation by Rudget

I am very pleased to introduce my fifth candidate for a co-nomation here at adminship. I first encountered Stormtracker94 during one of my visits to one of the many XFDs there are, and I was impressed with his overall comments which helped drived the discussion forward, whilst which he was quoting appropriate policies and comments. And it has never stopped. He has also been a prolific editor to other administrator areas, such as: AFD[1],AIV [2] [3] [4] and UAA [5], plus others.

Additionally, Stormtracker has shown extraordinary revert times, both recognising blatant vandal edits, removing vandalism and notifying users of their actions. He has also demonstrated in numerous ways, the way in which he hopes to help the project by dedicating his time to many projects/areas where he feels he can achieve best.[6][7][8]

Stormtracker has also proven his "civilness" towards other editors, thanking other editors, going out of his way to check back on a contributor, awarding users for his personal recognition, making realtime edits regarding bot behaviour and admitting mistakes plus others. All of these are highly-valued qualities in administrators nowadays, and this plus his other contributions, make me very proud to co-nominate Stormtracker for the mop and bucket. Rudget. 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomation by Wizardman

For my, uh, 36th nomination... (yeah, I'm obsessed, we all know that by now), I am nominating User:Stormtracker94. Stormtracker is a user who I've seen around a lot and have been watching for a couple months. When i saw his second rfa, though he wasn't quite ready yet, I could tell he was on the fast track to being a great administrator. He's done a lot of mainspace work with baseball articles, helping improve them. Him and jj137, among others, have make the Boston Red Sox WikiProject one of the best baseball team-related one on the site, I see it working quite often. He contributes to AIV, AfD, etc. He reminds me a bit of myself actually, I hope that's a good thing. He is ready for the tools though, I've seen him become a very productive user who is beneficial to this project. Wizardman 03:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Sharkface217

Bah! I guess I'm late with this co-nom. I met Stormtracker94 through AWC. Ever dedicated to service to Wikipedia, he took the challenge and combated vandalism valiantly. I know this user is more than ready for the mop. --Sharkface217 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. STORMTRACKER 94 13:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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 would work in a wide variety of areas if I were elected administrator. I would mainly work at WP:AIV, blocking persistent vandals who have been sufficiently warned. I would also spend a lot of time at WP:UAA, blocking users who have clearly violated the username policy. Another area that I would spend a lot of time in is WP:NEWPAGES, deleting articles that violate the criteria for speedy deletion, and notifying the users that the article that they started has not met the requirements. Finally, I would help out in updating the main page, mostly current events. After gaining more experience as an admin, I would also become involved in some areas that I do not have a lot of experience in, such as WP:RPP and WP:ANI.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think that my best contributions to Wikipedia fall under two main categories, writing and expanding sports-related articles, and vandalism work. In writing sports articles, I have written and expanded many sports articles, such as Luis Castillo (baseball) , Juan Uribe, and Lyle Overbay. In the field of vandalism patrol, I have covered many areas. I am a very active RC Patroler, and also have rollback, making my vandalism patrol even more effective. I have made over 70 AIV reports, and almost 20 reports to WP:UAA. If an admin, I would also continue to work in these areas, but be much more effective due to the deletion and blocking tools.

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: As it is almost impossible to avoid conflicts on a huge website like this on vandalism patrol. Due to mostly IP vandals, I have been vandalized, nearly blanked, and even speedy tagged. I reported all of these users to AIV, and they were all subsequently blocked. In the future, I would do the same, but would probably block the user my self if they were a pure vandal. If the user was not a vandal and it was a conflict, I would try to find a neutral user to help with the dispute.

Questions from Avruch

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A block is used to prevent an editor from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, such as vandalism, edit warring, or violating the three revert rule. It would only last for a certain period of time. A ban is used to formally remove all access to editing to Wikipedia, and completely removes all privileges of editing. This may be caused as a decision of the Arbitration Committee, the entire community, or Jimbo Wales. Bans last indefinitely, and may only be removed by appealing.

5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A: I would first ask the administrator on their talk page why they had removed the material from the article, and that I disagree with it. If I still didn't find the answer reasonable, I would find another administrator to act as a neutral party and give suggestions.

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall?

A: I think that administrator recall is a good idea, because if an administrator is not living up to the standards that they were elected for, they should be reassessed and possibly have their sysop status removed. They could then seek adminship again by posting another request.

Optional questions from EJF

7. Do you believe the standards for adminship are too high, and that rightly or wrongly, some might say it has become almost a game to reach these arbitrary standards, and that WP:MMORPG is actually the way this encyclopedia project has become?

A. I do believe that the adminship standards are too high. After all, Jimbo Wales did say Adminship is no big deal. Any administrator that is living up to the adminship standards could be sent to administrator recall, where the community would decide if they should still be an administrator. Wikipedia has somewhat become what WP:MMORPG has said. It does have many vandals and trolls ("enemies"), and has many users which can achieve "higher levels".

8. Do you, or have you ever, edited from any alternate accounts? Why or why not? EJF (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. I have not edited from any alternate accounts, and have thought about creating one for security if I had become an administrator. Although alternate accounts do give security in case of compromise, I think that I do not need one unless I become an administrator, where my account would be much more prone to being compromised (even though I do have a strong password).

Optional questions from Whitstable

9. The first thing you did on creating an account was let the community know 1) that you wanted to be an admin and 2) that you were a reformed vandal. Why did you want to become an admin from the start of your time with an account and did you learn anything as a vandal that has helped you since? Whitstable (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.

General comments

• See Stormtracker94's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Stormtracker94: Stormtracker94 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Stormtracker94 before commenting.

Discussion

• I need more information before I can support or oppose this nomination. While I wish Stormtracker94 had more experience adding content to Wikipedia (as opposed to merely vandalism reverting), that's not a big issue with me. What I'm concerned about are some strange edits you've made with regards to User:Sobar. Based on what I've seen, you and Sobar appear to be about the same age and from the same town. You also redesigned Sobar's userpage not too long ago. What concerns me most is that on Dec. 31, 2007, you made a number of edits to messages Sobar left on your talk page, such as at [9] [10] and [11]. It is unusual to say the least for an editor to rewrite or selectively delete the messages another editor has left for you (especially when you are archiving all your other talk page messages). In addition, one of your edit comments for the edits above said you were removing the comments because it was a "long story." First, I'd like to know why you edited comments left by another user. Second, my experience on Wikipedia tells me these edits and the similarities between yourself and Sobar--including the times you two edit--indicate a possible case of sock puppetry. If I'm wrong, I apologize. I also admit the evidence is not overwhelming, but since this is an RfA I want to make absolutely sure there is no concern here. If you can please explain I'd appreciate it. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stormtracker94 left a comment [12] which explains why he edited another user's comments. Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Its, uh, strange to see a co-nom on an RfA from an admin who has left. Whats the backstory on the timing here? ^Avruchtalk 16:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• When I was coaching Stormtracker94, Rudget volunteered to co-nom. I created the page so I could have somewhere to put my nomination together several days before the RFA was to be transcluded. Then, unfortunately, Rudget retired right before Stormtracker94 transcluded the RFA. Useight (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You can see from the timestamps that Rudget left his comments two weeks ago. So it's a real co-nomination from him this time. I'm aware of one instance where Rudget "co-nominated" a candidate whom he had never previously encountered, once the RfA was already well in progress and at 100 percent support, without asking the candidate or the other co-nominators if that would be a helpful or appreciated thing to do. --JayHenry (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How can this be the third RfA if - going by the talkpage - the candidate has only been around since August? ^Dlae│_here 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• According to [13], he began IP editing in December 2006 and got an account on July 28. EJF (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support as nominator. Useight (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Great editor, unlikely to abuse the tools. However, I do have one microscopic concern - the diffs in Q3 aren't conflicts but in fact vandalism to your userpage. Vandalism is not a conflict (IMHO, a conflict is something that leads to an edit war, discussion, or dispute resolution). That's really not concerning enough to oppose, however. Hopefully the 3rd RfA will be the charm. NF24^{(radio me!)} 13:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - edits look good, I remember seeing his name at this ridiculous AfD [14]. Will not abuse tools.EJF (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support know him from places, though the noms are a bit old :-)--Phoenix-wiki 15:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That's because I was trying to get my thoughts together onto a page so I created the RFA page awhile in advance just to have somewhere to write. Useight (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Support as co-nom. Wizardman 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support I've heard of him, and the nominations are strong. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Good man, great editor. --Sharkface217
8. Support I've seen you around somewhere. I forget, but you did well. Spencer^T♦C 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support It's about time. NHRHS2010 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support of course. Great editor and vandalism reverter (he consistently beats me), and has done an amazing job with WP:SOX. He will make a great admin.   jj137 ^♠ 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Weak Support What I have read below really concerns me and I have very little experience with this editor. My support is basically coming on the backs of the four very reputable nominators and the hopes that they have throughly reviewed this candidate before nominating. The review I made myself didn't bring up any issues, and I think that what I'm seeing below is possibly a very, very small percentage of otherwise good edits. Trusilver 03:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support The strong nominations alone are enough reason to support. Seen this user around, and I've been impressed. Jauerback (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support This editor is definitely trusted by the community, seeing all his nominators. Good contribs. Good luck. Timmeh! 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Support This user has done great work in Wiki-Projects, and I see him often in recent changes reverting vandalism. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support: Yep, I have seen you reverting vandalism a lot, good luck :) The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Weak Support. I don't like the frequent RFA's, but I trust the nominators' decisions, and I'm pretty sure you won't abuse the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support I support this user's try for adminship. The user Stormtracker94 3 (odd name btw) seems to be a good candidate for adminship and I most certainly hope this RfA will end in a for him succesful way. Ramtashaniku (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. I don't think that Stormtracker94 will be abusive at all: just read up on some necessary policies. Regarding number of RfAs, I remind people that there is no limit on number of RfAs, and since the last one was three months, that's a decent time to wait. If three months between RfAs is too short, then I shouldn't be an admin because my second RfA took place one day before three months after my first one ended. Acalamari 19:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Three months is more than enough time for an RFA. Secret ^account 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Haven't done this in a while.. Having looked at the candidate's talkpage(s) and Q1 of this RfA, the math does not add up. Part of the reason I am opposing is because no-one else has. The way this is going, it would be reassuring if they put themselves on Administrators Open to Recall because the candidate does not look like administrator material. ^Dlae│_here 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Candidate asked me to expand on this, so here goes:

   • "I would mainly work at WP:AIV, blocking persistent vandals who have been sufficiently warned." – Just looking back at the December messages on your talkpage shows that you have a penchant for incorrectly indentifying a vandal.[15] [16] I like the ability for a potential leader administrator to be able to apply logic and work on their own initiative, being good at decision making. If a registered account has made 5 vandalism-only contributions, yet recieved only 2 warnings, what do you do?
   • "I would also spend a lot of time at WP:UAA, blocking users who have clearly violated the username policy." – Were you the user who reported User:NinjaDeath (or something) because it was inflammatory towards ninjas?
   • "Another area that I would spend a lot of time in is WP:NEWPAGES, deleting articles that violate the criteria for speedy deletion, and notifying the users that the article that they started has not met the requirements." – Again, your talkpage indicates you're not cut out for this as you have the tendency to mislabel pages with CSDs [17]. This leads me to believe you may take hasty actions if given the 'Delete' option on your interface. At AfD, your catchphrase is "delete per nom". As for notifying the authors, I'll presume you meant before the article gets deleted... As an admin I wouldn't suggest spending "a lot of time" in WP:Newpages either, there's not a lot to see there.
   • "Finally, I would help out in updating the main page, mostly current events." – How would you do this? Do you think you can improve it? Are you willing to stay up 23/7 citing news on to the page? Just, to me, it looks pretty good already.

   You put forward that you will be fairly all-rounded, but - if you do commit yourself to all those things you said - I think you will tire of the ride sooner than you think. Most of you contribs are Twinkle-performed vandalism reversions. Your talkpage contains random barnstar talk or complaints (for some reason I'm expecting Jj137 to support this RfA). Trying not to offend here.. you don't look very mature or someone I would like to have watching over me. Your pages seem to bait vandalism too, so I can see why you've been vandalised in the past. Not to sound advert, but you strike as a newbie. Adminship is not a reward for your hard work on wikipedia, such as edit count and taking articles to GA-status. I also don't like the Jimbo Wales idoling. I'm wary of those [admins] who form a bond with other users, too - if push comes to shove, the odds are stacked against you (the outsider).

   ^Dlae│_here 19:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose While the above does cause me concern, I am more worried that an editor would seek adminship three times in just four months. It's not meant to be a big deal! Whitstable (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The first two were self-noms though. After those he apparently realized he would have to wait until others thought he was ready. With three co-nominations it's hard to compare this one to the first two. Though adminship isn't a bit deal, that is true. Wizardman 23:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, his previous one was three months ago.   jj137 ^♠ 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am aware of both of those points Whitstable (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose, per a few of Dlae's reasons, and the answer to Q3 seemed a little weird to me. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Keep in mind that the area he most frequently edits in (sports-related articles) is a part of wikipedia that's relatively free of conflict (I haven't been in a sports conflict since July, myself). So I can vouch for a Q3 defense, at least. (yup, copied from below, but since you had q3 as part of your oppose i thought i'd post it here too). Wizardman 04:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' reason is what I had in mind when I opposed, but I didn't know how to phrase it as eloquently as he did. Q3 did not matter much to me, but it's not much of a conflict. It also says his userpage was "even speedy tagged." What difference does what the vandalism is make? And with all the time he has spent on AfD, I'm sure he could have come up with a better answer. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose per AfD participation, specifically too quick to vote delete on articles in a rapid (even multiple deletes in under a minute: [18], [19]) fashion with per nom or other brief "arguments" rather than to improve them instead. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   While rapid fire !votes are frowned upon, some articles in AFD require far less than a minute of review in order to determine their worth. --Sharkface217 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I strongly disagree with "far less than a minute". --A. B. ^(talk) 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose per Dlae and the fact that this user essentially avoided giving out specific examples of conflicts he has been in. If he gives a better answer to Q3, I may reconsider. Also, adminship may be no big deal, but those with the mop and bucket could do potentially do much more damage than those without (for example, I couldn't delete the main page, while an hijacked admin could) so the position does require a relatively high degree of trust. The answer to Q7 therefore worries me. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Keep in mind that the area he most frequently edits in (sports-related articles) is a part of wikipedia that's relatively free of conflict (I haven't been in a sports conflict since July, myself). So I can vouch for a Q3 defense, at least. Wizardman 04:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, he did admit that he has gotten into some conflicts, and I'm interested in his conduct in such situations. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Regretful Oppose - per Dlae, general feelings about editor needing more experience, plus brief time between successive RfAs. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Weak oppose since Wizardman has the unnerving ability to pick good admins :), but I am concerned about the issues stated above by Dlae. Basic inexperience is the main problem. — DarkFalls ^talk 05:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Oppose Too many noms in too short of a period of time. This isn't a game of "nominate until the decision goes my way."--Veritas (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. I question the nom's thinking behind the frequency of the RfA's. Not a good sign. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 14:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   We're not here to judge my thinking, which I think is fine because we waited 3 months since his last RFA, but instead we're here to judge the candidate. Useight (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Useight, I'm not addressing your thinking but Stormtracker's. Thinking on Stormtracker's side should have led him/her to reject the (re-)nomination, in my opinion. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 01:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you meant when you said, "the nom's thinking". I thought you were referring to the thinking of the nominator and were thus questioning me. Useight (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose DarkFalls puts it perfectly. Jmlk17 00:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose — per DarkFalls. --Agüeybaná 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Candidate hasn't demonstrated the qualities which make me confident in supporting, and the above rationales plus my general perception formed over many months means I must oppose. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral After a good bit of contemplation, I can neither support nor oppose. I accept Stormtracker94's explanation for the issue I raised in the discussion area, but going through his/her edits I wasn't convinced to support. Perhaps in six months. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral - I really want to support you, but the opposes sway me away. --Niyant (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral for now. The opposers (particularly Le Grand Roi and Dlae) bring up some worrying points, particularly with regard to CSD and AIV (inappropriate speedies and blocks can drive away confused newbies, which is bad for the encyclopedia). I'd be happy to support if he pledges to add himself to CAT:AOTR, adopting my recall criteria or some similar system. Walton^One 13:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]