Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vikreykja

Vikreykja

final (5/7/5) ending 04:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Vikreykja has a solid understanding of Wikipedia rules, procedures, and complex article creation (such as making double-templates). He is devoted to the betterment of Wikipedia. He is articulate, writes edit summaries, and uses TALK pages to address article conflicts. Kingturtle 04:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I humbly accept →Vik Reykja 04:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Kingturtle 04:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
2. Weak support. Software related edits look OK to me. Dealing with vandalism is tough: the user should be thanked for it, not get suspected. I wrote weak support because (a) not all edits have edit summary, (b) some activity on ViP, VFD etc would be helpful for future admin. Pavel Vozenilek 22:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. – ugen64 01:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. CryptoDerk brought up a heated exchange we had. It was a mere misunderstanding in which I deleted something he had put some time into. Personally, I would have preferred that he just told me what I deleted straight out (obviously I didn't know), but we long since resolved the issue and he apologized to me. But anyway, I think he's good enough to support. Mike H 01:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
5. Merovingian (t) (c) 10:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No way. Took a cursory look at his talk page. Following these edits which appear to be cosmetic, Vikreykja reverted saying it was vandalism, then Mark said they were good faith edits and Vik responded with I was in no mood to assume good faith ... If you continue, I am afraid you may well be RFCed. And if that's not enough, right above it is a heated exchange with TheCustomOfLife! CryptoDerk 04:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

   Yes, that was an unfortunate conflict and I'm not proud of it. I did apologize to Mark for not assuming good faith and I have been more careful about that policy since. As for the RFC comment, that is a direct reversal of his comments to me. Even if you don't change your vote, I hope you can look at the contributions I've made to this project and my efforts to make it better. Like everyone else, I have my moments of being human. →Vik Reykja 04:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose Not that I'm saying that someone who does something like that should never be an admin, but it should require some sort of cooling off period (like a few months and a few hundred edits) --Cynical 19:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
3. Not no forever but no for now. We have to always assume good faith, not just when the mood takes us.Grace Note 10:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose for the reasons stated above. See comment below. PedanticallySpeaking 16:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose for two reasons: the conflict stated above, and you don't meet my other admin criteria. Scott Gall 07:29, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
6. Oppose I'm afraid. I don't know Vik and wasn't going to vote until I saw the exchange concerning Alterego's edit on Talk:Online poker. Aside from the unnecessary hostility, it shows a very unhealthy attitude toward policy pages: Vik asserts that "the rules" should be upheld even where they are obviously counterproductive. This shows a basic unfamiliarity with how things are done on Wikipedia. Or at least, I hope that's not how we do things on Wikipedia now... Isomorphic 02:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Will reconsider in the future after a lot more edits. --Silversmith 12:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Since I am one of the users being discussed here, I thought I might make a comment. Vikreykja did revert a good-faith edit of mine with "reverting vandalism", which wasn't very nice. All I'd done was shift wikilinking from an archive content list (which remained) to a floating box at the top right. Vikreykja also threatened to RfC me. However, I was indeed heavy-handed in threatening to block Vikreykja if he continued that sort of thing, so his reaction is more understandable and I do not hold it against him. Everyone makes mistakes. Besides, I'd completely forgotten about this 'conflict' until it was pointed out to me today. I couldn't believe it when CryptoDerk told me I'd flatly threatened to block a user - I like to think it's not my style. So I'm not too proud of it either. Anyway, I'm not voting support or oppose on this RfA because I don't have any more experience than that in dealing with this user. Those who have interacted with Vikreykja more often and more recently are better equipped to decide if he is fit for adminship. If Vikreykja does get promoted to adminship, I request that he answer messages on the other user's talk page -- I only read his response to my posting today! - Mark 07:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC) (edited 07:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC))
2. This is not a user with whom I have consciously interacted so I can only go on what is presented here, his/her talk page and a cursory examination of Special:Contributions. I am uncomfortable with what I see. To my mind Vikreykja is an assiduous and skillful editor. Interactions with other users, particularly over reversions, can be harsh, however, and I feel that this is inappropriate behaviour for an admin. I note his/her apology and I would hope that future behaviour would be more appropriate. --Theo (Talk) 09:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
3. Agree with Theo. I would hate to think that a couple of nasty remarks would forever prevent an editor from becoming an admin. On the other hand, the activity cited by CryptoDerk is quite extreme, and not exactly ancient history, either (just over a month ago). Apologies do count for a lot, but I cannot vote to support at this time. Perhaps Vikreykja's best course of action is to wait until it is ancient history, and then try again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
4. I don't wish to oppose you, because most of your edits seem worthwhile. But for an admin, good faith is something that one will need even more, due to the various tasks entrusted to that particular class of users. I believe I will support you in a few months. Bratsche^{talk random} 03:44, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
5. I would support you Vik, but unfortunately you haven't been at Wikipedia long enough to deserve adminship. I have seen you do some very good work, but when I consider that you only have 40 more edits than me (albeit, mine are often minor or on WP:SD) I know you cannot possibly be experienced enough to be an admin. Hopefully, both you and I will be able to work together as admins in a couple of months time, but for now...neutral. Harro5 07:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• CryptoDerk has pointed out an incident critical of Vikreykja's actions. I thought I'd list some incidents that show Vikreykja's careful and diplomatic approaches to situations. I think these actions exemplify exactly what we are looking for in an admin. Kingturtle 05:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In talking to Jmabel about a project, Vikreykja holds off on being bold "until I become more familiar with the community and its standards."
  • In regards to the Jeff Gannon article, Vikreykja says "Wikipedia should not present any bias and I believe this article is strongly biased." (and I might add, Vikreykja lives up to that statement). Vikreykja refrains from editing the Jeff Gannon article for NPOV because he was "not familiar enough with the story to do so."
  • Here, Vikreykja makes a consession about an article he created. Rather than "waste everyone's time," he redirected it "to BNB where it should have been in the first place."
  • In the John Basedow article, Vikreykja checks facts closely, and is not caught up in rumors on the internet.
  • When dealing with an anon user, Vikreykja is firm but polite, and invites the user to discuss the issue on the talk page.
    • No, Moncrief did that. My edit was to bypass the disambig page I had made. But I did do the same type of thing at User talk:Gaytan#Three-revert rule →Vik Reykja 05:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In regards to the Iron Chef, Vikreykja does not make a spur of the moment edit to the article, but rather waits to confirm what he is thinking, and he tells the other users that he is waiting and what he is looking for.
  • In regards to Larry Ellison, Vikreykja decides to be bold in editing, but explains to the other users that he is going to be bold, and why he is going to be bold - AND he then says "someone can put it back if it's really that important."
  • Vikreykja gives kudos to other users for their hard work.

I should note that some of the stuff you're pointing out is ancient. The Jmabel thing is from over a year ago. While glancing through his contribs, I found some more stuff:

• An admin should know not to just upload a non-tagged image they found on another website just cause they didn't see any copyright info.
• Another case where a good faith cosmetic edit was blasted by Vikreykja. In the process he called Cyrius an abusive administrator.
• Being very curt towards a newcomer.

These (as well as the two I mentioned above) are all from the past 2 months. For me, being courteous to users, assuming good faith, and not losing your cool is very important. For others, it may not be so important. When a contributor in just 1200 edits manages to butt heads with Cyrius, Mark Ryan, and TheCustomOfLife all in cases when they were making good faith edits, that signifies to me that they are not ready for adminship. I respect his contributions, but that doesn't mean I'm going to overlook the things I pointed out. CryptoDerk 06:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

i thought it was commendable that so early on in his time here, he was already exhibiting wikipedia-positive behavior. and i think Vikreykja continues to make great progress as a worker-bee and as a member of the community. Kingturtle 07:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've not interacted with the user but have looked at the material presented in opposition to his candidacy and must vote no. One reason I have been contributing a lot less is the frustration I've had from Wikipedians being so quick to judge and so ready to revert others work. A few comments certainly isn't a permanent bar to adminship, but at this time, I'm opposed to his election. PedanticallySpeaking 16:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Vikreykja has a total of 1284 enwiki edits as of --Silversmith 12:00, 20 May 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. If accepted, I would monitor the relevant pages for administrators and perform tasks requested of me in addition to what I already do to remove vandalism as quickly as possible. I would not monitor the IRC channel (as I don't now).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I think I am most pleased of the additions I've brought to baseball content. I created Template:MLB franchise and its 30 children (e.g. Template:MLB Giants franchise) and then added them to all the articles mentioned in them (approx 210). Almost my entire day of March 6th, 2005 was spent creating new articles for all the MLB minor league teams (100+). I still have work to do on that, plus I've recently joined the Airports WikiProject and I hope to bring much progress to it.

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. I have been in minor catfights here and there as CryptoDerk pointed out above. I will usually cede those unless I feel I've been wronged (rare). A conflict where I really put my foot down happened at Talk:Fear Factor. I ended up leaving that page. Another dispute that may be of import to voters was at Talk:Online poker#Editing protected pages. Apart from that I try to avoid conflict and will continue to do so in the future. If promoted, I will task to hold myself to an even higher standard than I do already.