Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Land

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] The Land

Final (6/9/7) ending 18:28 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Land (talk • contribs) – I'm putting myself up because I'm itching to be able to help with admin tasks. I have a strong if not massive record, particularly recently, including work on AfD and New Pages. I also enjoy trying to help people resolve disputes. I'm interested in Wikipedia's policies and development as a community almost as much as its encyclopedic content. I'll take on board any comments you make about me in this discussion, no matter what they are.. The Land 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Self-nominated so yes please.

Reading the debate I would like to withdraw. If anyone wants to renominate me doewn the line I'll happily accept, but no point this staying on AfD when the consensus is already clear. Thank you for all the enccouraging comments, regardless of which votes they came with. The Land 18:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Level-headed? Check. Civil? Check. Editcountitis happening in oppose votes? Check. Heading in the right direction? Check. Can have (most) errors corrected? Check. No big deal? Check. I think I'll go out on a limb and support for now. Just do try and be more active. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Read the first thing Kate's edit counter says nowdays. Kate's rather dissapointed in the editcountitus around the wiki because of her counter, and I don't blame her. A great guy is being opposed based on his edit count. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Oh, by the way, I think Kate's a him, not a her. :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yes, Kate's real name is Ed. when I refer to the person behind the account of kate I'll say Him, but when I refer to Kate I'll say her. This is the internet afterall, and I know of another editor on this wiki who is really male but prefers to be thought of as female. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Support in order to oppose editcountitis. I wouldn't vote, but I feel compelled to do so just to work against those who oppose based on edit counts. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 01:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. This land is our land. Andre (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Not everybody needs 100 lessons to pass their driving test. Rd232 ^talk 17:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support --Kefalonia 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose User has only 816 edits since April, 2004. Needs to participate more to understand the community and how it works. Should have minimum of 1,500 to 2,000 edits. --Rogerd 17:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

   Baloney. Many good editors that know how WP work have less than even 1000 edits. Now whether that means they would be a good admin or not is unknown. No vote yet. Just sayin' is all. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose: You've only recently returned from a very long break dating back to late last year, with only a handful of edits during the interim. Your activity level has heavily spiked since your return, which is good. A quick review of user interactions seems to show level-headedness, which is very important. I think you're headed in the right direction, but keep it up for another 2 months and I think you'll be ready. Also, please keep improving your use of edit summaries. For now, I oppose. --Durin 17:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose, per Durin. Less than 1,000 edits, and a long break from the project. I agree with Durin that you seem to have the right idea. Do keep contributing, build more experience, check out what's happened with the wiki in your abscence, and do re-nominate in the future. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Definate Oppose per reasons already given. Private Butcher 18:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I would hope for him to get a few more edits to renominate. Editcountitis is very very bad but is also a sign of experience. Less than 1000 in more than a year IMO is too low Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose very short answers to the questions concerns me...if the answers were lengthened a little more, and a little more editing, I would support. freestylefrappe 21:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

   Will make my answers longer next time. The Land 18:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose weakly per reasons already mentioned. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Try to keep your chin up and not take this too hard, ya' hear? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
9. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question [1] or he is excessivley sarcastic [2]. I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Something does happen. He's one vote. Either he's on the losing side of the vote, in which case it didn't make any difference; or he's on the winning side of the vote, in which case it didn't make any differenc. Unanimous votes are nice, but Wikipedia isn't therapy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Will support when user has a bit more involvement in the project. A good editor nontheless. Keep it up, youre on the right track. Orane (t) (c) (@) 19:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral good editor but I have to agree with the opposers but I dont feel like opposing maybe in 2 months --JAranda | watz sup 19:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral, and I agree with Journalist. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral. A little more experience could'nt hurt. You should RfA again in a few months.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Seems like a reasonable user that would not abuse admin capabilities. WIll support if up again in a few months.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Hope to support next time round. Dlyons493 Talk 17:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutral I think I got that bout of editcountitis under control,so no opposing, but I think the best thing here is to keep on the course you're on and you'll have no problems. Too early for adminship. Karmafist 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• 816 edits for those that care. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:TheLand-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 17:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use of edit summaries is 39%, 74% over the last 100. Average edits per day is 1.4, 11.3 per day over last 30 days. --Durin 17:28, 20 October 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. I would start off, and probably mainly contribute, with agreed deletion AfD and to CSDs.If I encountered any vandalism I'd deal with it.

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

A. I tend to be an incrementalist editor and make a difference with lots of little changes rather than big ones. However, I think I've helped many articles like Transactional Analysis and 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend to a significant degree.

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 how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I've had people worked up with me, like User: IndigoGenius and I've also stepped into other peoples' arguments like Talk:Coercive monopoly - aside from disagreements on AfD. I'm good at not getting stressed about things and the worst I've been is mildly snappy.

4. Very few editors with fewer than 1000 edits are promoted. Why do you feel you are different?

A. Well, I was going to wait another month, but yesterday I was overtaken by the urge to just get on with it and nominated myself. My contributions so far have involved a high proportion of policy-related material, a good number of admin-like tasks, and I don't think I've every been remotely disruptive: basically I'm confident that I could be a good admin starting now. I suspected the answer might be 'come back later', but wanted to give it a go anyway.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.