Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geo.plrd 2

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] Geo.plrd

Ended 02:38, 2006-08-24 (UTC)

Geo.plrd (talk · contribs) – When i join i did not realize that my username was inflammatory. I was blocked by Shanel. I then requested to be unblocked to change usernames (pending). I logged off the internet, because I thought it would be a while. Apparently the nominee logged on after me and got the same IP. He/she immediately filed a unblock request. His/her IP changed and he/she was able to edit. Despite being autoblocked, he/she was kind enough to tell the responding admin to look at my request. This unusual behaviour shows that he/she is capable of being trusted with power. I can not find one case where he/she has been a troll.

He/she is a overseer for WP:MOTTO, and is in part responsible for some of the changes there. He/she is a member of medcab who has mediated 10 cases, before recusing for a unknown reason. He/she has been welcoming new users from time to time. He/she has been trying to help as much as possible and I believe he/she should be a admin to allow him to be more valuable to Wikipedia Lordhighdumbass 23:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

i might as well Geo. 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:Probably Abuse reports, I stopped helping there because I am not an admin. Geo. 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:I don't choose favorites, a stance that is part of my philosophy. Geo. 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
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:There were some problems with Zoe back when I first came here, but they were resolved. Geo. 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • See Geo.plrd's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • Previous RfA can be found here. DarthVader 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this a joke/vandalism?--Andeh 23:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think so - I think that it is a fairly reasonable request. DarthVader 23:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Final tally: (0/9/3)
Support
  1. Yes -- Joecrede 01:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    The above support vote was made by User:12.26.69.43. Rje 00:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per low edits. Suggestion to withdraw, lest this be removed per SNOW. SynergeticMaggot 00:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Based on your last 500 edits, you have not worked on any articles. --Ageo020 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I think it was bad judgement to accept a nomination from a user who registered three days ago. Your edit count has improved from the first time you've requested adminship, but your edit summary usage is extremely low (7% for major edits, 0% for minor). Adminship isn't a normal position given to people who've been here a few months - in fact, as Wikipedia grows larger, I think the standards for adminship are getting a lot higher than what they used to be a year or even six months ago (see some of the standards editors have in voting for administrator candidates). Please don't take this personally - I encourage you to keep trying, get involved in the types of pages that administrators are expected to oversee (vandal fighting, XfDs, speedy deletes), join a Wikiproject, and apply for an editor review once you've expanded your activities to get more feedback. Fabricationary 00:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose "Edit summary usage for Geo.plrd: 7% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 27 major and 0 minor edits in the article namespace." I think that says a lot already. Add in the low editcount and low participation rate, etc... and you get where I'm going with this... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. User has only been here for only three months and has less than 800 edits, with less than 30 article edits. Needs more time and experience across all areas of the project before adminship can be seriously considered. Zaxem 01:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Sorry. G.He 01:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - nom statement and questions are the primary reasons, they scream "I'm not ready yet" - in time maybe but not now -- Tawker 01:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Not to pile on, but with almost no mainspace edits, almost no edit summary usage, unbelievably weak answers to questions, barely makes my (very loose) criteria of being an editor for "at least a few months", and a userpage full of userboxes relating to things that I see little proof of the editor actually doing or taking part in, and I must voice my concerns. -- Kicking222 02:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - I'll judge the candidate on his contributions. Most of his contributions to articles (there are a couple of dozen) are inappropriately adding templates that clutter the article - see here and here. - Richardcavell 02:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral. With less than 50 mainspace edits, I feel that you are not experienced enough to be an admin yet. DarthVader 23:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. No need to pile on. Geo, candidates usually have at least 2,000 edits. RFA is a grueling process and I don't think you need to go through this right now. Try again in a few months. Srose (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I prefer at least a few hundred mainspace edits. Feel free to reapply in about October. You'd be a decent admin, yet you're still a bit inexperienced imho. Fellow Esperanzian «ct» (t|e) 00:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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.