Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Land 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] The Land

final (35/10/0) ending 18:49 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Land (talk · contribs) – I received a lot of encouraging comments in an RfA a while back. I've now made enough contributions to get to something like 1300 edits (though deleted edits aren't included in that), across all areas and have participated a fair bit on IRC.

I've also run into some more 'interesting' situations, like [1], done more vandal-fighting, encountered blocking and protection a lot more. I've also contributed more content to a string of economic articles. In short I think I've addressed the issues about broader knowledge and experience and I hope you can support me this time. The Land 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. The Land 18:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. First Post! seen this editor around and always thought he was sensible. Good egg in my estimation. Hamster Sandwich 18:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support active on talk pages and wikipedia namespace, and uses edit summaries nicely, which is a big plus. not likely to abuse admin tools.--Alhutch 19:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Massive dose of support. He's pretty good. BD2412 T 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. I went out on a limb in his last RfA and supported him. I thought I was going to be the only one. This time I already know I won't. I will, however, reiterate some of what I said then, "Level-headed? Check. Civil? 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." --LV (Dark Mark) 19:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support - everything seems good. Chick Bowen 19:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Izehar (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support We need more admins watching where the money goes... I mean watching economic topics. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support --Aranda 56 00:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support We need more admins, issues in last RfA seem addressed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Coming back from Wiki-break to support. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support has proved himself. No big deal.Gator (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support --pgk(talk) 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Merovingian 00:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Seems like a good user, from his edit history and what I've seen of him at AfC. Leithp (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. A good contributor, with well rounded contributions both with articles and with janitorial work. Looking through the contributions I see a responsible editor who I think would do well with the admin tools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support ∾ The Land is level-headed, reasonable, and knowledgeable. Wikipedia will benefit from giving the mop and bucket to The Land. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. SupportGood editor. Banes 16:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Even though I have never worked with him, the fact that he has had 500 edits since his last RfA is merit enough in my books. I didn't vote in his last RfA, mostly because in October I was just starting to take interest in this side of Wiki. With that said, I'd say let's go for it. --Martin Osterman 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Kinda disappointed he self-nommed (I could name half a dozen people who'd probably be happy to nominate him), especially so soon after his last RfA. That said, he is a Top Bloke with a level head and the ability to shoot laser beams from his eyes, so I don't really have any choice in the matter. Support. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Probably was good enough last time, just not active enough for people to see it. Under the circumstances, waiting over a month to re-nominate is plenty long enough. --Michael Snow 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support Because he's always been a nice guy to me, and we need more nice admins. karmafist 02:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. Strong support; oppose votes go against long-standing consensus that RfA renominations do not need to wait for arbitrary periods. Ambi 03:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support Seems competent and sensible enough to use admin tools for good. --Whouk (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support Martin 00:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support, seems like a good, upstanding Wikipedian. So why wait to give him the mop.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  28. Guettarda 17:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. In this user's previous RFA, many opposed because The Land had been idle for a while and had a "low" edit count (hahaha). Now, people are opposing because The Land, after fixing those problems, presented the solution "too soon". In both RFAs, so far, not one person has opposed for any other reason besides these two. Nobody has been able to come up with any reason why this user could not make perfectly good use of the extra abilities. silsor 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  30. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 18:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  31. Close but not too soon for me to oppose. Hmm, that didn't come out right. El_C 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support per silsor. The Land had not a single oppose vote based on anything he did. He withdrew after a few days and waited almost seven weeks before renominating himself. He has shown fine judgment in biding his time and even if you think that an editor who has things to "fix" should hold off for 2-3 months to show improvement, that seems to be inapplicable here. -- DS1953 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. That he was turned down recently doesn't mean he has to be turned down now. —Simetrical (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support as per Sjakkalle. Thryduulf 18:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support as per last time. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose RfA's should not be re-considered for 2-3 months --rogerd 03:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, barely over a month since last RfA. Am opposing now because I don't feel I'll get guff now. Quentin Pierce 03:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure you will. The candidate has made 500 edits since his last RfA. That gives us plenty of evidence of his responsibility or lack thereof. What else would we be voting on? Chick Bowen 03:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • this might be kind of stupid question, but why does it matter how long it's been since the last RfA for this user?--Alhutch 04:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It allows an opportunity for the editor to demonstrate improvement on the points raised in the last RfA. --Durin 13:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Durin's right-- however, he was opposed based on low time IIRC, making such an oppose ridiculous. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Low edit count perhaps, but I don't think you can say low time about someone who started editing in 2004. --Michael Snow 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Is 500 edits not enough to demonstrate what you want to see? Raven4x4x 06:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Nothing against the user, but let's not set a precedent of quick re-consideration bids. Take a little time to work things out. —thames 16:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. For the reasons listed above, and the low edit count. BlankVerse 18:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I do favor a longer waiting time between nominations, but I'll be glad to support next nom. Xoloz 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Too soon after last nom. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 05:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, too soon after previous nomination. No evidence of having addressed the criticism mentioned in that RFA. Radiant_>|< 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    What criticism? Am I missing something? -- DS1953 18:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I feel pretty much the way the other opposers do, not enough time to see if this user has taken previous criticism to heart. Perhaps in the future I will support... but not now.  ALKIVAR™ 10:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose as self-noms should be spaced further apart. Will most likely support in future, but still too soon. Turnstep 19:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, need a little more time since last RFA. HGB 01:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral barely over a month since last RfA, would oppose, but I'd probably get guff for it. Quentin Pierce 22:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I believe it should say ending December 13, not December 6, right?--Alhutch 19:07, 6 December 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. My main contributions would be janitorial, on AfD and Newpages. However, I will probably also increase the amount of vandalwhacking I do, and I've already encountered occasions when I would have found it useful to {{vprotect}}. I would also continue to act in an adminly fashion at WP:AfC, though hopefully there will be no need for admin powers on that page.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have done, and will continue to do, improvement work on a whole range of economics topics, like Economic policy, Interest rate, Socialist economics and a number off others. In terms of wikiministrative stuff, I'm somewhat proud ofclarifying this point, which I think helped save a fair amount of stress and trouble.
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 not been engaged in any big conflicts, though I have had some people (like User:IndigoGenius) rather stressed at me. I don't think I've ever got more than mildly snappy, even when (like the Unguided Evolution deletion debate linked above) I have felt very angry. I am generally quite cool-headed under pressure, and not afraid to do things like ask difficult but necessary questions.
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.