User:Wassupwestcoast
run at Sat Dec 8 04:15:16 2007 GMT
Category talk: 10
Category: 19
Mainspace 3137
Portal talk: 1
Talk: 831
Template talk: 2
Template: 39
User talk: 462
User: 163
Wikipedia talk: 81
Wikipedia: 279
avg edits per page 5.29
earliest 23:58, 6 September 2006
number of unique pages 950
total 5024
2006/9 2
2006/10 1
2006/11 0
2006/12 2
2007/1 138
2007/2 367
2007/3 271
2007/4 78
2007/5 179
2007/6 96
2007/7 335
2007/8 963
2007/9 1168
2007/10 855
2007/11 532
2007/12 37
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes
edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
339 Harry and the Potters
171 Episcopal Church in the United States of America
137 Book of Common Prayer
114 Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film)
110 Anglicanism
90 Gene Robinson
86 Anglican Church of Canada
86 Severus Snape
82 Protestantism
82 Anglican realignment
63 The Seeker (film)
61 Bridge to Terabithia (novel)
57 Thomas Cranmer
47 Authorized King James Version
46 Invasive species
Talk:
59 Episcopal Church in the United States of America
48 Book of Common Prayer
43 Harry and the Potters
33 Authorized King James Version
32 Anglicanism
20 Anglican realignment
19 Christmas tree cultivation
19 Bridge to Terabithia (novel)
18 Invasive species
18 Christmas
16 Weed
14 Anglican Church of Canada
13 Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film)
13 The Seeker (film)
13 Roman Catholic Church
Category talk:
3 Environmental non-fiction books
2 Environmentalism
2 Environmental books
Category:
4 WikiProject Horticulture and gardening
3 Ghost towns in British Columbia
2 Environmental books
2 Episcopal Divinity School Alumni
2 Horticulture and Gardening collaboration candidates
Template:
5 Horticulture and Gardening Project
4 Horticulture and Gardening Project COTM article
4 Horticulture and Gardening
4 Anglicanism COTM
4 AnglicanismCOTM article
4 Announcements/Current collaborations
3 Announcements/Community bulletin board
3 InviteHorticulture and Gardening
3 Horticulture and Gardening Project COTM
2 GA number
Template talk:
2 Anglicanism
User:
109 Wassupwestcoast
18 Wassupwestcoast/3 wide userboxes
15 Wassupwestcoast/sandbox
7 Wassupwestcoast/helpful
5 Wassupwestcoast/Autograph Header
3 Wassupwestcoast/Sandbox
3 Wassupwestcoast/helpful1
User talk:
46 Wassupwestcoast
30 Secisek
5 Fishhead64
5 96.4.201.19
4 Galena11
4 Neddyseagoon
4 Tonyseel
3 Presidentman
3 Hpfan9374
3 WesleyDodds
3 EyeSerene
3 76.214.17.55
3 Clariosophic
3 81.109.221.56
3 69.181.208.155
Wikipedia:
35 Good article nominations
22 WikiProject Anglicanism/COTM
16 WikiProject Anglicanism/Participants
15 Good article reassessment
15 WikiProject Anglicanism/Assessments
12 Good articles
11 WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening
11 Naming conventions (schools)/Archive 6
11 WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening/COTM
8 WikiProject Anglicanism/Articles
7 Proposed mergers
6 Editor review/Wassupwestcoast
6 Administrator intervention against vandalism
5 WikiProject Agriculture
4 Requests for page protection
Wikipedia talk:
29 WikiProject Anglicanism
12 Verifiability
8 Good article nominations
7 What is a good article?
5 Good articles
4 WikiProject Anglicanism/Participants
3 WikiProject Agriculture
3 WikiProject Harry Potter/Archive 10
2 WikiProject Films/Style guidelines
2 WikiProject Good articles
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot
.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 04:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
There were two articles that I read that motivated me to apply. The first was User:Keegan/On administrators - and in it there is this paragraph:
Certainly any editor who contributes regularly will at one point or another need the use of the flag. When it becomes a persistent need in editing and the user has proven trustworthy, adminship is no big deal. Even if the user does not desire to delve into any particular backlog or noticeboard, every hand is a helping hand.
That is why I offered to help. I do not understnad the insistence that I have to name which backlog or noticeboard I have a desire to delve into as if naming this or that would demonstrate my trustworthiness.
The other article I read was this article Wikipedia:Administrators - it is linked on the request page - where there is this sub-heading in toto under No big deal:
An often paraphrased comment about adminship is the following, said by Jimbo Wales in February 2003, referring to administrators as sysops:
I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.
I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.
I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.
— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry
I thought, well 'no big deal' and 'every hand is a helping hand' so why not apply? So, I'm having difficulty in parsing the 'opposes', especially in light of a completely voluntary project, especially because the 'opposes' seem to fall into Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. For example, one opposition centres around my self-nom which is addressed at self-nominations. The opposer clearly goes against a major tenant of Wikipedia which is WP:FAITH.
Some opposes seem to lean towards Doesn't need the tools which says in part
Wikipedia benefits from having as many trustworthy administrators as possible. RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential.
Other opposes seem to lean towards Namespace balance which says in part
It's appropriate to oppose a candidate who has done nothing in an area that may be considered a basic: editing, working with other editors, understanding something about Wikipedia policies and the Wikipedia community. But opposing a candidate simply because they do not contribute in the same way that a participant does, or in the way that an "ideal" candidate would, is counterproductive: it can deprive Wikipedia of a good administrator, forcing existing administrators to focus less on the administrative task they prefer to do and more on what they feel they have to do.
I don't really know what to think of this process. While the project needs more help some editors think otherwise for reasons that don't jibe with policy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- My observation that the project needs more help is not without evidence. Two recent complaints at
WP:AN are about no responses after two and five days. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- You make a calm and well-argued case that some arguments against you are essentially
arguments to avoid. I think mine (that you haven't said what you intend to do with tools) is essentially a version of
"Doesn't need the tools". I'd be happy to change my oppose to a support if you could give one example of an administration activity you might get involved in (perhaps with a very brief example).
Kim Dent-Brown
(Talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, the only time I've ever thought it would be handy to be an admin was when I was working on the Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer series of articles. For example, there were duplicate 'dab' pages for Tom Sawyer
[1] at one point. I moved and merged pages (after a week of waiting for comments) - for example,
Talk:List of characters in the Tom Sawyer series#Merge - but talk page histories were a mess. At some point I requested an admin to help me merge histories but I can't find the diff at the moment. Anyway, if I had the 'tools' to merge histories I could have helped Wikipedia clean up a mess faster. By the way, I haven't watchlisted any of the Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn pages for months so I don't know what state they are in now. This is to show a concrete example of how I could help the project: collaborate with editors who find themselves at
Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and are baffled. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nice answer, and good to see you open to feedback - have changed to 'support'. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, the only time I've ever thought it would be handy to be an admin was when I was working on the Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer series of articles. For example, there were duplicate 'dab' pages for Tom Sawyer
[1] at one point. I moved and merged pages (after a week of waiting for comments) - for example,
Talk:List of characters in the Tom Sawyer series#Merge - but talk page histories were a mess. At some point I requested an admin to help me merge histories but I can't find the diff at the moment. Anyway, if I had the 'tools' to merge histories I could have helped Wikipedia clean up a mess faster. By the way, I haven't watchlisted any of the Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn pages for months so I don't know what state they are in now. This is to show a concrete example of how I could help the project: collaborate with editors who find themselves at
Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and are baffled. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- You make a calm and well-argued case that some arguments against you are essentially
arguments to avoid. I think mine (that you haven't said what you intend to do with tools) is essentially a version of
"Doesn't need the tools". I'd be happy to change my oppose to a support if you could give one example of an administration activity you might get involved in (perhaps with a very brief example).
Kim Dent-Brown
(Talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Wassupwestcoast
run at Sat Dec 8 04:15:16 2007 GMT
Category talk: 10
Category: 19
Mainspace 3137
Portal talk: 1
Talk: 831
Template talk: 2
Template: 39
User talk: 462
User: 163
Wikipedia talk: 81
Wikipedia: 279
avg edits per page 5.29
earliest 23:58, 6 September 2006
number of unique pages 950
total 5024
2006/9 2
2006/10 1
2006/11 0
2006/12 2
2007/1 138
2007/2 367
2007/3 271
2007/4 78
2007/5 179
2007/6 96
2007/7 335
2007/8 963
2007/9 1168
2007/10 855
2007/11 532
2007/12 37
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes
edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
339 Harry and the Potters
171 Episcopal Church in the United States of America
137 Book of Common Prayer
114 Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film)
110 Anglicanism
90 Gene Robinson
86 Anglican Church of Canada
86 Severus Snape
82 Protestantism
82 Anglican realignment
63 The Seeker (film)
61 Bridge to Terabithia (novel)
57 Thomas Cranmer
47 Authorized King James Version
46 Invasive species
Talk:
59 Episcopal Church in the United States of America
48 Book of Common Prayer
43 Harry and the Potters
33 Authorized King James Version
32 Anglicanism
20 Anglican realignment
19 Christmas tree cultivation
19 Bridge to Terabithia (novel)
18 Invasive species
18 Christmas
16 Weed
14 Anglican Church of Canada
13 Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film)
13 The Seeker (film)
13 Roman Catholic Church
Category talk:
3 Environmental non-fiction books
2 Environmentalism
2 Environmental books
Category:
4 WikiProject Horticulture and gardening
3 Ghost towns in British Columbia
2 Environmental books
2 Episcopal Divinity School Alumni
2 Horticulture and Gardening collaboration candidates
Template:
5 Horticulture and Gardening Project
4 Horticulture and Gardening Project COTM article
4 Horticulture and Gardening
4 Anglicanism COTM
4 AnglicanismCOTM article
4 Announcements/Current collaborations
3 Announcements/Community bulletin board
3 InviteHorticulture and Gardening
3 Horticulture and Gardening Project COTM
2 GA number
Template talk:
2 Anglicanism
User:
109 Wassupwestcoast
18 Wassupwestcoast/3 wide userboxes
15 Wassupwestcoast/sandbox
7 Wassupwestcoast/helpful
5 Wassupwestcoast/Autograph Header
3 Wassupwestcoast/Sandbox
3 Wassupwestcoast/helpful1
User talk:
46 Wassupwestcoast
30 Secisek
5 Fishhead64
5 96.4.201.19
4 Galena11
4 Neddyseagoon
4 Tonyseel
3 Presidentman
3 Hpfan9374
3 WesleyDodds
3 EyeSerene
3 76.214.17.55
3 Clariosophic
3 81.109.221.56
3 69.181.208.155
Wikipedia:
35 Good article nominations
22 WikiProject Anglicanism/COTM
16 WikiProject Anglicanism/Participants
15 Good article reassessment
15 WikiProject Anglicanism/Assessments
12 Good articles
11 WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening
11 Naming conventions (schools)/Archive 6
11 WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening/COTM
8 WikiProject Anglicanism/Articles
7 Proposed mergers
6 Editor review/Wassupwestcoast
6 Administrator intervention against vandalism
5 WikiProject Agriculture
4 Requests for page protection
Wikipedia talk:
29 WikiProject Anglicanism
12 Verifiability
8 Good article nominations
7 What is a good article?
5 Good articles
4 WikiProject Anglicanism/Participants
3 WikiProject Agriculture
3 WikiProject Harry Potter/Archive 10
2 WikiProject Films/Style guidelines
2 WikiProject Good articles
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot
.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 04:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
There were two articles that I read that motivated me to apply. The first was User:Keegan/On administrators - and in it there is this paragraph:
Certainly any editor who contributes regularly will at one point or another need the use of the flag. When it becomes a persistent need in editing and the user has proven trustworthy, adminship is no big deal. Even if the user does not desire to delve into any particular backlog or noticeboard, every hand is a helping hand.
That is why I offered to help. I do not understnad the insistence that I have to name which backlog or noticeboard I have a desire to delve into as if naming this or that would demonstrate my trustworthiness.
The other article I read was this article Wikipedia:Administrators - it is linked on the request page - where there is this sub-heading in toto under No big deal:
An often paraphrased comment about adminship is the following, said by Jimbo Wales in February 2003, referring to administrators as sysops:
I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.
I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.
I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.
— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry
I thought, well 'no big deal' and 'every hand is a helping hand' so why not apply? So, I'm having difficulty in parsing the 'opposes', especially in light of a completely voluntary project, especially because the 'opposes' seem to fall into Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. For example, one opposition centres around my self-nom which is addressed at self-nominations. The opposer clearly goes against a major tenant of Wikipedia which is WP:FAITH.
Some opposes seem to lean towards Doesn't need the tools which says in part
Wikipedia benefits from having as many trustworthy administrators as possible. RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential.
Other opposes seem to lean towards Namespace balance which says in part
It's appropriate to oppose a candidate who has done nothing in an area that may be considered a basic: editing, working with other editors, understanding something about Wikipedia policies and the Wikipedia community. But opposing a candidate simply because they do not contribute in the same way that a participant does, or in the way that an "ideal" candidate would, is counterproductive: it can deprive Wikipedia of a good administrator, forcing existing administrators to focus less on the administrative task they prefer to do and more on what they feel they have to do.
I don't really know what to think of this process. While the project needs more help some editors think otherwise for reasons that don't jibe with policy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- My observation that the project needs more help is not without evidence. Two recent complaints at
WP:AN are about no responses after two and five days. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- You make a calm and well-argued case that some arguments against you are essentially
arguments to avoid. I think mine (that you haven't said what you intend to do with tools) is essentially a version of
"Doesn't need the tools". I'd be happy to change my oppose to a support if you could give one example of an administration activity you might get involved in (perhaps with a very brief example).
Kim Dent-Brown
(Talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, the only time I've ever thought it would be handy to be an admin was when I was working on the Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer series of articles. For example, there were duplicate 'dab' pages for Tom Sawyer
[1] at one point. I moved and merged pages (after a week of waiting for comments) - for example,
Talk:List of characters in the Tom Sawyer series#Merge - but talk page histories were a mess. At some point I requested an admin to help me merge histories but I can't find the diff at the moment. Anyway, if I had the 'tools' to merge histories I could have helped Wikipedia clean up a mess faster. By the way, I haven't watchlisted any of the Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn pages for months so I don't know what state they are in now. This is to show a concrete example of how I could help the project: collaborate with editors who find themselves at
Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and are baffled. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nice answer, and good to see you open to feedback - have changed to 'support'. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, the only time I've ever thought it would be handy to be an admin was when I was working on the Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer series of articles. For example, there were duplicate 'dab' pages for Tom Sawyer
[1] at one point. I moved and merged pages (after a week of waiting for comments) - for example,
Talk:List of characters in the Tom Sawyer series#Merge - but talk page histories were a mess. At some point I requested an admin to help me merge histories but I can't find the diff at the moment. Anyway, if I had the 'tools' to merge histories I could have helped Wikipedia clean up a mess faster. By the way, I haven't watchlisted any of the Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn pages for months so I don't know what state they are in now. This is to show a concrete example of how I could help the project: collaborate with editors who find themselves at
Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and are baffled. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- You make a calm and well-argued case that some arguments against you are essentially
arguments to avoid. I think mine (that you haven't said what you intend to do with tools) is essentially a version of
"Doesn't need the tools". I'd be happy to change my oppose to a support if you could give one example of an administration activity you might get involved in (perhaps with a very brief example).
Kim Dent-Brown
(Talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)