Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geomapboy2


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

Geomapboy2
Final (0/10/0) ended 09:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 

– I am a regular on wikipedia and have contrubuted over 300 articles mostly on North and South Carolina. I have been elsewhere on wikipedia and have done editing work that I thought was needed to cleanup the page. If i am accepted as an adminstrator, i will take part to remove indecent material from wikipedia so that young people will have a better place to do research on the internet. Brandon 06:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept the nomination for administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geomapboy2 (talk • contribs)


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - from questions no need for admin tools needed. WP is NOT censored (though TB2 seems to think it is, but thats another story) -- Tawker 05:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The generally accepted minimum for becoming an admin is at least 1000 edits. You have less than 500. I also question your reasons for becoming an admin (deleting material innapropriate for children). This is not a good reason for requesting admin. Sorry. Alphachimp  talk  05:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Few edits, almost none outside article space. Also, wikipedia is not censored, no matter how much we agree or disagree with that, any more than the Britannica is. Pornographic vandalism is one thing; encyclopædic material another. -- Avi 05:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Have a look at my criteria. Also, Wikipedia is not censored, among many other concerns. On a side note, I don't think other contributors are nice to you because you're from the Southern United States. (There are contributors from every corner of the world on here :-) Grand  master  ka  05:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Far too early in your Wiki-career to request admin status. The answers to the questions below don't demonstrate a knowledge of Wiki policy or protocols or a contribution to some of the ongoing Wikiprojects.  Take the time to become more involved with Wikipedia before either self-nominating or being nominated by a fellow editor.   (aeropagitica)   (talk)   06:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose due to lack of experience. -- Will Mak  050389  06:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose on lack of experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose No concept of one of the basic Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not censored --mboverload @ 08:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Wikipedia is not cencored. Surely one on RfA should know that? Steve-o 08:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose weak questions, appears to only want admin to remove material they find offensive. Poor nom, very few edits in all areas, bound to lack policy understanding.-- Andeh 09:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Comments
 * Comment: I suggest a bureaucrat remove this nomination early, to prevent a pile-on. --M e rovingian { T C @ } 08:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The claim that he has contributed to over 300 articles on Wikipedia doesn't seem to be very accurate, since the editor has less than 200 edits. (Perhaps he's including edits as an unregistered user?) Just an observation. -- Captain Disdain 08:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See Geomapboy2's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.



--Viewing contribution data for user Geomapboy2 (over the 182 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 182 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 12, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 15hr (UTC) -- 12, January, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 182 edits): Major edits: 8.67% Minor edits: 77.78% Average edits per day: 1 (for last 182 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 146 edits) : Major article edits: 10.87% Minor article edits: 87.5% Analysis of edits (out of all 182 edits shown of this page): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.55% (1) Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 2.2% (4) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 9.89% (18) Minor article edits marked as minor: 31.82% Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 75 | Average edits per page: 2.43 | Edits on top: 13.74% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 8.24% (15 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 3.85% (7 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 0% (0 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 86.81% (158 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 80.22% (146) | Article talk: 0% (0) User: 10.44% (19) | User talk: 2.75% (5) Wikipedia: 6.04% (11) | Wikipedia talk: 0% (0) Image: 0% (0) Template: 0% (0) Category: 0.55% (1) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0% (0)

Username	Geomapboy2 Total edits	182 Distinct pages edited	75 Average edits/page	2.427 First edit	19:59, 12 January 2006 (main)	146 User	19 User talk	5 Category	1 Wikipedia	11
 * Geomapboy2's edit count using Interiot's tool
 * -- Andeh 09:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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: Like I said, wikipedia is becoming more of a research site. I would like, if I am elected administrator, indecent material so that young people will visit this site to do their research.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: So far, I have been pleased with every single one of my contributions to wikipedia. These articles mean alot not only to wikipedia, but to the people of North and South Carolina.


 * 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: In all my time on wikipedia, I have not had a single problem with an article other than that it needed major editing and i kindly oblidged to edit it. As for the users, i have not had a problem with the users.  They are rele friendly and since i'm from the south, they treat you like you're family.
 * 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.