Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Wassupwestcoast

Edit count for Wassupwestcoast
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).

On administrators
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 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 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 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 -  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 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)