Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gwynand

Edit count for Gwynand

User:Gwynand

   run at Wed Jul 16 18:50:23 2008 GMT

   Help talk:             1
   Mainspace              758
   Talk:                  254
   User talk:             785
   User:                  52
   Wikipedia talk:        187
   Wikipedia:             458
   avg edits per page     4.47
   earliest               14:40, 31 January 2007
   number of unique pages 558
   total                  2495

   2007/1  1
   2007/2  0
   2007/3  0
   2007/4  0
   2007/5  0
   2007/6  94
   2007/7  103
   2007/8  13
   2007/9  0
   2007/10 2
   2007/11 3
   2007/12 31
   2008/1  252
   2008/2  78
   2008/3  184
   2008/4  349
   2008/5  687
   2008/6  542
   2008/7  156

   (green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red
   denotes edits without an edit summary)

             Mainspace
   45 [2]Cloverfield
   41 [3]American Idol (season 7)
   39 [4]David Archuleta
   20 [5]List of Big Love episodes
   20 [6]Wii Fit
   19 [7]Brad Renfro
   16 [8]Ocean's Thirteen
   16 [9]Goodfellas
   16 [10]American Idol
   16 [11]Big Love
   15 [12]John from Cincinnati
   14 [13]Suicide of Megan Meier
   13 [14]Magibon
   13 [15]1995 Japanese Grand Prix
   13 [16]Ramiele Malubay

                     Talk:
   37 [17]Cloverfield
   23 [18]American Idol (season 7)
   19 [19]David Archuleta
   18 [20]Big Love
   14 [21]Murder of Eve Carson
   12 [22]1995 Japanese Grand Prix
   11 [23]Magibon
   10 [24]Sunshine (2007 film)
   8  [25]Road to Rupert
   7  [26]Atlanta Braves
   6  [27]Suicide of Megan Meier/Archive 1
   5  [28]Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
   5  [29]John from Cincinnati
   5  [30]Wii Fit
   4  [31]Baseball uniform

            User:
   22 [32]Gwynand
   13 [33]Pedro/Mentoring
   3  [34]Gwynand/RfA review
   2  [35]Dusti/AC
   2  [36]D.M.N.

         User talk:
   222 [37]Keeper76
   94  [38]Gwynand
   19  [39]Pedro
   18  [40]Pedro/Mentoring
   16  [41]RyRy
   16  [42]Steve Crossin
   16  [43]Rudget
   14  [44]Malleus Fatuorum
   13  [45]Orangemarlin
   10  [46]Xp54321
   9   [47]Dusti/Userpage
   9   [48]EVula
   9   [49]Naerii
   8   [50]StewieGriffin!
   8   [51]Carter

                             Wikipedia:
   107 [52]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
   36  [53]Administrators' noticeboard
   13  [54]Requests for adminship/Philosopher
   11  [55]Requests for adminship/Carter 2
   10  [56]Requests for adminship/Ali'i
   8   [57]Requests for adminship/Fritzpoll
   8   [58]Requests for adminship/Gwynand
   8   [59]Requests for adminship/Kumioko
   7   [60]Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
   7   [61]Requests for adminship/Ryan
   6   [62]Requests for adminship/Morhange
   6   [63]Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center
   6   [64]Articles for deletion/Eve Carson
   6   [65]Radio Wikipedia
   5   [66]Requests for adminship/TreasuryTag

                            Wikipedia talk:
   119 [67]Requests for adminship
   14  [68]Notability (criminal acts)
   10  [69]Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5
   10  [70]Biographies of living persons
   7   [71]Requests for adminship/WBOSITG 2
   5   [72]Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3
   5   [73]Administrators' noticeboard
   4   [74]Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2/Bureaucrat discussion
   3   [75]Requests for rollback
   2   [76]WikiProject Family Guy
   2   [77]Requests for adminship/Morhange

   If there were any problems, please [78]email Interiot or post at
   [79]User talk:Interiot.

The edit count was retrieved from this link at 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

Kurt's oppose

Oppose — Absolutely not. Gwynand's choice of username is, unfortunately, particularly apt. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I do." Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I've kept my mouth shut in regards to your opposes because of our own difference of opinion on unrelated matters, and I've actually found some merit in a few of your opposes. Opposing someone because of their choice of username? Seriously? Good gravy, that is by far the most meaningless and arbitrary oppose I've seen from you yet. Screw good faith and all that, you're "oppose" here is nothing short of disruptive. Unbelievable. Keeper ǀ 76 01:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think his choice of username was why I opposed? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you didn't mention anything else might have attributed.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 02:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I never said that his username was the reason for my opposition should have been a hint that his username was in fact not the reason for my oppose. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said "absolutely not. Gwynand's choice of username is...apt". WTF, Kurt? What else are we supposed to think? In other words, what Koji said. Keeper ǀ 76 02:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a standard "power hunger" oppose with slightly more clever wording. –xeno (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? If anyone's entitled to understand my reasoning, it's the nominee himself--and my meaning was apparently plenty clear to him. As long as the nominee understands it, I see no need to waste my time explaining it to someone who chooses to get in an indignant huff based on a patently ridiculous interpretation of my comment rather than simply ask himself what it means to say that someone's choice of username is "particularly apt." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should all be able to understand your reasoning, because an RFA is supposed to be a discussion, not a straight yes/no vote. If you know something about the candidate that can help other people make up their minds, then why not try to influence other people? If nothing else, at least the closing bureaucrat should be able to understand your reasoning. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the rest of you don't have to do your own detective work, Gwynand's username is based on this character from an Ayn Rand novel. –xeno (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get off topic, but I'm surprised that articles is not better referenced given the out of universe commentary found in atricles on Google scholar. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure why you're opposing over power hunger (I understand the reference, though the only Rand I've read was Anthem). There's no self-nomination and the candidate wasn't, as far as I could tell, coached. The user's philosophy towards cool-down blocks is unclear, as that question hasn't been asked. The only thing I could think of is that the user intends to apply speedy deletion in their admin work, which is something Kurt is adamantly opposed to except in the most extreme of cases. —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt has clarified on his talk page: Eh, I was a bit preoccupied, sorry. Basically, it is this: you are clearly an intelligent and capable writer. But rather than directing your efforts to true productive activities, most of your time on Wikipedia has been spent socializing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC) . ( –xeno (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC) )[reply]
That's pretty reasonable, I think. I don't quite remember, but I think I may have opposed a user for those same reasons before. —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with Kurt. You cann't oppose someone just because of their of username. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just been clarified that it isn't the username. Gary King (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as you'd strongly disagree, I'd strongly suggest you get a feel for a discussion before commenting. It saves you the trouble of saying things that have been said and answered before. :) —  scetoaux (T|C) 05:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little surprised that nobody looked up Gwynand before jumping on Kurt's vote. It is pretty obvious that the reason that Kurt is opposing was related to the character Gwynand---and I never read Rand---but based upon Kurt's other votes, I figured that Gwynand was in some way "power hungry." And while I normally don't agree with Kurt, in this case I think he might be right.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Balloonman here, I suppose I can see why people jumped on him, however, the phrasing of the oppose did indicate that the name implied something, not that it was the username itself. I'm referring to use of the term "apt". Nevertheless, I'm not clear on why there's an allegation of power hunger here. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does my explanation below highlight why we may have these concerns?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up, and then didn't jump on him. (Google search led me back to Gwynand's talk page for the answer, ironic). –xeno (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify. I did ask Kurt on his talk if he would mind letting me know if he thought I act like Gail Wynand, and how so. To sum up - Wynand was a power hungry jerk, but hard to call him evil... you'd have to read the massive The Fountainhead to truly understand him. I admitted to Kurt that if anyone was indeed acting like Wynand, they would be the worst admin ever.

Considering I had spoken with Kurt in the past, and it was always generally pleasant, I did let him know that I was totally surprised with the "absolutely not" vote from him, and the comparison to Wynand. Kurt's explanation eased the pain... in the novel, Wynand is "the man who could have been" (what Kurt had put in the edit summary). Also hard to explain here, but basically the notion that Wynand desired "greatness" but failed. His response was about my socializing when I could be doing other work looks to be the reason for his oppose, not because he thinks I'm some miserable power hungry jerk :)... or at least that's what I took from it.

So, Kurt knew that I would somewhat understand his vote, (we had discussed Fountainhead in the past), but at the same time, he was probably aware that most wouldn't understand it. I'm glad it was ironed out in the end. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be a jerk too if I were a dude named Gail. Keepscases (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I didn't catch the name as a reference to The Fountainhead's Gail Wynand, and assumed it was some sort of Welsh/Celtic name... --Groggy Dice T | C 13:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman's oppose

Wow, I think this is the first time I've moved one of my own opposes to the talk pages!

I can't support at this time. The candidate has only been around for a limited time period and has little over 2500 edits. Almost 10% of his edits are on his nom's page---which seems awefully high especially when you consider that represents over 1/4th of his user talk edits. But I'm also concerned where his wikispace edits are focused. Almost all of his edits in the wikispace are in the arena of RfA's---which does strike me as preparing to pass an RfA which would explain why his answers seem "too good." I'd much rather see somebody with more diverse edits and contributions to other adminly areas before going for an RfA. But this seems entirely too early.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Balloonman, it's very unlike me to question opposes, although it does happen from time to time. I just have a question regarding that last comment you inserted. Are you insinuating that the candidate has hung around RfA in order to garner the know-how to pass? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In short yes. (And I know that some will think that is hypocritical because I am a strong supporter of admin coaching, but the difference is that I don't see the goal of admin coaching is to game the system, but rather to help educate candidates on the whole of wikipedia.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but what does that say about the myriad of RfA regulars that we have? We're abound with them. Myself, you, and others included. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few differences.
I think your selection of examples is off. Many of us (you and I for example) are already admins. Thus, we aren't here to learn how to answer the questions. (EDIT: Note, I thought the above question was from Keeper!)

A better comparison would have been people such as Wisdom89 or Engimaman. They are both active here, but are not admins. The difference between somebody such as Wisdom/Enigma and Gwynand is that Wisdom/Enigma are active elsewhere and have proven themselves---both have over 12K edits and thus this is just one niche. EDIT: People like Wisdom/Enigma have solid footprints elsewhere, so that we know that their contributions here is part of their commitment to the project and this aspect of the project.

But let's bring up a third category. The potential candidate with a year's experience, has 6-8000 edits, has been involved in XfD, Helpdesk, BLP, FAC, etc. That person is thinking about running for RfA. In preparation he comes and spends a month getting to "know" the system, would I oppose him/her? No, in fact, I would praise him/her for their preparation. That person has a proven record elsewhere and can substantiate his/her experience. It is when a candidate with very little experience and barely 6 months consecutive activity, almost 10% of his edits on his noms talk page and another 10% of his total edits related to RfA's. That's right almost 10% of his relatively few edits are related to RfA's... that strikes me as a person who has his/her "eyes on the prize". An otherwise qualified candidate would not get this oppose.

Wow, this was more about the candidate than I expected. I Moved it here, because I didn't think I'd be commenting about the candidate's qualifications, but rather more theoretical.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an admin. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why you are listed under bullet 2---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although there seems to be some contradiction on that point, but it seems moot since I understand what you are saying. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the candidate was otherwise qualified, I wouldn't have been bothered. It's the fact that this attention to adminship comes from somebody who doesn't meet my minimum criteria that throws it over the top!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify things for me - multi-niched applicants is what you look for, not just RfA heavy and unilateral. I gotcha. Regarding your reference to me. Points 1 and 2 seem to contradict themselves, that's all I meant by that cmt. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe my edit helped?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, all is crystal clear : ) I just like picking your brain. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I just realized why my comments in bullet 1 and 2 were contradictory... I thought it was Keeper who asked the question!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought I was unique and special - thanks BM! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]