Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KimvdLinde

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kzollman (talk | contribs) at 02:48, 28 May 2006 (→[[User:KimvdLinde|KimvdLinde]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

KimvdLinde

Discuss here (67/3/2) ending 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

KimvdLinde (talk · contribs) -- I am pleased to nominate Kim van der Linde for adminship. Kim has been editing for several months with more than 5000 contribution, is an active vandal fighter, makes good use of project pages such as WP:AIV, and communicates civily with other editors. Kim's recent article rewrite is now a good article candidate. Additionally Kim is multilingual, a big help when dealing with editors with limited english from an admin standpoint. — xaosflux Talk 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am happy to accept the nomination. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Nominator support. — xaosflux Talk 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per xaosflux Talk. Definitely worthy of moving up in the ranks. Mostly Rainy 02:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Excellent editor, excellent nominator, excellent rewrite -- a sort of trifecta here! :) Xoloz 02:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support for this worthy candidate. Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support JoshuaZ 02:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Antandrus. G.He 02:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Good all-round editor. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, admins with specific expertise in subject areas are a bonus -- Samir धर्म 03:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - looks good abakharev 03:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support.™ --Rory096 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Good work in several arenas. -- Kukini 04:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support with no doubts that Kimvd will make an excellent admin. Gwernol 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Good & Sold contributions. Deiaemeth 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support hardworking, sane, constructive, knowledgeable. Pete.Hurd 04:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support The little deranged voices in my head are agreeing with the other users above. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 05:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support very strong editor, I have no doubt he will use the mop well -- Deville (Talk) 05:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 05:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support--Jusjih 06:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support edits look fine to me.--MONGO 06:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Excellent candidate for adminship.--Firsfron 06:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. looks good.Voice-of-AllTalk 07:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per nom and above. DarthVader 07:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, looks good. --Tone 08:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Looked good after only reading opposition. She stays civil under fire. Impressive.--Kchase02 (T) 09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Yessrao >> Good Candidate
  29. Support. I have seen a lot of good work on the troll-paths from this user. Rje 10:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support- I think Kim would use the admin powers as they're intended. Reyk YO! 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Terence Ong 12:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - looks pretty impressive to me. BTLizard 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. --Limegreen 12:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. FeedThePigeons 13:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per nom. Axiomm 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Has been involved in some controversy, but has managed to stay cool under pressure. That's a good quality for an admin, since they'll be expected to be involved in controversy. --Elkman 12:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support managing your cool under pressure can be a very hard thing to do, so I congratulate you. Master of Puppets That's hot. 13:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Rfa cliché #1. RadioKirk talk to me 13:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. --ForestH2
  41. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 15:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, not bad for someone who wastes time fighting vandals (see user:ShootJar/Proposal for more on why vandal fighting isn't needed). ShortJason 15:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support combination of expertise and tact, committed to high standards, values contributions of others, and strong committment to WP ethosGleng 16:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, would make good use of the mop. Highly unlikely to abuse admin powers. Royboycrashfan 16:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Has a refreshingly different, collaborative and self-effacing approach. Also see my reply to Ted. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Kusma (討論) 21:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Getting another evolution-related article up to featured standards was my proposal a few months back; I'm glad someone's actually doing it! --Cyde↔Weys 21:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support--blue520 23:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, level headed, civil, and professional. Kuru talk 23:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Merovingian {T C @} 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, strong technical writer, good understanding of NPOV and has shown an excellent touch in guiding new users in policy. Will be an excellent admin. Rockpocket (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Agree with above statement, will be an excellent admin. Garion96 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. from left-wing Darwinek ;). - Darwinek 11:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Good contributor. Afonso Silva 11:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Bandwagon support. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support - she's a great asset to the project. Guettarda 13:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. —Ruud 13:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per above. -- SCZenz 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Wholehearted support. Tons of good edits, and a history of constructive comments. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support to death Can't beelive she wasn't already admin!!—Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Jay(Reply) 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Extremely good contributor. With 5,000 + edits she deserves to be an admin.Jordy 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Nothing but good contributions fromthis editor - the mop is definetely in order. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 18:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Great contributor who I've observed working well with some very difficult users. Danielross40 19:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support per above -- excellent candidate. Jkelly 22:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, would make a great addition. Sarge Baldy 23:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong Support. I've seen this user around a lot, the user meets my specs, and I would trust the user with admin tools. ~LinuxeristFile:Tux-linux logo.svg E/L/T 02:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose. Unfortunately, Kim tends to use Wikipedia to push her POV. She was unable to work with another editor and started an RfA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Marcosantezana) against an editor that is basically a POV war. Unfortunately for Marcos, he doesn't follow the rules. Kim uses the rules as a bludgeon. She tries different tactics to get her POV across, such as creating a disambiguation page to push her views (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=51839832). I'm sure she is well-meaning, but I fear her definition of consensus is when editors agree with her (note this comment after several editors tried to work on a decent introduction to Natural selection: [1]. What she is saying is that she is ready to tear apart the article, Natural selection over a dispute with me). What she was trying to do was to recast everyone who didn't agree with her as pushing "Darwinian Natural Selection" and her view as "Modern Natural Selection." She did the same thing to Quantitative genetics, and I eventually stopped editing articles that she owns. Another example of unilateral action: [2]. Basically, I believe that Kim will use the admin tools to push her version of The Truth. As I have said on another admin candidate, there is nothing more horifying than an admin who knows The Truth.Ted 06:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where TedE's is coming from here (while disagreeing on many points, YMMV, see answer to question 3 for more info on this episode). To address just the one clearest point of disagreement, I think it's really a mischaracterization of the Marcosantezana RFAr to depict it as either a POV war, or as something initiated by Kim alone. In the weeks leading up to the RFAr I had several discussions with at least two other editors who were considering filing an RFAr over Marcosantezana's behaviour on that article. I don't think the RFAr was in anyway inappropriate, and I think it's worth noting the unanimous votes by the arbcomm members against Marcosantezana in the case in question. Pete.Hurd 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Pete, and would add that the disagreements over the definition of natural selection were not solely or primarily driven by Kim; it was something a whole bunch of editors were involved in. In fact, Kim contributed significantly to the eventual resolution of the dispute, which is what your cited disambiguation page shows. I would grant all editors, admin or not, the privilege of being bold. Kim has not to my knowledge engaged in edit-warring with Marcos (in contrast with other editors and admins), but has instead been diligent to seek avenues for conflict resolution, and left space for the benefit of a doubt. Marcos on his part has singled out Kim and blamed various actions taken against him on her, when she was not in fact involved or on occasions informed, to my knowledge. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I encourage any editors who are concerned about the arbcomm case to read the evidence to form their own view. If it does anything it shows what a good candidate Kim is. Please note that I presented most of the evidence in this case having never engaged in a content dispute with Marcos. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Ted is 100% correct. Wikipedia needs moderate admins. But this user proudly claims "I am a left wing lesbian" [3]. Additionally, this user is not fluent in English [4][5] and might be better suited to be an admin on the Dutch site. Lou franklin 02:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no reason to require that all editors either be straight, or stay closeted, to become administrators. I may be wrong, but my guess would be that of Kim's circa 6000 edits, this is the only to discuss her putative orientation, and this diff totally fails to demonstrate any POV pushing. I also note that Arbcomm has indefinately banned User:Lou franklin from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, the article whose talk page this diff comes from, and is on personal attack parole. Pete.Hurd 03:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is ironic that I used it there because I wanted to illustrate that I, as a lesbian, was agreeing that the Societal attitudes towards homosexuality article was at places POV towards being to positive about those societal attitudes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opposing a candidate on the basis of sexual and political orientation. Brilliant. Luckily this kind of discrimination is illegal in most countries. --Cyde↔Weys 03:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good grief. I have worked with Kim extensively recently and I think she has been a model of objective, considered, balanced judgement. Anything she lacks in awareness of subtleties of grammar she more than makes up for in the clarity of her logic - this is a much rarer virtue in WP, and should be the more prized because of itGleng 12:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Wikipedia needs editors who follow WP:NPOV; their real-life political views don't matter at all. -- SCZenz 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Ted is right. Kim will use the admin tools to push her version of The Truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernando Cortez (talk • contribs)

Neutral

  1. neutral: Ombudsman 06:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reason why? --Rory096 06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. robchurch | talk 22:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 06:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user KimvdLinde (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 117 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 26, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 30, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 73.3% Minor edits: 95.77%
Article edit summary use (last 426 edits) : Major article edits: 97.71% Minor article edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 78.28 (for last 500 edit(s))
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 3.22% (161)
Unique pages edited: 1222 | Average edits per page: 4.09 | Edits on top: 9.36%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 22.12% (1106 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 26.06% (1303 edit(s))
Marked reverts: 16.66% (833 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 35.16% (1758 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 43.06% (2153) | Article talk: 22% (1100)
User: 6.7% (335) | User talk: 14.56% (728)
Wikipedia: 9.06% (453) | Wikipedia talk: 3.14% (157)
Image: 0.36% (18)
Template: 0.62% (31)
Category: 0.1% (5)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.4% (20)
  • KimvdLinde's edit summary usage from Mathbot's tool.
    97% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
  • Contribution breakdown
Username KimvdLinde
Total edits:5039
Distinct pages edited 1290
Average edits/page 3.906
First edit 2006-01-30 02:25:22
(main) 2161
Talk 1109
User 358
User talk 729
Image 18
Image talk 2
Template 31
Template talk 10
Category 5
Wikipedia 452
Wikipedia talk 157
Portal talk 7

Questions for the candidate
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:

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: I will probably be active at different places. I do a decent share of vandalism fighting and I encounter frequently vandalism that has not been cleaned up after days, probably because not many editors have those pages on their watchlist. I expect to frequent WP:AN/3RR and WP:AIV as they have at odd times significant backlogs, and I expect to slowly work my way to more complex cases. Furthermore, things like the deletions of obvious copyright violations, speedy deletions requested moves and closing AfD's at times, moving requested pages when appropriate, etc. -- Kim van der Linde at venus
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am personally pleased with my contributions to the Natural selection page, which IMHO, was a mess before. Currently, I try to update the many pages related to the Parrots (order Psittaciformes). The phylogeny in that group has been subject to many changes, which poses its own challenges as the phylogeny has not been resolved fully. By nature of the Tree of life project, this requires updating many many seperate pages. In that context, one of the articles on the Australian Ringneck has been labelled as a good article. I admit, I do not work on a single article to bring it to featured article status, but work on many articles because I think that it is in the first place crucial that the information is correct and updating several hundered of pages related to a whole group of organisms is not going to be recognized quickly in the form of a featuered article, but bringing such a section up to date is essential for the quality of Wikipedia. This has also inflates my edit count, so consider it somewhat lower than it shows. -- Kim van der Linde at venus
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 general, I am not quickly stressed, although I have to admit that I got stressed when I saw this post, especially after s/he had posted this before. The exact motivation why this stressed me out can be found here. In this particular instance, I just slept a night over it, and the next morning, it was pretty much gone. I personally do think that it is not worth to get frustrated with other editors. Everybody does her/his best, and if not, refering to policies and guidelines works pretty well in many cases. And extreme cases, there is the dispute resolution process. -- Kim van der Linde at venus
Comment Why don't you mention your edit war with Marcos? Have you learned anything from that? I think you are downplaying your stress level -- you seem to threaten to stop editing quite a bit. Ted 07:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have mentioned the situation with Marcosantezana and the arbitration case, however, it has not caused me significant stress. I would like to note that I agree in a large part with Marcosantezana on what the content of the Natural selection article should be. As to the resignment statement, I have learned not to engage in every possible (content) conflict but to choose those that are worth putting energy in. I am here in my own free time to contribute to an encyclopedia, and there are more than enough articles for me to work on. So, I sometimes just do not see the need for endless content discussions when I feel that the large majority of the editors disagrees with me on that content as was the case with the Natural selection article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/KimvdLinde&oldid=55511201"