Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Schzmo3

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

Schzmo

[edit]

Final (9/7/4) Ended 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Schzmo (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for about 6 months now and I have more than 3400 edits. I think I have a comfortable understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines so I can make a good admin. I've spent a lot of time creating and improving articles about plants (see my user page for articles I've written/expanded) and I am a member of the Plants WikiProject. I've also worked a good deal on RC Patrol, reverting vandalism, and participating in ***** for Deletion discussions. I'm an calm, easygoing person who understands and readily sympathizes with other users, which is a good quality for an admin. (NOTE: My other two RfAs can be seen here and here.) SCHZMO ✍ 21:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Withdrawn. I see this is getting nowhere, and people are just going to oppose me for silly reasons like too many RfAs. I guess I won't try again for about a year, unless someone else nominates me. Schzmo 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support. Not all of the activities you described in Q1 require admin tools, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Your contributions look good to me. Meets my criteria (I forgive the ten fewer WP-space edits than my threshold :-)) Grandmasterka 22:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Merovingian {T C @} 22:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good answers to questions and a good spread of edits in the last 1500 contributions - particularly strong in vandalfighting and reverting bad edits. One point to observe, though: when leaving messages on user Talk pages such as [1], [2], [3] and [4], it is always good to be able to tell a user why they need to do something and how to do it, pointing to policy pages as appropriate. It's not a dealbreaker, but an admin should be prepared to justify their actions and decisions in an effort to be friendly and not purely doing their job.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support concerns from RfA2 included only experience, and that has now been met. I would have preferred to see you wait for someone to nominate you instead of self-nomming again. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I was close last time, and my concerns appear to be addressed. -- JamesTeterenko 01:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support like I did last time. DarthVader 07:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I look forward to working with you on RCP.Abcdefghijklm 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - --Klemen Kocjancic 11:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support A good editor. Although his RfAs are pretty close to one another, this a minor concern for me. Reason? User is willing to accept greater responsibility in being an admin. It also shows that this user is not discouraged from his earlier RfAs failures. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Needs to actually write some articles. Or, for that matter, make some sort of original contribution to them. Rebecca 04:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OUCH! What about all the botany articles... Those aren't original contributions? Expand, please. Grandmasterka 07:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, 6 months of activity is still too soon for a self-nom in my opinion. No predjudice against a later RfA though.--Isotope23 12:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose; RFAs too close to each other. Ral315 (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. How is that going to affect me if I do become an admin? Schzmo 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. per Isotope. pschemp | talk 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Oppose The user is quite a good editor, it seems; however, I'm just a bit befuddled at all the RfA's (three in six months) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Three noms in six months does show too much eagerness, I think. Work on building a record as a solid contributor quietly for several months, then reapply in December, and I'll gladly support. Xoloz 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Per Xoloz TigerShark 16:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I am somewhat troubled by the fact that all three of your RfAs are so chronologically close to each other. Yanksox 22:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, RfA's seem to come up every 2 months. Seems a little too eager to be admin. Only been here since January. The user says in question 1 that they'd like to spend time managing ***** for deletion discussions, I assume ***** is AfD, yet I couldn't see any more than 8 edits to AfD's in the last thousand edits. Obviously a good editor but just don't feel they should have the mop just yet. I'd like to support, but just can't. Sorry.--Andeh 23:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's January 2005, not January 2006. joturner 23:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Yes, I did realize how my noms were close together. Please do not take it to think that I am too eager - I have to admit that the first two RfAs were mistakes, on my part. The first time, I was still pretty new to Wikipedia and I did not fully realize the qualifications needed to be an administrator and how dedicated an admin must be. The second time, I did not understand that RfA required a clear-cut consensus, which was why I withdrew. After this, I read up on a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I discovered how consensus was such a big part of Wikipedia. I learned that RfA is not just a vote.
    What I mean by ***** for Deletion is [anything] for Deletion. I have recently participated in RfD, TfD, and CfD as well. SCHZMO ✍ 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:XFD then - that encompasses everything. ViridaeTalk 01:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3,000 edits and you've been here for a year and half :\. Wouldn't mind if you adjusted your sig according to the sig guidelines either.--Andeh 00:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am tempted to go Weak Support, just see how this RfA goes. You also fail my criteria :-þ --Andeh 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Didn't I say I only became active on WP 6 months ago (Jan. 2006)? Schzmo 00:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bit early then.--Andeh 15:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per above. --WillMak050389 00:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Excellent user with alot of great contributions under his belt, but WP space edits are a bit low and it seems too soon since last nom. Roy A.A. 01:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 03:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Schzmo (over the 3406 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 498 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 05, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 24, January, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.29% Minor edits: 89.33%
Average edits per day: 24.13 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 384 edits) : Major article edits: 99.36% Minor article edits: 98.63%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3406 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 1.09% (37)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 2% (68)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 18.88% (643)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 52.1%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2347 | Average edits per page: 1.45 | Edits on top: 16.35%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 43.78% (1491 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 8.87% (302 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 37.76% (1286 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 6.78% (231 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 58.31% (1986) | Article talk: 8.54% (291)
User: 2.47% (84) | User talk: 13.36% (455)
Wikipedia: 14.47% (493) | Wikipedia talk: 0.62% (21)
Image: 0.76% (26)
Template: 0.62% (21)
Category: 0.21% (7)
Portal: 0.38% (13)
Help: 0.09% (3)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.18% (6)
Username Schzmo
Total edits 3403
Distinct pages edited 2520
Average edits/page 1.350
First edit 01:05, 24 January 2005
 
(main) 1986
Talk 291
User 84
User talk 455
Image 26
Image talk 3
Template 21
Template talk 3
Help 3
Category 7
Wikipedia 490
Wikipedia talk 21
Portal 13
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’d work mostly on RC patrolling, keeping an eye on AIV and blocking repeat vandals. I would delete vandalism pages that meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I’d also spend a lot of time managing ***** for Deletion discussions, making sure a clear-cut consensus is reached, and then closing the debate. I would help clear up backlogs by cleaning up and wikifying pages that have been tagged for a long time. I’d spend some of my time checking out the admins’ noticeboard and mediating in disputes. As an admin, I just want to keep the encyclopedia running smooth by being someone who enforces policy, while still assuming good faith and keeping a cool head.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I’m particularly proud of my contributions to articles on plants. I’ve written many articles on different plants, which you can see on my user page, all of which I did research for and made a good effort to write. I greatly expanded Arecaceae, the article on palm trees, to cover all aspects on palms. Where before there had only been a brief habitat and uses description, I added much more to these sections as well as writing about physical characteristics, range, taxonomy, and other topics.
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: Yes, but nothing that became very serious. I did get involved in a dispute at Train station, when User:RichardHarrold kept moving the page to Railway station over three months, saying that British English was the “correct” English and ignoring other users who told him to use the talk page to reach consensus before moving the page. I got involved pretty late in the dispute, so I tried to tell him calmly not to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, as he had been doing by repeatedly moving the page to show that British English was “correct”. I also told him to stay civil, as he had said that “train station” was an “American invention”. The dispute ended a few days later with RichardHarrold deciding to leave Wikipedia; he returned a few days later and has not disrupted Wikipedia since. I was mainly a sideline figure in that dispute, but if I find myself in the middle of the field, I will avoid starting an edit war. I will let anyone know what policies they are violating (if applicable), and try to tell the involved users about both sides of the case. This would help the users to resolve the dispute and decide on a future action that would benefit both sides so they would not dispute again. I would always assume good faith, knowing that people are usually trying to help the project, but that the reason they fall into disputes is because they have differing opinions on what is good for the encyclopedia. Because most people are trying to improve the project, I try to keep a cool head with them when there is a dispute.
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.