Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stemonitis

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

[edit] Stemonitis

Final (52/2/2) Ended 13:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stemonitis (talk • contribs) – Stemonitis has been a solid and constructive user for two years. He has contributed mainly to geographical and biological articles, with a rather impressive list of about 180 articles started by him. Also, he's not averse from work such as stub sorting and categorizing, and has touched upon a wide variety of processes, as opposed to being a regular poster on any single one. Such a diverse user is definitely a good candidate for adminship. (Radiant) 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: On several occasions in my editing career to date, I have found it slightly frustrating that I have had to call in an admin to do my bidding. Examples include things like speedy deletions, blocking persistent vandals, deleting pages (that I) created in error, and even once protecting and later unprotecting my user page. All these activities cost the admin in question time, and are an extra load on the servers, since each involves at least one extra edit, and many extra page views. That's not to say that that's all I would do. I already often perform the menial or repetitive tasks that garner little praise, and I would expect that tendency to expand into the sphere of adminship. Depending on where the backlogs are, I will address different needs. Currently, there seems to be a backlog of proposed deletions, but all that could change before this RfA is over. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: The bulk of my writing has dealt with carcinology and geography (mostly mountains). I brought crustacean up to good article standard, and effectively wrote Carcinus maenas, which is also listed as a good article. Similarly, edible crab was unreferenced and written in a parochial, non-encyclopaedic style before I started work on it; it is still under-referenced and incomplete, but vastly better. I believe that there is a balance to be found between depth of coverage and breadth. The many short articles about significant taxa that I (and others) have started are an important addition to the encyclopaedia; featured content is not the be all and end all. I couldn't justify to myself the effort of writing 48 kB about just one species, summit or whatever when there are countless thousands that aren't even mentioned. I also have a suspicion that a lot of readers stop after the first paragraph or so anyway. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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: I have been involved in a few disputes, mostly over a couple of small but contentious topics. The main cause of acrimony has been the question of the use of accented letters, ligatures and other characters that are considered by many not to belong to the "English alphabet". It seems unlikely that a good consensus will ever be reached on the issue, so all sides, myself included, have adopted a live-and-let-live policy, whereby neither the pro-diacritics users nor the anti-diacritics editors move articles created by the other side to a title that the creators would disaprove of. Skirmishes are rare now, and die down quickly with the restoration of the status quo. We are left with the inconsistency of having Vossstrasse (not "Voßstraße") but Wilhelmstraße (not "Wilhelmstrasse"), but it means that everybody involved has the time and the inclination to work on other things rather than getting bogged down in ill will. I was also involved in an argument about listing all Swiss municipalities via a template in a single large category. Having tried and failed to convince one user of my point, I eventually walked away from the discussion. Sometimes you just have to bite your tongue and allow things to be done "wrongly". I've also had a few misguided comments about category indexing, but in each case a calm explanation of my actions was enough. Basically, discussion and calmness seem to be the best approaches. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Stemonitis's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Nominate and support. (Radiant) 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Lycaon 11:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per Radiant! Doesn't indicate a strong need for the tools, but trusted and prolific editors can be trusted with tools that are no big deal. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
4. --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Seems like a good candidate for the mop. (aeropagitica) 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Looks like a good user, who will use the tools wisely. NauticaShades 13:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC
7. Support per nom__Seadog ^♪ 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   Weak support. Edit count isn't incredible outside of the mainspace, but it's kinda hard to ignore 28,000 edits. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (Changed to neutral, see below)

8. Support per nom --Tone 15:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support looks good to me.-- danntm ^T _C 17:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Despite lack of participation in AfD's and such, this user definitely demonstrates that he/she has the experience and knowledge to handle admin tools. Nishkid64 17:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support, looks good. Terence Ong 18:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, looks like a highly productive editor who would do well with the admin tools. shotwell 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Weak support per Amarkov. Addhoc 18:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I see no problems here. A good user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Nice work so far. Would also like to see him involved outside the scope of the main space. Lincher 19:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. See no probs in this user getting the mop. Great work so far. ><RichardΩ612 ^ER 20:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
17. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
18. By all means...Lectonar 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Go for it! Wikiwoohoo 21:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Clear and present support. What were Radiant's words? "Solid and constructive user". Precisely. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
21. support. Thanks for pointing this one out, Radiant. ... aa:talk 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    (note to users who bitch at me about my votes: this is how you answer question #1)
22. Support He deserves the mop. Sharkface217 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support per nom. Michael 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support per nomination and questions. This user sounds good, especially when it comes to civility which would be neccessary when you get to block people. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support - 180 article creations is impressive, and with almost two years of heavy experience I see no reson why Stemonitis should not be an admin --T-rex 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support - per nom. --Phenz 08:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support I know how you feel, having to go and bother an Admin to do your bidding, and then they may not do what you asked them to do after fighting the vandal for hours on end. Good Luck! Booksworm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 10:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support Madhyako Pradesh lo 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    Sock of banned user. `'mikkanarxi 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

28. --Rudjek 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support despite essentially insufficient project-space participation. I am certain that there will be little abuse of the tools. - crz crztalk 18:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Doesn't look like stemonitis to me! NikoSilver 19:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Great edit count (no, I do not have editcountitis), excellent writer of articles, and lots of experience. —The Great Llama^moo? 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Steady ... Agathoclea 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support sounds very good. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    You already voted above. ;) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

34. Support per nom. Acs4b 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support, good user. Kusma (討論) 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-04 09:01Z
37. Support Good, good user. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support would make a good admin. --SonicChao ^talk 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. I know it's a cliché but I tought he already was one. - Darwinek 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Of course. Lupo 10:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. It'd be nice if Stemonitis would pin down at least one backlog requiring the tools that (s)he'd be willing to pitch in at consistently, but seems to be a reliable editor and unlikely to abuse the mop and bucket. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support.Must^TC 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support, seems likely to make good use of the tools (and unlikely to misuse same). Alai 15:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Excellent editor, I trust he will not abuse the tools. Dionyseus 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support- XfDs are only a small part of adminship. Jorcoga^† 06:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - Nice long history with WP, plenty of edits, seems like a valuable editor. Why not give em a mop? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Sarah Ewart 15:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Good guy. The Mirror of the Sea 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Support  Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Simply not enough participation in XfD. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose- Seems to want to use adminship for the use of evil. I do not trust this person at all with adminship, I think that if this person became an admin, Wikipedia would be destroyed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captaindansplashback (talk • contribs).

Comment account has less than 50 edits, so probably should be discounted. Addhoc 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Sorry, but I'm going to have to change my !vote to neutral. I have the same concerns as before, but this shows sporadic deletion discussion, at best. No XfD for the past 5 months? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   His last AfD was on 11 November 2006. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fillgraderstiege. Nishkid64 14:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Okay, so there's that one, and another I found in August. I'm still seeing a lot less than I like. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

2. neutral Were there to be more AfD work, I'd be happy to vote support. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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.