Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fritz Saalfeld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Fritz Saalfeld

Final (33/20/7) ended 18:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fritz Saalfeld (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to nominate Fritz Saalfeld for adminship. He is a dedicated Wikipedian for about one year and a half with almost 10000 edits, most of them in the mainspace. I deeply appreciate his work at WikiProject Albums of which he is an active member. He is the one who converted almost all of the album articles to conform to the mm:ss standard of adding album length (an outstanding job which involved several thousands articles). His excellent contributions helped the New Radicals article being promoted to the featured status. I find him very civil and helpful and I'm certain he would never abuse admin powers. Jogers (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: accepted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fritz Saalfeld (talk • contribs) .

Support

  1. Support of course. Jogers (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - Damn it. I wanted to beat the nom support. Excellent user. Will certainly pass the "1FA rule". Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support? We don't need no stinkin' Support. Franz would make a calm, cool, and collected administrator. I definitely support this RfA. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support A civil and great user. Would also not abuse admin powers. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support The user shows a good knowledge of the area where he would do admin work and as far as I can tell, a lack of strong desire to be an admin is arguably a good thing, I'd rather have less power hungry admins. JoshuaZ 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per Siva and, more importantly, JoshuaZ, with whose observation that those who actively and frenetically pursue adminship are often ill-suited for the task (or, at the very least, not properly motivated) and want all the noblesse with none of the oblige. It is, to me, refreshing to find an individual for whom adminship is no big deal, and who, even as he wants to be an admin because he believes he can serve the project and the community in that fashion, wants primarily to be an editor. Many here are of the opinion that, where a candidate is unlikely often to use the mop, etc., he ought not to be supported. I imagine that this conception follows from the idea that, because desysopping is difficult, only those who will actively benefit the project with the mop, etc., ought to be approved; the risk of abuse, the argument goes, is such that the likelihood of positive admin actions must be great. Here, though, I see no reason to think either that Fritz would abuse the tools or that he would avolitionally misuse them, ignorant of policy. Where a user is civil, deliberative, and collaborative, he/she ought, IMHO, to be supported; even if Fritz only uses the mop, etc., a few times monthly, his use will benefit the project, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence to suggest that we ought to weigh the prospective minimal usage against the probability of Fritz's acting inappropriately, namely because that probability approaches zero. Joe 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. No problems here. --Tone 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Busy, civil, trustworthy. Pass the mop. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak support - still not 100% sure if you know what adminship entails but you don't seem to be one who would abuse the tools -- Tawker 20:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support. NoPuzzleStranger 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Voted by 205.188.117.67. —Khoikhoi 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support per nom. FeedThePigeons 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per nom and JoshuaZ. Kusma (討論) 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Nothing to suggest they'd abuse the privileges. Should be an admin. Nephron  T|C 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. DarthVader 23:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Experienced long-term editor. Zaxem 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong support. Great user --K a s h Talk | email 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. I see no big problems.--Jusjih 00:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Meets all of my RfA qualities, nothing pointing toward possible admin tool abuse. Kalani [talk] 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support - meets my criteria abakharev 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support per Joe. —Khoikhoi 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support anyone with this many edits should be an admin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Gerg (talk • contribs) 03:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC).
  21. Support Passes the test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support Containment Unit 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    205.188.117.67 vote, [1] --Rory096 16:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Rfa cliché #1. Seriously. RadioKirk talk to me 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - Hahnchen 00:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support - Is a native speaker of "German" (I'm not sure which dialect) and can contribuite with an advanced level of English. :-)Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Fritz Saalfeld.com.au 11:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support per answer to Drini's question. We need more admins who understand that receiving a mop does not make you a law unto yourself. Cynical 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support this user has his head on straight. May not use the tools often, but will use them productively. Opabinia regalis 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support - not a nutter, knows his stuff - the only two things that matter. Just because he wrote 'accepted' in lower case doesn't make him apathetic. Proto||type 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. I was surprised when I realised he wan't one, actually. Would make a tremendous admin - he's probably just being too modest. Flowerparty☀ 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support, meets 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 20:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. For me, lack of desperate desire for adminship is a big plus, as he is unlikely to let the tools go to his head. Has demonstrated commitment also. I would like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits, but its not a dealbreaker in this case. Rockpocket 07:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support per Joe. --HarryCane 16:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support will be good admin --rogerd 11:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose Obviously a good user, but I don't think there is a desire to be an admin or knowledge of what it entails. I feel awful, but I just don't think the user will benefit from admin status. Yanksox 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Point of Information. The following is gleaned from WP:ADMIN:
    "Wikipedia practice is to grant this access to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for a while, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." (emphasis mine.)
    Are you opposing the user's nomination due to an absence of rabid ebullience on the user's part? Exactly what about said user's responses suggests ignorance of Wikipedia policy? --Folajimi 14:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    I am not suggesting ignorance of policy, I am suggesting that this would be a moot point and that if this RfA passed, the user wouldn't really do anything that was really an admin duty. The attitude towards this is pretty lackadasical, I've looked overalot of admin areas and there is serious backlog in alot of them. I think if you want to be an admin there was to be a serious effort on your part to give up "editing" and do the admin duties of maintance. I think it was Tawker that said from admin status, you no longer edit. I think this user wished to really keep editing and doesn't show any interest in the major maintaince aside from pictures. I'm sorry if it isn' cohernet, but this user really doesn't need admin status.[2] Yanksox 15:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't follow. If there is a serious backlog in admin areas why wouldn't we want more trusted community members to become them? Even if the only thing that Fritz would do as an admin was removing some images and blocking one vandal a month, it would still be a help, right? Jogers (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    I concur. Wikipedia is growing really fast, and we need as many good admins as we can get. Even if Fritz doesn't do much with the tools, any work towards clearing the backlog is surely good. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, I'm just revoking my last statement since I was nervous because: A) I was taking care of my flooded basement and B) I knew I was going to have a telephone interview, and was somewhat of a rabble. My primary concern is just the lack of really wanting to be an admin, it seems that he could still be an excellent user without being an admin. It appears that he most likely won't use the tools necessary and keep going on...just with being an admin. I really feel that in order to be an admin, you really have to show that you would be willing to go above and beyond the call of duty. All, I am seeing in these responses is someone whom acknowledges that they would be a good user, but really isn't certain of what to do or if they would do it if they went up the next step. Keep in mind, this is a VERY WEAK oppose, and the reason I am leaning towards oppose is to infact that I don't think the tools will really be used and it doesn't appear to be a neccessity. Yanksox 18:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose not explained why tools are needed, edit summary use - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose For me the answers to the questions below give the impression the wrong sort of attitude in a potential administrator; and per Yanksox's comments above. --Wisden17 19:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Yanksox. We have 900 admins, and 20 do 50% of adminning; unless a user gives more thoughtfull responses to questions and demonstrates significant policy/legal knowledge and dedication, I'd rather not support.Voice-of-AllTalk 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Per Yanksox. ForestH2
  6. Weak Oppose" per Yanksox and the following - I think he could potentially be a good admin, but the lack of desire and general apathy towards the RfA is a bit of a flag. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose While he's done a lot of work here, I don't see any need for admin tools. There is oodles of standard cleanup-type work to be done that seems to interest this user. Also, the unsigned acceptance and mediocre edit summary usage indicate a lack of attention to detail, which can lead to messy problems with admin tools. Aguerriero (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per above.--digital_me(t/c) 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak Oppose per norm. Minfo 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak Oppose per hoopydink. -- Shizane talkcontribs 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Fails a few of my criteria. NSLE (T+C) at 00:27 UTC (2006-06-07)
  12. Oppose For a long-time editor, candidate has very few project-space edits. I'm concerned about familiarity with wiki-process, and the fact that editor failed to signed nomination acceptance doesn't help (tiny thing, but if a candidate can't take care to proof-read his/her RfA, I'm a bit off-put.) Xoloz 01:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Weak oppose per Yanksox. Roy A.A. 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Weak Oppose per Yanksox. It doesn't seem like the editor is familiar with process enough. -- from The King of Kings 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weak Oppose per Voice of All. Thetruthbelow 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Weak Oppose Per the questions --GizzaChat © 04:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per apathy (Q4) and Aguerriero --Zoz (t) 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Xoloz.—Perceval 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per answers to questions - particularly Q3, consensus is king and is only backed up by WP policies - Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose as per Yanksox, Aguerriero, Xoloz and others above. Sorry. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral for now. Didn't sign acceptance, and has a rather low projectspace edit count, but otherwise seems like a good user. --Rory096 18:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm, toolserver count indicates that the user isn't very active except for December, so I'm leaning towards a weak oppose. --Rory096 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    That would be 5500+ AWB-assisted format changes to the infobox on every album's article. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - a spike of over 5'000 edits in December makes me a little unsure of how to vote here. RandyWang (raves/rants) 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, project space edits are on the low side. --Terence Ong 02:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral — ßottesiηi (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - a fine and diligent editor, but weak answers to questions lead me to withhold support, for now. --Guinnog 21:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Not sure how admin tools would help him contribute. Eluchil404 13:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. Low WP-space edit ratio, imcomplete explanation of how the candidate would use the admin tools, edit summaries are on the fence for me and the user has an irregular edit distribution. However, the user does have amazing article space contributions that cannot be overlooked, and adminship wasn't supposed to be a big deal, remember? (Regarding his so-called "apathy".) Grandmasterka 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

User's last 5000 contributions.Voice-of-AllTalk 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Fritz Saalfeld (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 136 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 06, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 22, December, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 73.18% Minor edits: 79%
Average edits per day: 23.36 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 539 edits) : Major article edits: 89.83% Minor article edits: 84.82%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.06% (3)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 4.26% (213)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 65.42% (3271)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3774 | Average edits per page: 1.32 | Edits on top: 11.16%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 10.42% (521 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 73.92% (3696 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 7.08% (354 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 8.58% (429 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 78.76% (3938) | Article talk: 3.38% (169)
User: 0.2% (10) | User talk: 4.36% (218)
Wikipedia: 3.2% (160) | Wikipedia talk: 0.96% (48)
Image: 7.56% (378)
Template: 1.08% (54)
Category: 0.04% (2)
Portal: 0.04% (2)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.42% (21)

Username Fritz_Saalfeld
Total edits 10084
Distinct pages edited 7883
Average edits/page 1.279
First edit 10:50, January 18, 2005
 
(main) 8565
Talk 311
User 17
User talk 280
Image 487
Image talk 8
Template 72
Template talk 30
Category 13
Wikipedia 225
Wikipedia talk 76

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 have previously done some work finding images with missing/incorrect licensing information or sources, and that's something I'd like to expand when I become an admin – help deleting images with unknown source for example. And I'd be happy to help out wherever I'm needed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I think the New Radicals article, not so much because it's a featured article, but because I feel it's the best source about the topic currently around; That's something I always try to achieve when writing Wikipedia articles. Same goes for Emma Roberts.
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 had one lengthy conflict with RJN over plural group names (e.g. "The Beatles") and if they should be treated as singular or plural (e.g. "The Beatles are" or "The Beatles is"). Despite our different opinions the whole discussion remained absolutely civil and friendly.
Whenever there is a conflict, I try to convince the opposite site by quoting Wikipedia guidelines and examples similar to the current case, or find a consensus that everybody is happy with.

'Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. Why do you want to be an admin? Yanksox 17:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
A: I think the project would profit from me as an admin because, as I said before, I'd try to work on cleaning up images with missing/incorrect licenses, and I feel that's a part of Wikipedia that really needs some work. However, I wouldn't really say I "want" to be an admin. I obviously wouldn't mind, but there won't be any hard feelings if it doesn't work out. I actually hadn't really thought about becoming an admin until a couple of editors suggested I would make a good admin on my talk page.

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A: Yes, I think especially admins should follow the rules, even more than anybody else because they reprensent the whole communinity and in a way are role models. Becoming an admin shouldn't be a free pass to do whatever you want. I think temporal removal of admin status (similar to temporal blocking) would be an appropriate punishment.


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.