Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JWSchmidt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] JWSchmidt

Final: (25/0/0) ended 17:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

JWSchmidt (talk · contribs) – John Schmidt has been editing since 2003 but started in earnest in 2004. John was away briefly until this summer, and returned with a vengeance to knock science articles into shape. His work is best noticed in a number of tough scientific articles to which he has contributed in an exemplary way (e.g. RuBisCO, the most abundant protein on earth) and as instigator of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. He is active on the reference desk and patrols vandalism. In short: an all-round content-concious expert. Great admin material. JFW | T@lk 04:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am willing to be an administrator. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Multicellular nominator support. JFW | T@lk 04:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support I have seen this editor around. Good work! --Aranda 56 17:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support Good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. KHM03 21:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support- JCarriker 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian 05:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, seems reliable. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support seems to be a fine addition--MONGO 10:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support seems like a trustworthy chap --rogerd 17:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support now with extra protein :). Thryduulf 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support great contributions and is often first to revert vandalism on some articles i have on my watchlist. David D. (Talk) 00:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support Izehar (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Quentin Pierce 22:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. utcursch | talk 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. ℑilver§ℑide 07:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support -give him a mop :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 20:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support Is this what we do to valuable contributors now? Give them a mop? So be it. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. -- DS1953 00:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. I've seen you around, doing good work. -- user:zanimum
  24. Support Martin 00:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Seen this candidate here and there. Enochlau 11:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. El_C 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support Proto t c 12:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support - with gusto. Cormaggio @ 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. AFAIK, you don't need admin powers to clean out categories. There is no speedy deletion backlog at all, thanks to tag and bag, and it doesn't hurt if it takes a couple more days to keep or delete AfDed articles. It's good that you offered to help tackle vandalism on the science articles, though. If you intend to actively patrol these articles and not just dump them all on your watchlist, I may move my vote to neutral. (If you just watchlist them, vandalism will likely slip through - most uncaught vandalism would have gone uncaught even if everyone had the rollback feature.) 202.58.85.8 07:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope you realise that as an anonymous editor your vote is unlikely to be weighed. You seem to be mistaken about patrolling a watchlist. RC patrol misses quite a lot of more-or-less subtle vandalism to specialist articles, and I would not be patrolling vandalism on my watchlist as intensively if I had no use of admin rollback. Your comments about AFD are also incorrect - this is one of the busiest parts of Wikipedia and frequently the subject of backlog. I hope you do indeed revise your vote. I also note you have been voting "oppose" on a number of other people on RFA for different reasons. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing the # from your comment, Jfdwolff--I assumed that, as nominator, you were not voting to oppose. Chick Bowen 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I used #: which creates an indented comment without resetting the counter on a numbered list. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but Lbmixpro's comment, which was indented by ::, created a start-over and gave your comment a number. Chick Bowen 20:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
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 recently tried to start helping the community by performing some housekeeping. In particular, I set a goal for myself of doing vandalism patrol on 0.1% of Wikipedia, particular basic science articles. I have already participated to a small extent in a few decisions about page deletions and I will be able to become more involved with this sort of task. I am involved in an effort to better organize the proteins category and I am willing to help with backlogs such as cleaning up large categories. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I started the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject with the hope that it will be a useful foundation for developing high quality biology-related articles. It makes me very happy when I can put effort into an article such as RuBisCO and then have that article attract an expert editor such as User:ARP. I am pleased when I have made contributions to articles such as Helicobacter pylori and it is very satisfying when Wikipedia has such an article in good shape prior to a news event such as the awarding of a Nobel Prize for discovery of the medical importance of Helicobacter pylori. I am glad that I had a chance to learn how to start the article Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids as part of the Science pearls WikiProject because I think it is important for Wikipedia to have some articles that deal with how science is actually done, not just what the results are. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 4 December 2005 (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. My interests are mainly in biology. Two topics within biology that generate conflict are evolution and the use of animals in research. At the Ape article, there was a dispute about using the term "ape" in reference to humans. This dispute was where I learned about the "3 reversion rule". While almost all of my effort in that dispute went into discussion on the talk page, I did learn not to participate in "gang reversions" where several editors sequentially revert another editor. I've learned the futility of revert wars. I am devoted to the idea that Wikipedia editors can resolve disputes by research, citing sources, and discussion.
I have become involved with a dispute about the use of animals in research (at Animal Testing and related pages). I think this is the kind of dispute involving points of view that can be dealt with by good research and citing sources. I hope that Wikiversity (See the Wikiversity Core Courses Initiative) can come to be a Wikimedia project that will promote good research practices by Wikipedia editors and in so doing help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles and calm disputes between Wikipedia editors.
Some disputes about biology-related articles are very mild and easy to resolve by discussion: a recent example was at Kanzi. Once in a while the Carl Sagan article can generate a certain amount of conflict, and I have learned not to make knee-jerk assumptions that all editors who have complaints against Sagan are religiously-motivated. I have learned that when a dispute arises, it is wise to make sure that the exact nature of the dispute is made clear before rushing to resolve the dispute. I do sometimes venture into more contentious political articles. I was recently disturbed that a question I asked on the Judy Miller talk page provoked the suggestion that I was flirting with slander. I think that my style of editing/writing and practice of citing sources is good enough to protect Wikipedia from such charges; I would certainly hate to bring discredit to Wikipedia by inserting some bogus information about someone. I do think it is inevitable that Wikipedia will ruffle some feathers. In my view, public figures should expect to have their actions discussed, analyzed and probed by Wikipedia.
There is a biology-related Wikipedia article where I have recently learned some lessons about the questioning of public figures by Wikipedia editors (see: Talk:Rosalind Franklin/Archive02, Talk:Rosalind Franklin/Archive03 and Talk:Rosalind Franklin#How important were Rosalind Franklin's data). When I first read the talk page for the Franklin article I was startled by the section heading that said "Watson and Crick stole Franklin's work". I think it is important that Wikipedia do a good job of describing the controversy over the ethics of how Watson and Crick obtained Franklin's data. I have participated in extensive discussions about this while also reading extensively on the topic. I purchased and read the Maddox biography of Franklin and I intend to buy and read Wilkins' autobiography. I have made only minor edits to the Franklin article while educating myself. I have learned that it is constructive to learn about a POV that I find myself in conflict with before I try to edit an article that I feel unfairly pushes a POV that I do not agree with. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.