Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Marcschulz

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.

Contents

[edit] Marcschulz

Voice your opinion Final (0/6/1); Ended Thu, 24 May 20:09 UTC

Marcschulz (talk · contribs) - YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Marcschulz 18:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I thank you for your decency.


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: In a couple of Wikipedia articles over the months I witnessed some verbal assaults on some public figures, who are denouncing them. Those assaults were maybe from bot-ware or so. I'd like to change these assaults. I also like to prevent vandalism.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm in the Wikipedia project since 2004 - both in the German Wikipedia as well as this English Wikipedia. My best contributions are a wide range of topics, like professional wrestling and the television industry. I also contribute to the current news section of Wikipedia as well as to the recent death page. I also contributed to some minor topics which were also my best contributions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: My most major conflict was in 2005, when I wrote an article about the German Visa Affair 2005 and a user accused me of being biased. I tried to figured out who the user was and tried to resolve the situation peacefully. But since then, there were only minor conflicts with 4 users.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Marcschulz before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose after four attempts, you still haven't been able to correctly format this RfA - you are meant to replace "YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER" with your description of yourself as an admin candidate. You almost never use edit summaries, which is an issue for admins who need to do a good job of communicating with users. Related to this issue, you have only one edit to a Talk page, and that was over two years ago. The ability to demonstrate that you can communicate with other users is important for an admin candidate. Similarly, you have just two edits (apart from this RfA) to Wikipedia: pages, and none to Wikipedia talk. I'd suggest you get more involved with Wikipedia processes like AfD and then request an editor review. Good luck, Gwernol 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Far too few edits in Talk and User talk space. Severe lack of edit summaries. --Celain 19:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Your answers and lack of Wikipedia-space edits give the impression that you are unaware of the tasks admins perform. If you review that page and still wish to be an admin, you could work by communicating more with other users and displaying your understanding of Wikipedia policies. Your current use of edit summaries (very low) and lack of Talk page edits don't allow us to see how well you interact with fellow Wikipedians. Leebo T/C 19:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: Not enough interaction between other users, lack of talk and user talk edits. Also not impressed with answers to questions and RfA not correctly formatted. Edit summary usage also poor, may I suggest changing it to forced in your preferences?  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 19:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Sorry but your RfA is not set out correctly and the YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER is meant to be a descriptino about why think you should be an admin, I suggest getting your edit count up to about 2000 (with at least 1000 to the Mainspace) and using an edit summary much more. Kindest Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 19:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose While I disagree with edit counts as a criteria, your grammar in the RfA is less than encouraging. I appreciate the anti-vandal stance, but perhaps you should focus on the de.wikipedia CredoFromStart talk 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral 4% edit summary for major edits, 0% for minor edits (of which there were none) and limited use of talk pages for discussion mean I can't really support. Answers don't inspire confidence, either. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 19:01, 24 May 2007 (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.