Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SCZenz

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] SCZenz

Final (22/0/0) ending 20:30 December 3 (UTC)

Due to an error on my part, I promoted this candidate 24 hours early. If in the (unlikely) event of a dramatic swing in this candidate, measures will be taken to correct the mistake. If nothing happens, this RFA can be archive as a success Raul654 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

SCZenz (talk · contribs) – Self-nom. I have over 2000 edits, and a broad range of experience in creating and improving articles, dealing with vandals (mostly on physics topics, which I watch about 300 of), and I've had my share of discussion of policy and deletion too. You can see my user page for some of the contributions I'm proud of, but the big one is ATLAS experiment, which I wrote almost all of and brought up to FA; it was recently featured on the main page. I'm applying for admin because I've started to do some stuff (like deletion review) where being an admin would be helpful. -- SCZenz 20:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, naturally enough. -- SCZenz 20:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. (First!) SCZenz was a terrific editor during ATLAS experiment's FAC; I've seen him now-and-again since, and have always been impressed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. (Second!) I know about SCZenz edits as I also contribute to physics articles. From what I've seen I think that he is able to act in a neutral way and diffuse conflicts. I'm certainly not supporting him just because he is a physicist. I would, e.g., never support User:lumidek for this position because of his frequent conflicts here.Count Iblis 22:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. In my experience pleasant to deal with, good communicative skills, and certainly knowledgeable about physics. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support Izehar 22:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. A fine editor to work with who really put a lot of effort into his FAC. (And I enjoyed the Oops-Leon.) — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support Quentin Pierce 23:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, why not. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 00:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support; excellent contributor, likely to be a fine admin. Antandrus (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, Looks good, I'd trust him with the extra functionality! ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 07:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support Good editor --Rogerd 12:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. El_C 12:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. support William M. Connolley 13:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
  13. Merovingian 17:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support - I've interacted with this candidate on various occasions. Has been civil and rational, even when dealing with unsavoury characters. - Hahnchen 03:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support Excellent, reasonable editor. Xoloz 07:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Proto t c 12:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Good work so far. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. -- DS1953 04:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support Joke137 16:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support - Very Good User... don't know if I still can vote though, but if I can, then SUPPORT. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 03:14, 04 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

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've done RC Patrol in the past, and I would plan on doing more if I'm an admin; the ability to delete CSD candidates directly (rather than taking an extra person's time) seems to make that an efficient thing to do. I'll also close AfD debates, a delicate duty whose intricacies I've gotten some familiarity with from AfD and Deletion Review participation. Finally, I'll continue to keep an eye out for and warn vandals on the articles I keep track of; I'd use my admin powers for that if it were necessary, although in my experience things rarely progress that far.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. ATLAS experiment as I mentioned above. It was on the main page a couple days ago, and was praised by Harvard professor Lubos Motl in his blog. I think the article is a great illustration of how expert users can interact with non-experts and how Wikipedia is a better place for it; I got a lot of helpful comments during the article's FAC that really spurred me to make it a much better and more readable article. I'm also proud of various other efforts to write understandable articles on experimental physics topics; I think particle shower and Timeline of particle discoveries are good (if not widely read) examples.
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 got into a conflict about the fictitious force article, with a user who disagreed with the usefulness of the physics concept and thought the article would say so. The discussion started out poorly, with me referring to the user's replacement article as a "crappy little stub," a couple of misunderstandings, and a resulting heated debate. (From this I learned the tremendous importance of WP:CIVIL, which I have taken great care to follow ever since.) Eventually, I ended up spending a lot of time looking up sources to illustrate that fictitious force is indeed an important concept in physics; I worked them into the article, and rewrote much of it to address the user's concerns by making the purpose of the concept clear. Since then, and in the future, I try to do the rewriting and source-citing without the initial misunderstanding part. ;) I recently rewrote part of E=mc² to defuse an edit conflict, for example.
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.