Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SchuminWeb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] SchuminWeb

Closed as successful by Cecropia 05:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC) at (43/6/0); Scheduled end time 00:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) - SchuminWeb is a long time Wikipedia Contributor since April 2005. He is active on several Wikiprojects, understands the ideas of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. He's also pretty good at reverting vandals. Kaori 21:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

If I may do so, I am going to put this nomination on hold for a few weeks at this point. So I am going to leave this open and pending for the time being. I am currently in the process of moving, and I will not have the time or the ability to properly take care of an RFA until I get settled and get Internet set up in the new place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am now comfortable in my Silver Spring, Maryland apartment, and so I shall now accept. Thank you for bearing with me while I was moving. If you have any further questions for me beyond my responses below, or seek clarification, please say so. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[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: As I stated in my previous RfA, I intend to work to clear administrative backlogs, and a lot of housekeeping issues. In addition, I plan on keeping on top of speedy deletion candidates. A thorough reading of WP:CSD and then actually tagging articles using TWINKLE while RC and new-page patrolling has given me an eye for CSD candidates.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: First of all, I continue to be proud of those contributions that I had mentioned in my previous nomination: Washington Metro and its daughter articles, Flandre, and Grapette. As of late, however, some of the contributions I'm most proud of are not direct article contributions, per se, but more a matter of trying to smooth out editing issues, and bring about some sort of consensus, and following the policies and guidelines even despite the fact that it was a lot of my own hard work being deleted.
One thing that I've found is that when all else fails in "localized" discussion, inviting a cadre of uninterested third parties via request for comments is handy. This is how we got a rough consensus regarding the inclusion (or lack thereof) of an Infoshop link on A.N.S.W.E.R.. While I was originally supportive of the Infoshop link, once I opened an RFC on the matter, it was clear that "the tribe [had] spoken", and the link was gone. Since then, I've even reverted it back out on a few occasions, and even made a personal appeal to the person who had been adding the link time and again.
Another case where I consider my discussion to shine was in the requested move of John Tsombikos to Borf. I took a detailed look at the article, and articulated my argument for switching to the latter title as being that the article was already more oriented towards the campaign and its results, rather than the still-somewhat-anonymous artist. This seems to have played out well with the advent of the recent art show, as we were able to use well-sourced material which was more Borf than Tsombikos.
And on the note of the last part of my initial response, I think it took a lot of discipline to tag Rude Mechanical Orchestra for speedy deletion after it was recreated following an AFD. The original article (that got deleted via AFD) was mostly my own work. We worked hard to save it, but the sources didn't pan out, and so it got zapped. When an editor recreated it, it could have very well been SpinnWebe all over again, where things got very ugly, and hard feelings were found all around. I tagged it as G4, and it was speedily deleted in due time. No hard feelings, because the sources didn't come through.
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: Last October, I got in a bit of a conflict with the highway project people regarding the changing of links to state highways from the main article to redirects. The change involved going from, for instance, Virginia State Route 14 to State Route 14 (Virginia). I saw it as being somewhat absurd. We're switching from a direct link to a link to a redirect? Run that by me again? I think that the newer titles are more correct, but I still find it strange, since the articles themselves were never renamed, and still haven't been renamed, to follow the new naming convention. My argument, which I didn't articulate well, related to Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. In part because of my own poor articulation of the argument, it fell flat on its face. I still regret my final last-ditch effort, where I cited WP:IAR. I regretted that right after I submitted it, but by then it was too late. That was a really poor argument, and in that case, it basically said "I have no good argument" in far more words.
I learned from that conflict a lot, and the bottom line is cite, cite, cite. You can come to an understanding a lot faster if you cite where you're coming from early on and then as necessary. "Per" is our friend, while pointing to relevant parts of policy and guideline pages. I've found that educating new users a little goes a long way.

Optional questions from Elkman

4. Who was responsible for the recreation of SpinnWebe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) after its first deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinnwebe? The article was recreated at a different title, and it went to another AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpinnWebe instead of going through the proper deletion review process. The two page histories have been merged, so I don't know who recreated it, but the whole thing looks fishy to me.
SpinnWebe was recreated by Flaming-tubesock under the original Spinnwebe title, at this revision. The article was then restored to its pre-deletion form here by JohnRussell. The camelcase title which you refer to was properly executed by me using the "move" function, carrying all the history to the new title, and leaving the old title as a redirect.
Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking you had much more of a role in that fiasco than you actually did. That addresses my major concern. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5. As an admin, what would you do if someone recreated an article that was deleted in an AFD?
That actually happened recently with Rude Mechanical Orchestra. After its AFD completed, I kept the title on my watchlist, and it popped up again later on. It was recreated by a user, and when I saw it, I tagged it on sight for speedy deletion using TWINKLE as a recreation of deleted material. It was deleted not long after that.

Optional question from AldeBaer

6. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
I wouldn't so much say three specific articles as much as I would say broad categories of articles. Usually, when I just read, I start somewhere and see where I end up. My three favorite broad categories of articles are articles related to the American and Russian space programs, articles about Washington, D.C., and articles relating to activism. I like the space-related articles primarily because space programs fascinate me. I love reading about the spacecraft designs and how they operate, and about the facilities, and the layout of Wikipedia allows me to delve into it as superficially or as deeply as I wish. DC articles I like because I live in the Washington area, and I love reading about local things. I was also big on local things in Augusta County, Virginia, where I used to live up until about a month ago. Then activism is something I like reading about because I do get into activism quite a bit, and seeing the specifics of various events, organizations, and movements fascinates me.

Optional question from Nwwaew

7. During a vandalism investigation, you find evodence that a well-known admin has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
Plan every move I make very carefully, first. What specific action would probably depend a lot on the specifics of the situation, but certainly tagging the suspected sockpuppets as such, while going through the proper channels to get solid proof one way or the other, such as putting in checkuser requests, etc.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Kaori 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. The more inclusionist admins, the better. Support. Ichormosquito 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    Note: This comment was left before the RfA started. Prodego talk 01:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yup, and what about it :) Majorly (talk | meet) 02:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support, looks like user has changed nicely, and sufficiently, since the last RFA. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - Deserves it . :)..--Cometstyles 01:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - Naturally, a good user... see no reason not to flag him. Matthew 07:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support a good choice...nice find. Jmlk17 08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. I trust he won't inadvertently, let alone purposefully misuse the tools. —AldeBaer 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support OK. Majorly (talk | meet) 09:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I have full faith that he will make a good admin. Good luck!:)--James, La gloria è a dio 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Has made many improvements since his last RfA in September 2006. I think he's demonstrated his knowledge of policy, and he shows a need for the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per answers, comments, and candidate's overall record. Fully qualified, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Would be a good admin. --Apoc2400 14:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. I have worked with Ben for the past 1-2 years on the Washington Metro article, and related articles, with him taking leadership and doing much of the work. Wikipedia would benefit from having him as an admin. (and congrats on the move, new job or whatever brought you to the area) --Aude (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. I'm mildly concerned by the image atop the user page. But admitting biases up front is probably better than pretending they don't exist, and definitely not a reason for me to oppose somebody with so many good contributions. --JayHenry 16:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - I feel the user will use the tools properly. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support- I attempted to nominate him previously, but he declined. I wouldn't hesitate to give him the tools in a second. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - prolific and experienced contributor, despite his highly insane political views. :-) Anyway, will be a good admin. WaltonAssistance! 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support It's been ample time since the blocks and there is no question this is a productive editor. JodyB talk 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support looks fine.--MONGO 20:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support in agreement with the above. Acalamari 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I supported Schumin last time, and there's no reason not to here. Oh, and I'm a deletionist. (Actually, I'm not a deletionist, because titles are idiotic, but I feel that far more articles at AfD should be deleted than kept.) -- Kicking222 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support It's the reasons given that matter--effectiveness at AfD is the ability to convince others. DGG 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support a long-term, solid contributor. I'd like to observe something that makes me want to particularly support him, even though it's connected to a vote-canvassing issue that got him in trouble for his last RfA: I am impressed that Schuminweb has the detachment and integrity to create a well-referenced, fair article on a site (SpinnWebe) that once attacked him personally, to go to undue lengths to defend that article, and to exchange amicable comments with its author on the talk page. He clearly has a thick skin and a sense of humor, qualities that are very important in an admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Terence 06:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support no concerns here. —Anas talk? 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools. PGWG 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support No reason not to. Whsitchy 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support seems a capable user will make a good admin. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support A capable and active editor who, I'm sure, will make a capable and active administrator. Carom 19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support per PGWG. I think a candidate's possession of an inclusionist or deletionist philosophy should only matter if one thinks that the candidate will be affected by that philosophy to the extent that it will interfere with his or her ability to gauge consensus. I do not think that is the case here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Bucketsofg 03:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  33. Peacent 07:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support I see no problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support ricka racka fire cracka ~ Infrangible 19:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  36. Daniel 04:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support No reason to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 11:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. Good user, no problems. Doesn't seem dangerously inclusionist. - Zeibura Talk 00:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Liked his answers to the questions, inclusionism isn't that bad Metallic95 User Page | Talk 04:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. Would prefer to see a little less self promotion, but he has a strong contribution history. --StuffOfInterest 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support - good contributor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support A good one to have the tools. Captain panda 01:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support I had some doubts on his last RfA, but clear support now. -- Vision Thing -- 19:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose not sure I'd want to give an inclusionist the power to settle AfD's. BH (Talk) 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Is this some sort of practical joke? —AldeBaer 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    This is a legitimate reason for opposing. Some users feel that people who have predetermined deletion beliefs will close AfDs or speedy delete articles to their particular liking. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Than you Nikki, it should be noted that a recent RfA failed only because the candidate was a deletionist. BH (Talk) 16:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Nikki? (LOL) I'm curious to know how you came up with "Nikki". Nishkid64 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry I read the s and h like it was a 'K'. I didn't mean to insult you or anything. BH (Talk) 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    No problem. It just gave me quite a laugh :-P. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    I remember that RfA, and I supported there as well because say what you will, in my own private opinion this is not a good sole reason to oppose a user. —AldeBaer 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Black Harry. ^demon[omg plz] 01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    There is a peculiar assumption, also present in my Afd, that an admin with some degree of inclusionist or deletionist would likely be seeking the position in order to unfairly close nominations. I haven't seen that tendency in any newly appointed admin., and I think we newcomers know better than that--I cannot think of a type of misbehaviour that would be more glaringly obvious. DGG 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. For me it's not any one thing, which leads to this oppose. The hosting of his picture on his userpage. The userboxes. The extensive explanation of who he is. The curt responses on his talk page. None of these would, in itself lead to my opposing. Even the description of himself as inclusionist (which I find counterproductive) would not be enough. Taken together though, I'm opposing because I'd be worried that his actions as an admin would be more about him than the encyclopaedia. I feel that, in total, his philosophy is significantly enough different from that of the wikipedia to be notable. I think that this is a prime example of an editor who is extremely valuable, but who shouldn't be an admin. AKAF 11:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose has severe issues with WP:OWN when it comes to Metro articles. I attempted to include a photo in an article about two years ago... Ben removed it... several other editors readded it... Ben removed it... Sorry but I simply cannot support this user.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Alkivar, could you please clarify your claim? For those interested, the incident described here starts with this revision, and ends six edits later (here). The history reveals that the only editors involved were Alkivar and myself. The substance of the conflict was in regards to the inclusion or non-inclusion of Image:SmithsonianMetro7-4-00.jpg. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Dubious behaviour, certainly. But do we really never forgive users for minor incidents from two years ago? Such as this little tussle between yourself and SimonP, for example? – Gurch 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Does a person's actions from two years ago mean anything now? If you recall, this user failed an RfA in September 2006. Since then, he has reformed themselves, and is now a better-qualified candidate. Given that, I'm sure he's made a great number of changes in behavior and editing since October 2005. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Comment That does not make much sense at all, opposing someone because he is an inclusionist. That is not really a good reason to oppose someone. If he would make a overall good admin the vote for him. Peace.--James, La gloria è a dio 05:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per user name, image on user page. WP:U prohibits user names that implicitly promote a website (here, http://www.schuminweb.com) by containing its name. Also, I oppose all candidates who advertise their association with any strongly contentious political, religious or other ideological position on their user page. Admitting to one's biases is good, but in case of soapboxing, users of the opposite viewpoint might perceive (usually wrongly, but still) to be unfairly treated by the admin in question. That image is quite over the top with regard to soapboxing (and incidentally, why the badly photoshopped toupée?) I also mostly agree with AKAF above. Sandstein 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose --~ Wikihermit (HermesBot) 03:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    Why? —AldeBaer 02:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.