Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Schzmo2

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.

[edit] Schzmo

Final (26/11/5) ended 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Schzmo (talk · contribs) – I've been using Wikipedia for over a year now but didn't start heavily editing until 5-6 months ago. Over this time, I have familiarized myself with the rules and policies of Wikipedia, and now I feel comfortable enough to be an administrator. I have contributed greatly to the Plant WikiProject, RC patrol, and recently AfD, CfD, and TfD. I believe that the point of administrators is to oversee the project and help keep it going strong by removing things that compromise the integrity of the project, such as blocking repeated vandals and deleting pages that have reached deletion consensus on AfD. It is also the job of the administrators to keep the unwanted things from reoccuring by protecting pages, for example. I would like to be an administrator because I have the management skills, time, and experience necessary to be an effective overseer of the project. (NOTE: This is my second nomination; the first can be viewed here.) SCHZMO ✍ 22:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I withdraw my nomination. I doubt this will reach consensus; I thank you for your comments and suggestions and will try again sometime later. --SCHZMO ✍ 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support I guess.....ForestH2
  2. Support. Looks good; I see nothing wrong here. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 23:34 UTC
  3. Support. Might be pining a bit but, hey, the candidate even has Portal edits! (If you haven't been wathcing recent RfAs... well, pardon my attempt at humor anyway). RadioKirk talk to me 23:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - again. - Richardcavell 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support good contributor. Maybe could use a tad more talk edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, no reason not to. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak support - not a strong feeling either way but I doubt Schzmo would abuse admin tools —Mets501talk 03:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support will make a good admin - has good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gwernol 03:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak support per Mets and Gwernol; where a user is unlikely to abuse admin tools and likely to be of some help to the project as an admin, he/she should, of course, be supported, inasmuch as adminship is no big deal. Joe 04:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per Gwernol. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support --Terence Ong 04:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per above. DarthVader 09:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support --Canderous 10:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Talk
  15. Support, no reason not to. --Tone 14:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support I supported last time, I support this time. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Weak support per Joe - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Weak Support I have a slight concern about a lack of article talk edits and I would prefer more use of the test templates but other than these matters, the candidate seems fine. JoshuaZ 00:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, experience isn't the be-all and end-all. I trust the editor. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weak support, but I am concerned about your lack of talk edits, and other interaction-type edits.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Most certainly would not abuse admin tools. Whats the harm? Myciconia 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Weak support, but does need more user talk/talk edits. --Rory096 08:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Somewhat weak support. This editor's count isn't all that great, but should be trusted with the new tools. Fetofs Hello! 19:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support Although I'd like to see more involvement in the aforementioned areas, there are no alarms going off here to indicate that this candidate is unfit to have a mop. --Jay(Reply) 19:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Weak support. I think joturner and the other opposers have valid points, but on the whole I think that Schzmo has shown that he will use the tools wisely and will improve on the issues raised below. -- DS1953 talk 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Good solid contributions to Wikipedia. Level of policy knowledge seems adequate for the mop. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I would like to see more user talk edits (and not just vandalism warnings) and perhaps more article talk edits would help too. They're important in gauging the communication and people skills you'll need as an admin. In addition, your reversions often aren't followed by warnings to the talk pages of the vandals. As a side note, I don't consider January 2005 through February 2006 active months, but perhaps I'm nitpicking on those last few months. joturner 01:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per joturner. I would like to see about 4,000 total edits. I would encourage you to warn vandals so other RCPatrollers have a better idea of what they’ve been doing to the Wikipedia. Excellent contributor, will be an excellent admin. Keep doing what you’ve been doing. :) Dlohcierekim 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose, doesn't quite meet the standards I hold, particularly for a self-nomination. Id gladly support in a couple of months. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose. It will be much better to have some more experience.--Jusjih 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Joturner. Try again in a few months --Deville (Talk) 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose RC patrolling is mentioned as a key reason for wanting the mop, but as far as I can see the user has only posted to AIAV 6 times this year. That indicate to me that he/she very infrequently gets to a point in the escalation process were the ability to block is needed. Also, seems to have a poor record of posting talk page warnings following reverts (I note that this has improved since it was raised by others in this RfA). TigerShark 00:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: see the 3rd optional question. I have taken Dlohcierekim's advice. SCHZMO ✍ 00:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per joturner. Happy to support after building up communication abilities. GChriss 07:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Extremely weak oppose. Schzmo, I really like the way you're doing things lately; but I kindly suggest you to have a little patience and amass some more experience in key areas, like project and (especially) talk and user talk spaces. You are indeed admin material, and in just a few weeks, you'll be a shoo-in, I'm more than sure. Keep up the great work! Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Weak oppose per Joturner. Kimchi.sg 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC) double-voted.
  9. Weak oppose per TigerShark. I expect I would support another nomination in the future. -- JamesTeterenko 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Tigershark. DGX 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral not enough mainspace edits for my requirements. Not enough experience in Wikipedia conflicts and conflict resolution. Otherwise looks good. abakharev 02:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Alex Bakharev. Kimchi.sg 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I will not oppose as I have no reason to believe that Schzmo will misuse the tools through ignorance, and he appears to be generally a good user. However, I am not totally comfortable with the answer to question 3. This, combined with the above comments by Joturner, suggests to me that Schzmo might not be ready to deal with vandals in an effective manner. Rje 12:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral not sure Jaranda wat's sup 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments All user's edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Schzmo (over the 2129 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 448 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 16, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 24, January, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 84.1% Minor edits: 90.38%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 91.66% Minor article edits: 90.49%
Average edits per day (current): 4.75
Recognized notable article edits (non-minor/reverts): 3.71%
Unique pages edited: 1526 | Average edits per page: 1.4 | Edits on top: 14.23%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 18.41%
Minor edits (non reverts): 27.99%
Marked reverts: 43.82%
Unmarked edits: 9.77%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 69.89% (1488) | Article talk: 4.93% (105)
User: 2.87% (61) | User talk: 5.12% (109)
Wikipedia: 14.28% (304) | Wikipedia talk: 0.33% (7)
Image: 0.89% (19)
Template: 0.42% (9)
Category: 0.52% (11)
Portal: 0.56% (12)
Help: 0.05% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.14% (3)

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 would work mostly in RC patrol reverting vandalism, protecting pages and blocking repeated vandals. I would also delete pages for speedy deletion, as well as in AfD, CfD, TfD etc. discussions, closing nominations that have reached consensus and deleting the pages that have been favored for deletion.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am proud of my contributions to articles on plant articles, especially trees, which I have worked on ever since I joined Wikipedia. I started many new articles on plants, making a good effort and doing research to write them. A list of articles I have written is on my user page.
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: Very few if any, although anonymous user vandalism, especially repeated vandalism on a page, does stress me out somewhat. To deal with this, I would avoid an edit clash and talk to the vandal instead, trying to find out what he thinks of the issue and then reaching some consensus. I would try not to start an argument and sort out the matter in the friendliest way possible without biting newcomers, while still maintaining the integrity of the article.

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are completely optional.

1 In your candidacy statement above you seem to consider an admin an "overseer of the project." Could you expand/clarify what you mean by this?
OK, I think I used the wrong words. I mean that an admin is a user who has extended privileges to help keep the project "clean" from "blemishes" by blocking vandals, deleting unnecessary pages, and resolving disputes between users. Adminiship is like giving a mop to someone so he can wipe up something that has been spilt on a clean floor.
2 As you mentioned in your candidacy statement you have been a prolific contributor to the Plant WikiProject. Is there any specific benefit that the plant project will gain by having you as an admin?
Well, I meant that I contributed a lot of info to articles on plants, which is what the WikiProject is about. I don't think there is any particular benefit the plant project will have by having me as an admin; I don't think knowledge of plants depends on you being an admin or not. I'm not a plant expert so I wouldn't be able to contribute to the more difficult plant topics. I guess by being an admin I would know how reorganize some of the plant articles to conform with the MOS.
3 You have helped revert a large amount of vandalism. However, I see few if any warnings to users whose vandalism you have reverted. Could you explain why and/or alleviate concerns that this raises?
Most of the vandalism I reverted was the user's first and only edit. I'm hesitant to give any warning template for vandalism if it is only the user's first edit because I assume they have no malicious intents. I don't put the test1 template until the user has made two or more vandalism edits; I don't want to bite the newcomers.
Comment Just a suggestion. If you don't already, you might want to drop a {{subst:Welcome}} on them to let them know they are not editing in a vacumn and, so they have the resources that go with it. :) Dlohcierekim 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Also, a {{subst:test}} will let the new editor know their test edit was reverted without attaching any stigma to the reversion. At the same time, if the new editor turns out later to be a vandal, it will give the next RCPatroller and indication that the editor has a history of reverted edits. Thanks, :) Dlohcierekim 23:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Question from FloNight talk As always, additional questions are completely optional.

I noticed that you do not have an email address activated. Why? Are you willing to activate it now? FloNight talk 03:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot. I have activated it now. SCHZMO ✍ 18:44, 17 May 2006 (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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.