Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Schzmo

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 (14/29/2) ended 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Schzmo (talk · contribs) – I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over a year now and have more than 1000 edits. Although that may not seem substantial for a year, I have good interaction with other users and am familiar with how Wikipedia works. I have contributed greatly to the plant Wikiproject and RC patrol. I think that becoming an administrator will help me to fight vandals better, since it often requires administrator privileges such as reverting edits and blocking users. In short, I feel that I have the time and experience to be an effective administrator. Schzmo 12:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination. Schzmo 12:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support: This user has reverted vandalism tirelessly. His contributions are excellent. Administrator status is not an edit-count trophy, it's for people like Schzmo who can use it to do good work. - Richardcavell 14:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Moral Support Although edit counts are relatively low, this user has been contributing to Wikipedia for more than a year. He deserves to be given the mop and I feel that he will not abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support: There's no hard and fast rule for edit counts, despite what CrnaGora would have you believe. He's a vandal fighter which, face it, this project needs. He doesn't look like he'll abuse the tools. And besides, admin should be no big deal. Just because he has access to ALL the admin tools doesn't mean he will actually use them in all the categories, so we shouldn't punish him for excelling in certain areas while not focusing in others. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per SWATJester. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Per swatjester & my new admin requirements at User:Onthost/Admin Mike (T C) 01:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support because, let's face it, vandalism is bad, and he would reduce it. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Moral support, I hate editcountitis. haz (user talk)e 09:41, 19 March 2006
  8. Support I think he deserves this. He helps fight vandalism which Wikipedia really needs.Jihoon 00:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support He has shown dedication to Wikipedia, as well as a readiness to fight vandalism, which is what admins are for, no? He may not have 2.5k instead of 1k edits yet, but he will probably continue to edit Wikipedia well regardless of that fact. User:Grog304 08:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Moral Support - I'm interested in seeing what you do with your next 1500 edits. If I like what I see (and I expect I will), I would gladly nominate you, or even co-nominate you, myself. --Go for it! 18:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support He has been a recent changes patroller (like myself) for almost a year. He deserves this. Whopper 19:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, looks a good contributor but I would have liked to see actual articles listed in the answer to the second question. Hiding talk 09:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support; long-time contributor, adminship should be no big deal. +sj + 10:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support per Richard and Swat [although one imagines that an admin should have a Wikiholic test score of better than 100 :)]. Joe 05:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. You could use a great deal of more edits divded amoung your respective name spaces. Your talk, main and wikipedian counts are quite low. More experience and interaction would be good for you. -ZeroTalk 12:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose. Sorry, but you are very inexperienced and need alot more edits, especially in wikipedia (try checking out some discussions at IFD and AFD), before you should consider trying for Admin. You just have to be patient; and you can't expect to become admin after just three months and a bit over 1k edits. Weatherman90 13:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose You need to have more edits. Shyam (T/C) 14:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: You have a too little edit count, must be at least 2,500 - 3,000 edits to become Administrator. CrnaGora | Talk 15:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, that's all subjective. When I started the bare minumum was 1,000. If you want to oppose due to what you feel is a low edit count, by all means do, but let's not state that it's a flat out requirement...its different for each editor. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    I concur. And you also make it seems as if Admin is all about # of edits, when it is —or it should be —much more than that. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Not enough experience in the project space (Wikipedia:). All the admin tools come at once and it's important that users have a correspondingly broad experience. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 15:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Not enough experience (generally, and especially in project-space) for me to able to judge this editor. Premature RfA, but keep up the good work! Xoloz 16:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Good contributor but just not enough there — yet. ProhibitOnions 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Per above. Moe ε 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. While low edit count may be indicative of problems, the fact is that nearly everything comes from the main namespace. If you're going to be hard on vandal reverting, I'd like to see more varied experience from you, at least in terms of warning templates on User Talk pages. — Rebelguys2 talk 22:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose low wiki and talk and user talk edits, not active enough Prodego talk 00:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose prefer more experience and broad knowledge of the project--Looper5920 01:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Not enough experience. GizzaChat © 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Not enough project related experience. Work on RCP can be further demonstrated without admin rights, as far as blocking users, does not appear to have ever contributed to WP:AIV, a very useful non admin page. — xaosflux Talk 05:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Please participate more in the community.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong oppose per above. Computerjoe's talk 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, lacks of experience and needs more community involvement. --Terence Ong 15:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose; too few edits, especially over the span of one year. joturner 15:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Weak oppose. Too few edits in non-main namespaces. Admins need to be familiar with Wikipedia as a community, too. JIP | Talk 17:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose RC patrol can be done with popups.js, and does not require admin tools Cynical 00:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. You look like a great up and coming editor, but your edits are not very spread out and you have only a few months of serious activity. Continue your good work and try again in 2-3 months. --Danaman5 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Needs more time with the Wikipedia community. --Masssiveego 01:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Not enough edits.--Jusjih 03:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Nowhere near enough involvement in the project namespace or on talk pages. --kingboyk 11:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose try again 1 or 2 months later Ugur Basak 22:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Weak oppose as above. Ashibaka tock 23:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose experience. Looks like you really only began editing about 4 months ago (before then the edits per month are in the teens). Give it another 2 - 3 months and you'll have a good shot at it. --Mmounties (Talk) 02:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose--Ahonc (Talk) 12:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose for now for the reasons outlined above, may support at a later date. Hall Monitor 21:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I'm going to remain neutral here. It looks like only lately has this user been contributing a fair amount. I refuse to post an oppose vote as edit counts aren't a good way to judge a user. Remember it's quality not quantity. Try a little more communication with other users too. --mmeinhart 17:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. While edit count is low, the edits are good - lots of vandal fighting. But I'm always concerned when the mop is asked for blocking users. A bit more time active and I would support. Ifnord 15:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 97% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 13:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Schzmo's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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 and blocking vandals. I would also contribute page cleanup and discussions in Articles for Deletion, closing the ones that have not reached reasonable consensus.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am pleased about my contributions to plants, especially trees. I have worked on plant articles on Wikipedia ever since I became a member, and have started many new articles on plants, all of which I made a good effort to write.
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 haven't really had any conflicts with other users, although anonymous user vandalism, especially repeated vandalism on a page, does give me some stress. I would try to avoid a revert war and talk about the issue instead, trying to reach some kind of consensus. I would avoid getting into an argument and sort out the matter in the friendliest way possible. I would avoid 'biting' newcomers and users whose edits are disputed.
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.