Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Schuminweb: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:54, 26 August 2006

Schuminweb

Voice your opinion! Ending 04:19, 2006-09-01 (UTC)

Schuminweb (talk · contribs) – I have been an editor on Wikipedia since April 2005. I self-nominate for adminship primarily to be able to complete housekeeping tasks that tend to become backlogged. As of this writing, I have 12,911 edits, which includes 9,516 in the article namespace, and 580 in the Wikipedia namespace. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.

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 anticipate performing various "housekeeping" tasks such as requested moves, cut-and-paste move repairs, and clearing administrative backlogs.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am particularly pleased with my work on Washington Metro and its related articles. I spearheaded the tying together of these articles under WikiProject Washington Metro, and through this, a group of us was able to better enhance the main article and the station articles, as well as create a number of new articles related to public transportation in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. I have also contributed photos to many of the articles for the Washington Metro.

I am also quite pleased with Flandre, which I transformed from this to its present form. This involved adding the ship's early history as Flandre, and cleaning up the remainder of the history.

Lastly, I'm quite proud of Grapette because I consider it to be excellent prose on my part.

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: In every instance where I have had a conflict with an editor, particularly a stressful one, I try to take a lesson from each.

My first conflict had to do with the insertion of a second image in Smithsonian (Washington Metro). I opposed the image's insertion on artistic grounds, while the other editor insisted on including it. After two rounds of back-and-forth, the situation was ultimately defused when the image in question was replaced by a different image, rather than outright removal of the second image. I learned that due to the collaborative nature of the project, with each user having a different idea of what makes the perfect article, we have to balance each person's interests in editing an article to create an article that we can all be proud of.

Another edit conflict worth mentioning is one surrounding Template:Headgear, which has since been deleted. This was three-way. One party did not want to make any changes whatsoever to the template. I wanted to redesign the (at the time) top-right-hanging template into a bottom-of-the-page template and place it there. A third party wanted to eliminate the template altogether. In what I now consider to be a case of don't-do-this, the template had recently gotten "no consensus" in TFD. I came in later, and redesigned the template and placed it at the bottom of the articles in question. For this, I was reverted by an admin, and blocked for a day for "vandalism" (this block was later reversed by another admin). From this, I learned not to push substantial changes through a large number of articles at once without being absolutely sure that such changes would be accepted. Regarding the headgear template, though, we ultimately got rid of it entirely, though indirectly. My design was ultimately recreated as Template:Headgear box, and Template:Headgear was nominated under TFD, and ultimately was deleted. Template:Headgear box was also nominated under TFD and was ultimately also deleted. In the end, I wish things hadn't gone the way they had gone, because they left hard feelings among the group, and in hindsight, a little discussion up front could have saved a lot of headache down the road.

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 09:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing contribution data for user Schuminweb (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 123 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 25, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 24, April, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 98.54% Minor edits: 75.82%
Average edits per day: 44.57 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 652 edits): Major article edits: 98.86% Minor article edits: 72.64%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 246 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.3% (15)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 3.44% (172)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 48.36% (2418)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 133 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 37.86%
Special edit type statistics (as marked):
Deletion pages: 1.72% (86 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.18% (9 edit(s))
"Copyright problems" pages: 0.08% (4 edit(s))
WP:AN/related noticeboards: 0.04% (2 edit(s))
FA/FP candidate pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
RfC/RfAr pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
Requests for adminship: 0.12% (6 edit(s))
Identified RfA votes: 0.02% (1 support vote(s)) || (0 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 4.2% (210 edit(s)) (111 moves(s))
Page redirections: 1.72% (86 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
User talk warnings/welcomes: 2.66% (133 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2715 | Average edits per page: 1.84 | Edits on top: 21.3%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 48.34% (2417 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 25.52% (1276 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 13.96% (698 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 3.92% (196 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 65.06% (3253) | Article talk: 13.56% (678)
User: 1.08% (54) | User talk: 7.98% (399)
Wikipedia: 4.98% (249) | Wikipedia talk: 1% (50)
Image: 1.9% (95) | Image talk: 0.04% (2)
Template: 2% (100) | Template talk: 1.72% (86)
Category: 0.56% (28) | Category talk: 0.1% (5)
Portal: 0.02% (1) | Portal talk: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0) | Help talk: 0% (0)
Mediawiki: 0% (0) | Mediawiki talk: 0% (0)

See Schuminweb's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
My edit count (Interiot's Tool) as of the time on this stamp. Schuminweb (Talk) 09:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username	Schuminweb
Total edits	12922
Distinct pages edited	5514
Average edits/page	2.343
First edit	21:55, 7 April 2005
(main)	9518
Talk	1165
User	208
User talk	604
Image	306
Image talk	9
Template	203
Template talk	103
Category	117
Category talk	6
Wikipedia	588
Wikipedia talk	94
Portal	1

Current tally: (8/5/8)
Support

Support. DarthVad e r 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many edit and lots of hard work.--Patchouli 09:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support plenty of experience. Computerjoe 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support An intelligent and thoughtful editor who had done much for this project. Has been here for more than a year too. It is time to give him the mop. I believe that the added responsibilities which would be given to him would only improve the quality of this project. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 11:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changed to neutral; see below. Later changed back to support. Seems well-regarded, smart, and highly intelligent. Tons of article edits, which is good; tons of article talk and user talk, which is better. I also really like his userpage, which is one of the cleaner userpages I've ever seen for an admin or admin hopeful (with the exception of Extraordinary Machine's. -- Kicking222 11:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is my absolute final decision on this one. The blocks happened a few months ago, and Schumin has shown no signs of repeating the actions which got him blocked previously. If User:Everyking, who has been blocked upwards of a dozen times, can still- somehow- have admin powers, there's no reason Schuminweb shouldn't be allowed to have them. (Though, to be fair, every WP user who isn't banned should have them using that rationale, but I think I'd trust Schumin more than most.) -- Kicking222 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --LordNasher 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, after reading the talk archive, I have no problem assuming good faith about the blocking incidents. Kusma (討論) 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't seem to be overzealous. ^juppiter talk #c 18:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support has worked on quite a lot of distinct articles --Ageo020 01:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose per Dlohcierekim. That "spamming" block was on May 21st. He was also blocked on May 10th for vandalism by the same admin. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Blocked for spamming TFD votes. :) Dlohcierekim 12:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Block log record. (aeropagitica) (talk)
But that was 3 months ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.130 (talk • contribs) .

See the discussion at User_talk:Schuminweb/Archive_2#Block. Λυδ α cιτγ 16:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the talk spam block seemed a bit over the top, I've seen users spam talk pages before and just get away with a warning.--Andeh 17:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to neutral :) Dlohcierekim 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per fairly recent blocks - two of them. They show a misunderstanding of policy and while I'm sure the user has improved, being blocked two times in one month isn't exactly convincing of reformed behavior. Srose (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be fair, the first block seemed out of process and I think a bit of an over reaction. :) Dlohcierekim 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per irregularities in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpinnWebe, including using AWB to solicit votes against deletion. Also was blocked for spamming for TFD votes, as mentioned above. I think he also removed a speedy delete tag and was warned for removing it that was posted on the recreation of the same article. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was in February. :) Dlohcierekim 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like to see more than three months after a block which I regard as justified (Since the issue of 'spamming' had been mentioned before on your Talk page). Also the answer to question 1 is a little weak. How would admin tools help you do the tasks you currently do better? Will probably support a renom in 2-3 months assuming you continue to be an excellent editor. Eluchil404 20:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per serious concerns raised by others. Metamagician3000 23:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Changed my mind. Republitarian 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral, for now. Familiar with this edtior's work on WikiProject Washington Metro. I can forgive the spam block as the unblock notice showed agreement, but would like some explanation regarding both blocks (with links) before changing to support. --StuffOfInterest 13:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Changed back to support; see above. Despite his other strong contributions, this user has been blocked twice (I read his talk page before voting previously, but in error, I didn't see that he had talk archives); after reading various talk pages and seeing the discusion over these two issues, I don't think Schumin was particularly in the wrong when he was blocked the first time, but his second block for internal spamming is- well, it's not unforgivable, but it keeps me from fully supporting him for adminship. -- Kicking222 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as of now, per StuffOfInterest. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I literally can't support anyone who thought that Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis was a suitable choice for the article name over both Sega Mega Drive or Sega Genesis. I mean, where was the common sense? (Talk:Sega_Mega_Drive#Proposed_move). - Hahnch e n 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For now leaning to oppose based on the last two blocks. The Spaming one doesn't bother me it is the vandalism one that has me concerned as a Vandal Fighter. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I need an explanation for this response to a {{test4}} warning: "Go ahead. Make my day. I believe that in the end, I will prevail." Λυδ α cιτγ 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merovingian - Talk 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I haven't really had much contact with this editor, and due to those concerns mentioned above, I am afraid I must vote neutral. Michael 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to neutral Spam incident was three months ago. Speedy tag removal was in February. :) Dlohcierekim 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 #'''Support''', after reading the talk archive, I have no problem assuming good faith about the blocking incidents. [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma|(討論)]] 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Support''' Doesn't seem to be overzealous. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"><sup> [[User:Juppiter|juppiter]] </sup> </font> [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]]<font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> <small> [[User_talk:Juppiter|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Juppiter|#c]]</small></font> 18:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
-#'''Support''' pssh lame oppose rationales. [[User:Republitarian|Republitarian]] 00:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Support''' has worked on quite a lot of distinct articles --[[User:Ageo020|Ageo020]] 01:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
@@ Line 163: / Line 162: @@
 #'''Oppose''' I'd like to see more than three months after a block which I regard as justified (Since the issue of 'spamming' had been mentioned before on your Talk page).  Also the answer to question 1 is a little weak.  How would admin tools help you do the tasks you currently do better?  Will probably support a renom in 2-3 months assuming you continue to be an excellent editor.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 20:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose''' - per serious concerns raised by others. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 23:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
+#'''Oppose''', Changed my mind. [[User:Republitarian|Republitarian]] 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 ;Neutral