Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Schuminweb

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

Schuminweb

Ended 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. Presently, I can only request such tasks be completed, and watch helplessly as such tasks pile up. Two of my personal pet peeves are improperly-performed moves, and copyright problems. Particularly with the latter, I've watched articles sit for longer than the prescribed time, and pile up. For these things, I'm another set of hands to help clear these backlogs on mostly non-controversial matters.

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]

Final: (16/21/9)

Support

1. Support. DarthVader 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Many edit and lots of hard work.--Patchouli 09:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support plenty of experience. Computerjoe 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. 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. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. 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]

6. Support. --LordNasher 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. 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]
8. Support Doesn't seem to be overzealous. ^juppiter talk #c 18:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support has worked on quite a lot of distinct articles --Ageo020 01:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. La Fayette Station Support Dudes, this guy can navigate D.C. Metro - he's good enough in moi judgment. Rama's arrow 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support, good editor. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Have watched him on WikiProject Washington Metro for some time and he appears to be a very committed editor. Explanations below regarding blocks were adequate. --StuffOfInterest 11:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support -- Lost^(talk) 11:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Hello32020 00:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. 1ne 03:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Blocking incidents seem to be long behind him, couldn't find any evidence of bad behaviour since. Otherwise an excellent editor Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 19:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. 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. Λυδαcιτγ 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]

2. 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]

   Comment - Ooooooops, I forgot to watchlist this! :X I'm sticking with oppose, however, due to concerns made more recently, specifically those raised by Vision. The "make my day" to a test4 warning is of considerable concern as well. While I'm sure the user was frustrated after receiving that warning, I've warned vandals with test4 who have not responded in such a way. Admins cannot respond to being chastised by saying, "Make my day". It's just unacceptable. Spamming for votes is completely unacceptable as well. Srose (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. 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]

4. 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]

   I've added to my response to question #1. If you still consider it weak, please say so, and I'll do my best to address any further concerns. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the clarification. I certainly know the feeling of wishing I could do more to help on an administrative backlog. :-) Eluchil404 03:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose - per serious concerns raised by others. Metamagician3000 23:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose, Changed my mind. Republitarian 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per use of internal spamming to sway consensus. Though it was in February the SpinnWebe afd shows the user using AWB to sway consenus, something which the user has never acknowledged as wrong. What further makes that afd stand out more than others is that he was in contact, outside of Wikipedia, with the person who owned the SpinnWebe website (that being User:Spinn), thus the spamming incident shows a willingness to disregard having a real consenus in order to promote a website of someone the user is in contact with. The use of spamming, was as stated before, was used again in another large altercation regarding another afd (See the "Block" section in his talk page's second archive User_talk:Schuminweb/Archive_2#Block). In response to the second large incident of this he stated: I'll agree not to, so long as you explain why. That's what I don't get, as I don't consider it "spamming" to send or receive messages pertaining to a WikiProject to participants of that project. This isn't random users by any means, which is what it seems like I'm being interpreted as. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC) [1] This misinterprets what WP:Spam is. User:GTBacchus correctly responded by stating We define internal spam as crossposting substantially identical posts to lots of talk pages. (See Wikipedia:Spam.) The problem isn't the posts being random, quite the contrary. We've had problems with people using "internal spamming" to flood deletion discussions with "keep votes" that are based on POV and not on policy. This undermines the purpose of deletion discussions, which is to determine the correct application of policy, not the most popular option. Our response to this form of abuse has been to decide that notifications of deletion discussions count as spam, and are strongly discouraged, with blocks if necessary. [2] Internal spamming hurts the ability to have real consensus on articles, it goes on far too much without any kind of reprimand for it and not enforcing it rewards users who break with Wikipedia guidelines. Considering this user's past I have serious concerns that he will not enforce rules meant to stop the swaying of consensus through internal spamming.--Jersey Devil 02:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Back to oppose-- "Make my day?!?!" to a test 4?!?! This just raises the risk of wheel warring. Plus the spamming thing, it's just too pushy and devoid of respecting consensus. (This back and forth is what happens when I don't thoroughly read all the talks and discussions.) :) Dlohcierekim 15:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Be fair! Using the test-n templates on established users is extremely unlikely to sway them, and in many cases can be considered rude (certainly thoughtless). If someone popped up on my talkpage with {{test4}}, I'd be saying "make my day", too. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose because he tried to implement new content of Template:Anarchism sidebar [3] claiming that it was a result of consensus, despite the fact that there was no consensus on it. Even after my pointing out that there was no consensus [4], he insisted that there was one, engaging in the edit war. [5] -- Vision Thing -- 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose I was Neutral but the prior Vandalism and reasponse to it in my mind are not qualities I wish to see form a possible Sysop Canidate. I would recomend that he wait for at least 6 months before requesting again due to the nature of the blocks that were set against him. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose per above oppose comments. Singopo 01:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose. Vote solicitation is absolutely unacceptable. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose per above. Too many concerns.Voice-of-All 14:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose, not convinced he's sufficiently Cluey. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose Spamming for votes and recent blocks are both serious negatives. User would need to demonstrate problem-free editing for at least six months before I could support. Xoloz 16:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose. I feel uncomfortable with granting this user administrator privileges, based on past behavior. DS 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per past behavior. As Æon, Xoloz and others have said, I would like to see at least 6 months of walking the straight and narrow before I could consider supporting, in light of this candidate's past behavior. --Vengeful Cynic 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose per above. - Mailer Diablo 08:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose I wouldnt consider those blocks alone enough for me to oppose but from the comments above and from your edit history I think you are a little to rash and over the top in some of your edits. In places you also seem to want to go against policy! I personally disagree with policies here (many of them - it is why I failed my RFA) but wouldnt consider going against an already affirmed concensus. Unfortunately I fear you might do this and so I regretfully oppose, sorry --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 18:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose Nice edits, but does not have the rule-abidance an admin definitely needs. Having two recent blocks is unacceptable. Aran|heru|nar 13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose Per the reasoning expressed above; too many blocks and worrying behaviour in recent months. Would support after 12 months have passed since last block. --Wisden17 14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral, for now. Changing to support due to good answers presented below. 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]

1. Neutral as of now, per StuffOfInterest. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. 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). - Hahnchen 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   As the discussion on that one continued, and as I accepted that it was coming that the name would change, I did warm to it, and am now fine with it, since it seems to work out for the best in the end. In fact, I completed the rename of Variations of the Sega Mega Drive from the earlier Variations of the Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis title to harmonize with the new title of its "parent" article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 26 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]

   switched to Oppose based on prior vandalism and reasponse to it. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. 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." Λυδαcιτγ 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   In hindsight, that was an ill-chosen response. I'm not going to contest that. And it led to the block. I was at the time irritated that what was previously rational discussion had all of a sudden degraded into a level 4 vandalism warning for what I considered a constructive change. Additionally, if you look at my history, that comment is somewhat out-of-character for me. My intention after editing the articles was to create a template similar to Template:WikiProject Washington Metro, which would go on talk pages and more visibly advertise the project and perhaps even revive the project, which at the time was marked as inactive. I think all probably behaved somewhat poorly in handling that situation, as Golbez put it in User talk:Schuminweb/Archive 2#Unblocked. And I've learned from my actions, and that kind of situation has not reemerged since, and I do not intend on making any moves in the future that would spark such a confrontation again. Because let me tell you... being blocked is not fun. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, thanks. I accept your explanation, but I'm still neutral. I'd prefer to let a few more months go by, for caution's sake. Λυδαcιτγ 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Merovingian - Talk 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. 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]

   Back to oppose-- "Make my day?!?!" :) Dlohcierekim 15:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Neutral With two blocks and vandalism warnings within the past six months, I would have preferred the nominee disclosed those incidents upfront, possibly as part of his answer to question three. With his perspective, I am left guessing what caused an otherwise easy support to commit such a faux pas.-- danntm ^T _C 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, regarding the first block, I've explained that both in question #3, and also in a response a few paragraphs above. Regarding the second block, I'd messaged interested users before regarding deletion discussions without incident, and saw nothing wrong at the time in the notification that led to the second block. Now, however, I know better, and have even led some discussion regarding the Wikipedia:Survey notification proposal on how to rectify that proposal with WP:SPAM to prevent such occurrences from happening in the future. See Wikipedia talk:Survey notification#Request of known votes for that discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I appreciate your straightforward response. However, I'd rather see a few more months of quality contributions snd good behavior before I can support.-- danntm ^T _C

7. Neutral—I respect the clear commitment to Wikipedia; a tremendous number of edits. But self nominees are usually held to a higher standard. I'd feel more comfortable with a blockless period of 3 more months. Williamborg (Bill) 02:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral per danntm and inasmuch as, even as I'm confident that the candidate would not abuse the the tools, I'm not entirely sure that he might not avolitionally misuse them (e.g., by acting in an area with the overaching policies of which he might be insufficiently conversant but whilst not fully cognizant of that non-conversance), and thus, consistent with my RfA guidelines, cannot support; neither, if only because I don't find the arguments advanced by those opposing to be wholly persuasive, principally because I don't find any of the deficiencies raised to be necessarily disqualifying, can I oppose. Joe 04:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral I would love to give out a "support" vote for the hard work, but a neutral vote per above. Oppose seems a bit too strong at the same time. —Jared Hunt August 29, 2006, 07:54 (UTC)

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.