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


schmausschmaus[edit]

Final (1/5/0); ended 22:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC) by non-bureaucrat Neurolysis per NOTNOW

Nomination[edit]

Hi, I am schmausschmaus and request administratorship. My interests are 1. medicine 2. history of science 3. history of Hollywood 4. WWI and WW2 history, especially the German side. I have contributed many articles in all of the above areas and feel I could be helpful as an editor judging and improving others. I have had a smooth, pleasant relationship with other wikipedians and have invariably found my experiences rewarding, both intellectually and personally. Schmausschmaus (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

I would like to edit articles in my fields of interest.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

My WWII and history of science articles are best, most extensive, because of my good reading knowledge of French and German.

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?

I have had no conflicts and have found all interactions with other wikipedians pleasant and rewarding.

Additional optional questions from Roux
4. Can you please summarise, in your own words, Wikipedia's five foundation principles and explain why each is important?
A:


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Schmausschmaus before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Should someone close this as a speedy close? If so, as SNOW or NOTNOW? Cheers, I'mperator 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be a WP:NOTNOW closure. schmausschmaus, do you understand the role of an administrator? Your intended administrative work mentioned in A1 does not require administrative tools. –xenotalk 20:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support It appears you have been editing since January rather consistently, no matter how less that activity may be. My recommendation is to spend some time getting familiar with administration, find an Admin coach and spend some more time editing constructively before running again. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose No indication of need for the tools. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. The reasons given in Q1 bear no relation to the ways in which admin tools can be used. Answers to questions are unsatisfactory, and I don't get the impression that the candidate understands the requirements for and purpose of adminship. Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
    For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.
    The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
    As an admin, you will inevitably have to...
    1. Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
    2. Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
    3. Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
    4. Negotiate a compromise.
    Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
    Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
    If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).
    My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. iMatthew talk • take my poll at
  5. Oppose Per above. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose schmausschmaus has done some good work around the project, but I feel a few months more experience wouldn't hurt. Come back then and you'll have my support. Suggesting early closure per WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW -FASTILY (TALK) 22:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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.
Category