Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:57, 15 July 2007

Stephan Schulz

Voice your opinion (talk page) (5/0/2); Scheduled to end 09:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) - In my opinion this nomination is long overdue. Stephan has been with us (at a low level) since 2003, and started a more active phase in 2006. His work has contributed to challenging subject areas such as global warming, creationism, and holocaust denial, and in all cases he appears to stay calm and collected. In a number of cases, I feel he has done a much better than average job at resolving conflicts and working to promote NPOV. I don't expect that Stephan will be an RC patroller or jumping to close AFDs, and I don't think that really matters. He is a long-term contributor who knows how wikipedia works and can be trusted to deal well with conflict and vandalism within his chosen area of activity. It is about time that we made Stephan part of the admin team and gave him the tools to make that easier. Dragons flight 05:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 09:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: If approved, I don't expect to be a very active admininstrator. However, I will probably close a few XfDs. I have really missed the tools on WP:DRV, where they would have enabled me to look at deleted articles. I do monitor AN/I and volunteer the occasional opinion on WP:3RR. As an admin, I might intervene more directly in some cases.

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

A: You can check my talk page for some feedback I got from others. Below are some examples that I consider valuable.

• I have contributed to keep global warming and related articles a fair representation of the scientific opinion, in the process getting the main article to featured article status and through featured article review. This seems to be a never-ending process, much of it happening on the talk pages.
• One of my first edits as a registered user started the development of Harry Blackmun from rant to a useful article. In particular, my lead has survived more or less unchanged for the last 3.5 years. Watching the community expand and impove on my initial version convinced me that Misplaced Pages could work.
• Preussen (ship) is an recent example of me writing on a well-delimited, non-controversial topic.
• Talk:Tenth_Crusade shows me participating in what I think is a constructive discussion between editors with very different opinions, resulting in a much improved article.
• I'm not a great photographer, but people have reacted kindly to Image:Archaeopterix_ka03.jpg, despite the miss-spelling in the file name.

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?

A: I have contributed to Global warming, David Irving, Creationism, and related articles, so yes, there has been some heated discussion. I've usually managed to keep my head, but sometimes I do get a bit more sarcastic than I should. I've had no problem with WP:3RR or similar so far, as I prefer discussion over plain reverts. I've been named a party in a few related mediation cases, which did not come to much, and I've got the ArbCom to rethink one case, although I was only peripherally involved with the issue at hand. I'm not easily stressed, and I usually try to solve (or at least defuse) conflicts by explaining and, where necessary, sourcing my opinion, using reverts only when there seems to be consensus or at least as strong supermajority against a certain edit.

General comments

• See Stephan Schulz's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Stephan Schulz: Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Stephan Schulz before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator. Dragons flight 05:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Long and steady history of useful contributions, no deal-breakers as far as I can see. —AldeBaer (c) 10:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Support No major concerns here. A good editor. --Siva1979 12:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per "let's make a user who's been around a while a sysop". I'm sure it'd make his life easier and I see no issues. - Zeibura 14:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Support We need more like him. ~ Infrangible 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - strong editor with positive contributions - although I appreciate Anonymous's concerns below, I trust this user and feel that he will make an effective admin. ck lostsword•T•C 17:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Couple of issues: 1. 2k of your 5k edits are talkspace. 2. No template edits. 3. Few project space edits and 4. you are very inactive. - im neutral on this. -- Anonymous Dissident 16:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral- I don't like to oppose per edit count, but I have several concerns that do not permit me to support, so I'll go with neutral per these reasons: 1)I think we need active admins. If you're not going to actively use them, then I do not trust you with them. 2.)You say you want to close XfD's, but your last edit to an AfD was in May. 3.)I like to see a lot of involvement in admin-related areas (Misplaced Pages namespace). You have ~400 to said namespace. That's not enough for me. If you solve these problems, then I will gladly support. --Eddie 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)