Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pschemp

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

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

Pschemp

Final (84/4/1), ended 22:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp (talk · contribs) – Pschemp is one of the most levelheaded and well rounded editors that I've come across. She's been with us since September 2004 and has since made over 8000 contributions in various namespaces. She has created and expanded various articles, but has also proven to be able to handle conflicts and mediate between other users involved in a dispute. As she does quite a lot of tasks for which the admin buttons would be more than welcome, I'd like to nominate her for adminship. JoanneB 21:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I join JoanneB in nominating pschemp for adminship. This understated editor contributes over a vast area of the wiki from copyediting articles found by using the 'random article feature', participating in debates on talk and featured articles, the list goes on, enough already, it's time for the mop. --Alf melmac 21:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I humbly accept. pschemp | talk 22:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong support, of course! --JoanneB 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, naturally! --Alf melmac 22:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support As one of her admin coaches, I think I should be supporting eh? This user has a firm grasp on understanding policy, and she knows when to apply it. That is a major plus for all admins. I know from experience that she is incredibly patient when dealing with situations that get heated. Also she is one of those users who contributes to the encyclopedia, which is what this is all about. KnowledgeOfSelf 22:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support Per all of the above. --Shanel 22:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Extreme "Absolutely green wellie wollies fantasmogorical" support - so there Pschemp! Take that! Pow! --Celestianpower háblame 22:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I was actually thinking about nominating as soon as I got a nap in. That could have been a while, judging by my edit patterns. — Apr. 2, '06 [23:02] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  7. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Jaranda wat's sup 23:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - hardworking editor abakharev 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support. Of course. One of our elite so far this year. Her February activity level is easily in the top twenty of all time. She's been around for a long time (edit count does NOT reflect reading and learning counts). Support all the way. — Deckiller 23:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Her conduct thus far does seem indicative of a potentially good admin. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. JoshuaZ 00:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strongest support possible.--Sean Black (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, makes sense. Flowerparty■ 00:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I seriously thought she was one already. Seriously. Extremely strong   Support... she's going to rock. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. NSLE (T+C) at 00:52 UTC (2006-04-03)
  18. Strong Oppose...I mean Strongest support possible >:) Without giving a long litany of reasons why I think she deserves it, she deserves it. She has all the people skills I wish I had. —       natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 01:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Friendly, helpful, good editor. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Was thinking of nominating her myself—because she's a dedicated editor with her head screwed on right, and not just because the pictures of her with the "vandal-whacking stick" and the kitty in the sink make me smile. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support would benefit from admin tools Where (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, of course! ;) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 03:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support in spite of silly oppose votes. Alphax τεχ 03:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with them but I also don't agree they are "silly". IMHO anyway, people support or oppose for what they consider to be good and valid reasons and as long as bad faith is not blindingly evident we should cherish and respect that... ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Strong character, trustworthy, personable. —Pengo 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Ditto. I like what I see here. --Mmounties (Talk)   04:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I broke my Wikibreak just so I could support a user of the highest caliber who will be an excellent administrator. There's no doubt in my mind about that. Support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Without reservation, great candidate. Banez 06:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support When you see and a user with great skills, a high number of edits and experience all with a smile, it is a challenge to not support. --Ali K 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Excellent contributor, meets and surpasses my criteria easily. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 09:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, great user. --Terence Ong 09:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak support, I don't have experience with this user myself, and she appears to have only a short period of real activity, but the amount of recent contributions is impressive, and if she's nominated by JoanneB, she has to be doing something right. JIP | Talk 11:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Strong candidate doing alot of good. --CBDunkerson 13:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Don't see why not. --kingboyk 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per all above. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per above, admin is no big deal. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. All experiences have been positive; will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support. I would, however, like to see more deleted edits. --Rory096 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm mainly an article editor and information organizer, I'd actually be quite horrified to have a large number of deleted edits, as that would mean that the bulk of the editing I did was to questionable and un-encyclopedic articles. I prefer to participate in afd type discussions by commenting and closing (rather than tagging). I understand your concern though.pschemp | talk 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Rory means that he would like you to tag speedy items and unencyclopedic content. That's where the deleted edits come from, not incompetency on your part!Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that's what he meant, hence my, "I understand your concern" comment. Its just that I prefer to contribute to WP in other ways, and this project being the massive thing it is, I don't see an issue with that. There is a niche for everyone, sorry if I wasn't clear above.pschemp | talk 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:29, 3 April 2006]
  41. Support per nom. What more is there to say? --Jay(Reply) 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Moe ε 20:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Fad (ix) 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Definate Support — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Very experienced and wise contributor. _-M o P-_ 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, slight concerns over relatively recent burst of power-editing, but more than satisfied she knows what it's all about. Deizio 22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, a good mediator, too. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-04 01:04Z
  49. Support for good record, good recommendations. --Fire Star 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, solid editor. Involved in many out of the way articles. Kuru talk 02:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support such high quality in such a short time Jedi6-(need help?) 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support does a fine job, will make a great admin. -- SonicAD (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong support - will make a great admin. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 07:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Rob Church (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support —Wayward Talk 07:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Superwomanvandalplusgoodeditor! Supporrrttt!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. I've seen her make good edits, and she seems very trustworthy.--ragesoss 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. We need more sexy, sexy, Esperanzian admins. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 14:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support--Jusjih 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Speedy Green Support! --Misza13 T C 19:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support looks good. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, is well suited to be an admin. -- Natalya 03:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Joe I 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Excellent contributor, no hesitation. Doesn't need the full mop though, just an attachment for the end of her hockey stick :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 09:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. I support her, but really, I hope she gets enough sleep. -- Hoary 10:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Definitely. Sango123 (e) 11:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. I'd add some witty words of support, but I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, so I've got to stay quiet and keep my head down. haz (user talk) 17:52, 5 April 2006
  70. Support. Cliché, cliché. Cliché? Cliché! — Rebelguys2 talk 19:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support ILovEPlankton 21:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong support An exemplary Wikipedian in numerous ways; great article contributions, friendly and supportive of fellow editors, good work ethic and excellent judgement. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, of course. Thought I had done so already. Sic your cats on the vandals. ProhibitOnions 09:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Helpful, kind, dedicated. Ideal admin material. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --Connel MacKenzie 04:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Mainly because she was the first woman on IRC to show me her panties.[reply]
  77. Strong Support great active user, can be trusted with the tools.--Adam    (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support seen this person around, very good user.--Alhutch 04:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support looks good. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, extemely friendly editor - will make a good admin. Henrik 13:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - very good editor. H2O 19:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Rama's Arrow 20:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support good editor. Computerjoe's talk 12:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support, no issues strike me here as reasons to oppose. Hiding talk 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Reluctant oppose. Despite a phenomenal level of activity in recent months, she has only been participating seriously in Wikipedia for three months, which does not seem like enough time to become an administrator, high edit quality or not. Furthermore, her Wikipedia space edits are low for such a prolific editor. I would be willing to support in a month or two. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 23:04 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Excellent candidate. Keep this up for a few more months, and I will be happy to support your RfA. Covington 23:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Too new. Lou franklin 01:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sept 2004 (18 months?) is too new? Or is it the period of low activity? My concern if any would be burnout, not experience. Heck, I hope she'll be willing to mentor me when the time comes. YMMV of course. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I throttled back from 5000+ edits in Feb. Didn't want to burnout the Wikimedia servers. ;) pschemp | talk 01:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    18 months is deceptive. As an active member of the community she's only been around for three. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 02:51 (UTC)
    I've addressed that in my answer to JoshuaZ's question down below. If you chose not to accept my answer that's fine, its your right. pschemp | talk 03:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    see also Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Essjay oppose vote #7. It may be possible that Lou feels Pschemp's comment was out of place. ++Lar: t/c 11:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if I'm not allowed to call oppose votes "silly", how come you're allowed to speculate on the reasons people are opposing? Alphax τεχ 23:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, I wasn't saying you weren't allowed to call them silly, you of course should feel free to comment as you see fit (and I promise to cherish the comments!), I was saying I didn't agree they were silly even if I too didn't agree with the comments themselves. We both commented support, after all... I'm open to a reword here, what do you suggest? It's verifiable that Lou has been saying oppose on at least some of the people that participated in his RfAr, and verifiable that Pschemp pointed it out in Essjay's RfB. I think it is pretty mild to say "it may be possible Lou feels the comment was out of place" rather than flat out saying "Looks like a retaliatory vote for Pschemp calling Lou on his tactic", which is what at least some of us might conclude from the evidence available... but which I will not say because I prefer to assume good faith. Hope that helps. (And I fear I may have overexplained... Sigh... but that's what I do sometimes, it seems.) ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is assuming good faith then I am Tom Cruise. I explained the reason for my vote. I am entitled to cast my own vote without being harassed about it. Don't try to affect the vote count by pestering people who vote to oppose. Lou franklin 02:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not in fact the case. So long as it's civil, discussion and challenging of votes is encouraged. It's meant to be a discussion anyway. --Celestianpower háblame 16:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please post a link to the Wikipedia policy that says "challenging of votes is encouraged". Lou franklin 04:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a vote. It is a consensus-gathering excersize. As such, discussion is encouraged. It's common sense. --Celestianpower háblame 12:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, "common sense". You said that "challenging of votes is encouraged". Encouraged by whom? I am still waiting for that link. Lou franklin 15:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Encouraged by dint of the fact that it's a discussion, not a vote. When discussing, you have opposing views and then you each make those clear and banter back and forth, replying to each others comments. That's how discussion works. There's no policy page I can cite - we assume that people understand the term, "discussion". --Celestianpower háblame 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose 5 orphan pictures, edit conflict, Inexperience as per above. --Masssiveego 06:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, pardon? 5 pictures that are licensed under the GFDL, so it makes rather no difference if they're orphaned, and I don't understand what you mean by "edit conflict", nor how that could be a cogent reason to oppose this excellent candidate.--Sean Black (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only assume he meant "edit war" or ""conflict with other editors over the content of an article" (as described below). Also, from WP:CSD: "Unused copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the public domain that are not used in any article" may be speedied. This means then that free liscence ones (like hers) can be orphanned on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter. --Celestianpower háblame 10:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Would really like to support, but I'm not sure about the activity level and some rather biting comments I've seen made. So for now, Neutral. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 12:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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've already been closing keep afd's under the tuteledge of KnowledgeOfSelf and look forward to expanding my involvement there. Additionally, I do a lot of organizing of categories and renaming of articles where admin options would make the work I do infinitely easier. I don't want to leave one thing done in a list of 400, so currently; I go and annoy other admins. I'm also working as a mediator, and would like to join the Medcom full time, however they also prefer admins for members. Titoxd has also been my admin coach and I am eager to help with any backlogged area. I particularly enjoy being a neutral voice in disputes, working towards solutions and the tools would again be helpful there. Certainly I also fight vandalism when I run across it, but it is not my main focus. I suspect that would increase should my array of available tools increase.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am particularly proud of Fiberglass which is a Good Article. I am working on moving that to a Featured Article currently. I have a number of other articles I have written listed on my userpage. The next one I am the most proud of is Permanent wave because it is in an area (girl stuff) not favoured or heavily edited by the average Wikipedia demographic. This was a poor little stub that I've expanded and referenced extensively and I also often contribute in areas that involve women and arts and crafts in my own effort to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Third, I am proud of my work on the case where I am the mediator, it is moving along to a civilized conclusion and I feel it will have a positive outcome.
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:When I first came to Wikipedia, I got involved in a very nasty discussion. It wasn't an edit war as we didn't mess with the article, but it was certainly uncivil on the part of all involved. Eventually, we all came to an agreement, and now I count this as one of the most important experiences I have had. This is because I learned that many conflicts are the result of mis-communication rather than ill will. It taught me how to remain calm and to understand the points of views of others involved in such a thing and to use the good traits in people to come to a solution. Since then, I've changed from disagreeing to facilitating consensus and am using those very lessons in the mediation case I'm doing right now.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1. In your answer to question 3, you mention an article where at the beginning of your time on Wikipedia you were involved in a "very nasty discussion." Could you tell us what the article was and/or provide specific difs that might be relevant?
Thank you, however I really hate to dredge up old nastiness, and in fact, I feel if I did it would be doing a disservice to all involved as we came to an agreement and have moved on. No one was blocked, no 3RR was invoked, we worked the issue out in a human manner. The entire point is that it was solved, the editors involved agreed to disagree and I learned a lot from it. The personal lessons and insight I gained can't be shown by any diff, that's why I elaborated above. I'm not trying to hide anything, which is why I mentioned the issue in my original answers, but I truly believe that resolved conflicts should be left. Re-opening old wounds is rarely productive and not generally conducive to the collaborative environment I am trying to foster.
2. You seem to have been an intermittent editor in 2004 and 2005 and then at the start at 2006 drastically increased your edits per a month. Could you explain this and if possible, give a brief narrative relating your general experiences with Wikipedia to your change in editing levels.
Indeed. I contributed a lot when I first started. However, at that time the project was beset with vandalism, the Arbcom didn't have the power it has now and while it wasn't anarchy, a lot of disruptive things were going on. I have logged in and read articles and maintained the ones I started every day since I first signed up and watched as the project has evolved into what it is today. (Turkish Van has been a stable article since 2004 and that's because I've stayed involved, although not always visible.) I've seen some really wonderful things happen, the vandalism come under control etc... and decided that I would make a decision to be a more visible contributor. I believe in watching and learning and I often lurk in the forgotten corners of the project, but I feel in the neglected areas I can make the greatest contributions.
3. Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?
Are you referring to the rollback issue here? At this time I don't see a need for any admin powers to be given to the all users, and as far as rollback, a decent script will do the same thing, making that not really needed. As far as why, I think that adminship powers should be reserved for those who have demonstrated by their actions that they won't abuse them.
4. Are there any experiences or abilities that you have that make you more noteworthy as an admin candidate or more capable of carrying out any admin duties?
I think my willingness to be a mediator (I volunteered for that), my coaching by KnowledgeOfSelf and Titoxd, and my long observation of the culture and issues surrounding Wikipedia do. I've elaborated on all of these in my original answers and answers previous to this question.
5. Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
If they are using open proxies, inappropriate usernames, imposter usernames, or variations of known vandals (i.e. Willy, Squidward) I would. However, my policy is, if I don't know, or am not sure, I would ask a more experienced admin. I feel it is always better to be safe.
6. Chocolate, vanilla or strawberry (ice cream)? --Celestianpower háblame 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neapolitan of course. pschemp | talk 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this RFA succeeds, you'll be eating rocky road I'm afraid. — Apr. 4, '06 [10:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>
I'm afraid you're both wrong. I'll be feeding her chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream. —       nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pschemp&oldid=1082478369"