Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skyler1534

Skyler1534
Vote here (7/6/3) ending 23:50, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

'''Nomination withdrawn by user. See comments below.'''

After reading this page, I know this request is early and I expect to be rejected, but I thought I would request it anyway. I am nominating myself because I am committed to Wikipedia and will do anything that would be needed of me as an administrator. My main purpose; however, is because I strongly desire one sysop ability: the Revert button.

I am the founder of the United States Supreme Court Article Improvement Project and as such I have edited nearly every Supreme Court case article on Wikipedia and; therefore, have them on my watchlist. Unfortunately, these articles seem to be very prone to vandalism. Since I check my watchlist around 10-20 times a day for changes, I see the vandalism usually shortly after it occurs. I would like to be able to revert these edits.

I've wanted to be an admin (because I see it as an honor of sorts) since I started contributing, but this request is mostly to get a reaction. If my request is rejected, I will wait until nominated by another Wikipedian, as is proper.

Thank you for your time.

Skyler 23:51, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * User has 589 edits. Kim Bruning 00:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * User joined on 28 Jul 2004. -- Netoholic @ 00:21, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Support
 * 1)  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 00:22, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
 * 2) While normally hesitant to support those with less than 1000 edits, this user (male or female? dunno) is a hard worker, and I somehow doubt that this user would violate Wikipedia policy or do any bad work as an admin - the user has done good work so far, and I don't see a sudden and unexpected change in that behavior anytime soon :-). It might help, though, if i knew what gender the user was... ugen64 03:14, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) * Um... and why would the user's gender make any difference? func(talk) 01:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) **For the record: I'm male. As it says on my user page, my name is Patrick. I don't know any girls with that name. Skyler 02:18, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Jwrosenzweig 03:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) (I was promoted after 10 weeks with about 350 edits....granted, times have changed, but I've seen enough from Skyler to be impressed, and I think his reasoning is very sound. Granted, you save one click per revert, but that many reverts adds up a lot of clicks.)
 * 6) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:32, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Excellent reasons for why you want to be an admin. Your edits are ok I think. Kim Bruning 11:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) To hell with edit counts.  – Andre ( talk )  15:22, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) I almost voted "neutral" until I took a close look at the quality of this user's edits. These aren't just a spelling-fix here and a comment addition there; these are some serious writing that has enriched the Wikipedia. I don't think the raw count is meaningful in this atypical situation. CO GDEN  20:58, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you mind pointing me to some of his "serious writing"? I can't find a single original paragraph of text when looking through his edits, just a lot of formatting edits (not that there's anything wrong with that). Gzornenplatz 11:25, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Quality of work looks good so far, but can't support with only 589 total edits.  -- Netoholic @ 00:21, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
 * 2) Too soon, and being able to revert edits with one less mouse click isn't reason enough to become an admin. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 00:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, so what is reason enough to want to be an admin? Kim Bruning 11:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Great start! I will support after 1000 edits. --Lst27 01:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Too early.  However, user seems to be a good contributor.  Will probably support after user has been around a bit longer. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  02:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree with the sentiment above. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:39, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
 * 4) Your heart is absolutely in the right place, and you're headed in the right direction. Your request is too early, though. Give it another month or two, and I will most likely support you for adminship &mdash; or even nominate you myself. &bull; Benc &bull; 05:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) You seem like a decent sort. From what you you say here you appear to be suitable for adminship. But you are still a bit new IMO. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 00:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I concur with Theresa. Dan | Talk 03:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm neutral. The quality of this users edits are quite frankly excellent. If you give him a bit more time (say a few months) to see how he deals with conflict then I really believe that Skyler1534 would make an incredibly useful, productive and worthwhile admin. I just think that this user needs a bit more time on Wikipedia (I don't honestly care about how many edits that this user has done. I think that the number of edits is a dodgy and unfair metric to judge whether someone is worthy of becoming an administrator... but that's just me). - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm with ta.  +sj +  10:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * Just to make something clear, I understand fully those who oppose on the basis that I have not been around long enough (time-wise), but for those who oppose on the basis of number of posts, I fully agree with Ta bu shi da yu's comments above. If my contributions were composed mainly of copyediting or proofreading of random articles, I would most likely have well over 1,000 contribs (possibly over 2,000). The project I work on requires research for my contributions, which takes time and; therefore, slows me down. For example, I have not only added case citations to nearly every Supreme Court case article, but I checked or looked up the citation for every case on Findlaw.com or Lexis-Nexis to make sure every one was accurate. That's just one example and very few of my contribs are simple proofreading, so I don't think number of contribs should be considered as it is.
 * All that said, I didn't expect to receive any support, I was just throwing my hat into the ring, so thank you to those who vote in support and to those who oppose and are neutral, as well, since most have left nice sentiment. It's nice to know people think I am doing something right. Skyler 11:32, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good sir, I just want to explain that my "number of edits" standard is not some prickish, tightwad rule I have - I use it with good intentions. I know all too well that two users can do the same amount of work, but if one of them makes good, well-researched, lengthy edits and uses the preview button, that he or she will probably end up with a much lower edit count.  No, it's not the best criterion.  But I know that I myself wasn't suitable for adminship at 500-600 edits, even if I might have thought I was at the time.  I believe in admins who are tenured enough to know the dynamics and policies of this project and community.  You edits are great, and I would gladly support you, after you've been around a bit longer. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  21:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't fault you in any way, Blankfaze. I am completely of the opinion that another user's votes or opinions are expressed with the best of intentions and for the further improvement of Wikipedia. I just hope I am not being seen as overzealous. Skyler 21:38, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see you as overzealous at all. I'm sure you just love the project, and just want to be even more involved.  You are admin material, I think, judging from your contributions and the genuine calmness and amicable nature you've shown here.  You handle criticisms/opposition well, and that is very admirable.  It's rare that a contributor as positive and good-natured as you comes along, and we could use more of them. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  23:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you to all who voted and all who commented. People talk so much about edit wars and conflict on Wikipedia, but you wouldn't know it to look at this page. I appreciate everyone treating me so decently when I half-expected at least a few votes in opposition with a little more derogatory comments regarding my relatively early request for adminship. Though I thank the people who voted in support, I've decided to withdraw my nomination. Even if I had received enough votes, I would have had a hard time accepting it. If I receive adminship, I would prefer it to be with 100% support.
 * A Question: I was thinking about it and with 5 votes against me, I would have to get 13 more people to support and no more to oppose in order to have a consensus (80%). I have 33 contributions so far today and expect to have at least 50 (probably more) by day's end, so at this rate I should have over 1,000 contribs in about 2 weeks. Since most of the votes in opposition were because of too few edits, would it be better if I just withdrew the nomination for a month until I am "qualified"? I just want to make things easier. Any advice from the wise? Skyler 21:38, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I support such a course of action. The objections noted above would be dissolved by withdrawing and afterwards re-nominating. -- Emsworth 00:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The wise don't hang out on RFA. ;-) Seriously, though, withdraw if you think it would be best. No one will think less of you for it. As to a second nomination: I'd wait a bit more than 2 weeks, and not worry one bit about your edit count and whether it's high enough. Let the community decide when you're ready. I'm a fairly recently-created admin, and I never asked to be nominated. I was drafted. :-) In any case, don't succumb to edit counting! You're a great editor and are headed in the right direction to becoming a great WikiJanitor (administrator). &bull; Benc &bull; 05:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I won't call myself "wise", Skyler, but I will offer advice. Do withdraw -- community sentiment has steadily increased the number of edits seen as necessary for adminship (and though I disagree with this trend, I respect very much users like blankfaze and kingturtle who are at its forefront, and I know they are taking actions they feel are in Wikipedia's best interests), and the standards, if anything, are higher for self-nominees.  In a month, if you haven't done so yourself, I'll nominate you for adminship, at which point the combined factors of more edits, more time, and an outside nomination should be more than sufficient to elevate a excellent candidate like yourself to the thankless role of admin. :-)  In the meantime, remember that the loss of the rollback button only adds one more click for vandalism reverts (and to be honest, I often avoid using the rollback button because it prevents me from adding an explanatory edit summary -- I just do it the old-fashioned way).  Best wishes, and thanks for displaying such a positive and friendly response in situations where many users would have been much more defensive and difficult.  All my best, Jwrosenzweig 05:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said in my original nomination, I will not self-nominate again. This would be the case even if I hadn't received offers from 3 users (1 voting in support, 1 in opposition and 1 neutral) to nominate me themselves once I've been around a little longer. I'd much rather continue to work on my project and when another respected Wikipedian decides to grant me the honor of nomination (or tries to curse me with this thankless job, depending on how you look at it), I will happily accept.

Thanks to everyone again for your time and consideration.

Wikipedia is knowledge. Knowledge is power.

Skyler 11:37, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Mate, I think it's now our problem, because I can seriously see people fighting over who should nominate you first! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)