Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slicky


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

Slicky
Final tally (0/9/2) ended 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

– I have been editing Wikipedia for well three years or more now and fancied the innate and ultimately inherent striving of any human being to share information to one's best of ones knowledge (although we all sometimes drift off a bit or are short sighted in themes that move us emotionally). It was therefore a great pleasure do not only see how Wikipedia grow into a mature project but also how well it worked, for it shall stand as proof that collaboration at any level does work, as does our society. As far as i go, i am a grad student of molecular biology and physics, which are for the most part the articles i contribute to or try to establish. I try to put foresight into my articles and maintain objectivity, which is also my ultimate goal for any article in the long run.


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, I accept. Slicky 14:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate has withdrawn his nomination M o e   ε  18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose
 * 1) Em, no. Whist I don't believe in edit counting, 200 is NOT enough . --Doc ask?  14:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose, enjoy wikipedia editing more. Shyam  ( T / C ) 15:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose! is this some sort of joke relating to April Fools Day? Weatherman90 15:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Inexperience and low edit count (a good number of the edits I've looked at are rather minor, e.g. ). Also, very low use of edit summaries. I suggest you withdraw your nomination. Mi kk er (...) 16:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, inexperienced user, low edit count and edit summaries. Please withdraw your RFA, at least 2000 edits for my standards. --Ter e nce Ong 16:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, 93 of the users 203 edits are in the last month. If you keep editting at that rate, then come back in a few months, at the moment, you're too new. --Tango 16:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Suggest withdrawal, among all the above problems, while the editor has edited for three years, there were strings of months in between in which the editor made zero edits. It is remotely possible that I would vote for someone for admin who had 200 amazing edits. This is not such a candidate. I suggest withdrawing. Come back in a few months. JoshuaZ 17:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose sorry, this candidate has strongly advocated ignoring WP:OR and does not seem to be aware of basic Wikipedia policies. Not ready for the old mop and bucket yet. Gwernol 17:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - Take this from your biography of Jochem Häuser. "Dr. Häuser is a german physisist who is amongst other things known to work on Heims Theory." That's one spelling error, one missed apostrophe and a missing uppercase in the first sentence alone, plus the use of the word 'amongst' is open to debate. The English language does not have the umlaut, so his name really ought to be Hauser. The rest of the biography is a list of his publications cut-and-paste from a website. I fixed some of it for you. I can't support you for administrator. Don't take this personally, mate. - Richardcavell 18:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral My threshold is only 300-500 edits, but you don't make that yet; and low usage of edit summaries puts me off too. Will support in three months(+) assuming continued activity and higher edit summary usage. - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 17:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I have no doubts at present to this user's good faith, but I see an insufficient demonstration of experience. Rob Church (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 33% for major edits and 16% for minor edits. Based on the last 3 major and 125 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 15:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See Slicky's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.


 * Many of the edits the user marked as minor are actually major edits. While this brings up his "edit count" slightly, it is yet another major strike against adminship. JoshuaZ 18:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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 intend to work on speedy deletions to some extend and whilst primarily helping others out in technical questions will always try to resort to objectivity and logic in cases where users conflict for one reason or another. I will also semiprotect pages if requested by others in the discussion due to vandalism but only as a last resort and try to aid others in such scenario to still be able to edit and add contributions meanwhile in some sandbox-userpage to be merged at a later point. At last my striving is to aid users in making their pages more productivity richt by using free clipart gallery and image projects.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Neuro cybernetics / Bio cybernetics at al. Though ultimately what really pleases me is seeing how any topic ultimately matures, gets more and more extensive but foremost objective, something that could simply not be achieved by a sole authorship. For all intends and purposes, i see it as my duty to contribute as much as i was given by this world. Any grand achievment of humanity is based on carefully processed information applied in a mutual collaboration.


 * 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: No one could state to be completely free of stress, for it is an innate feature of man. However i simply do not contribute to articles that are simply out of my reach as far as knowledge goes (e.g. sociodemographic ones). Though any conflict between humans ultimately boil down to a simple spectrum that we all know - however this very spectrum always leaves us the choice of prudence, which in my humble opinion is always the most effective one. That of course only works as good as the stength of the emotional bond towards a certain theme is, but i give my best to account for that.


 * 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.