Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stephan Schulz


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

Stephan Schulz
'''Ended (38/4/2); Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)'''

- 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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:

''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. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 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 (Talk) 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)
 * 7) Support - always been impressed with his commitment to improving controversial articles. The high talk page count is mostly explained by his 705	edits to the Global warming talk page. Also, not sure why edits in low hundreds each month are unacceptable. Addhoc 18:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support Good editor. Politics rule 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) support long overdue, far more sensible than me :-) William M. Connolley 18:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak Support good work at ANI and 3RR. Wish you could become a bit more active as an admin-- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support 1) Per CK 2) Per contribs 3)Per civility  4)Per knowledge of WP show by contribs. Pedro |  Chat  21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support a knowledgeable editor with a consistent record of high-quality edits. --Nethgirb 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong support A sane and knowledgeable editor who backs up his material with quality references. Be aware that this editor has been involved in controversial articles.  As such, he may be opposed on specious grounds by those with an axe to grind even though his participation has been valuable and constructive. Raymond Arritt 23:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Long-term editor with strong commitment to encyclopedia building. The fact he's still sane after editing global warming suggests a calm temperament well suited to the admin role. Espresso Addict 00:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. A great editor, and I don't see much merit in the opposes/neutrals. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. I trust you. You might want to be more active, though. Also, anyone notice that two oppose !votes are marked as 1?  J- stan  Talk 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have repaired the formatting. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - A editor who I would trust with the tools. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A.Z. 01:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support good editor, sure he'll take the right pointers from the opposing comments.  Dei z  talk 11:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. He's a good editor. I've seen his work over at GW and trust his judgement. R. Baley 15:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support: Bottom line: we need more admins who have experience on controversial or heated topics and have a track record of keeping a cool head and dealing appropriately with conflict. We've got plenty of admins with the perfect blend of template, project, RC, and image space edits; we don't have enough who have experience in the trenches, and it shows. MastCell Talk 18:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per MastCell above. I'm impressed as I look this editor's history. I like especially how he managest to handle himself in article discussions that have become overheated and he still remains completely civil. Trusilver 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Very good and consistent editor who keeps his cool. Hal peridol 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support WP will gain more than lose by having him as an admin.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Looks like a good editor. I like the answers--to the standard questions and throughout the discussion in general. IronGargoyle 00:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong support. --BozMo talk 10:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Level-headed editor. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per nom. Peacent 04:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Reading the nomination I thought for a moment I had been nominated without my approval. But seriously, I have good experience working together with this editor, in particular around the Germany page where he did not hesitate to speak out against racial profiling. gidonb 08:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - Concerns raised by opposers are trivial. We don't need to determine his "need" for admin tools - just whether he can be trusted to use them, which he clearly can. Admins don't have to use the admin tools every single day in order to make valuable contributions. WaltonOne 13:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Weak support per review of his edits circa early 2006, some of which impressed me a great deal. —freak(talk) 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I've seen him around Global warming. He's OK.  1000 unique articles is a pretty silly criterion.  Better that someone work hard on a few articles (100? 200?) and learn to deal with controversy which Stephan surely has.  Does he "need" the tools?  Maybe not.  Will he misuse them?  Probably not.  And that's what we should care about. --Richard 23:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support no issues here. Acalamari 03:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. @pple 09:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong support per nom. His experience with controversial articles will serve him well. Vsmith 13:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. I would like to see a candidate who expects to use the tools but I still think his work in the controversial corners of Wikipedia will serve him well as Vsmith says. Apart from his declared expectation of inactivity I see nothing that worries me enough to oppose. JodyByak, yak, yak 13:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. WjBscribe 10:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose IMO he does not currently take WP:BLP seriously enough.  Here  he adds Sourcewatch (a wiki) repeatedly to a BLP, in violation of: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link". There is not any wiggle room in that statement for sourcewatch to squeeze in.  Additionally, here  he adds in another line from a blog onto a BLP, the line itself consists of WP:OR (this part is not in the citation: who originally published Landsea's letter) I believe this in combination with the source being a blog does not follow WP:BLP. On this edit  he provides a source indicated that the scientist does not wish to engage in the debate on global warming, yet he fails to remove him entirely from the list, as is appropriate under WP:BLP: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced."  Despite the scientists arguments otherwise, he still remains on the list, as "opposing opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"  (It should be said however, that the scientist in question was on the list for ~2 years before anyone even noted that he changed his mind)  It is my opinion that an admin should have the highest regard for the rules and guidelines, I don't quite see that here.  --Theblog 20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Regarding your first diff: while I agree with your interpretation of BLP, from your description a reader might get the impression that Stephan was repeatedly told that this violated BLP, and repeatedly reinserted the material. In fact, no editor cited BLP policy in that sequence. You can see the full sequence by starting here and following the "newer edit" links.  (2) Your second diff could also use some more context; to stay brief here, let me just refer people to the talk page and point out that this issue is an ongoing (as of April 15) content dispute between Theblog and other editors including Stephan . (3) Using your third diff to criticize Stephan is simply ridiculous as well as hypocritical. It is hypocritical because you, Theblog, tagged the line with  without removing the entry or even mentioning BLP concerns ; Stephan merely filled in the source you requested.  It is ridiculous because there is no BLP concern; this list (not category) includes scientists who have stated disagreement with the global warming consensus. Bellamy did just that; the fact that he said he "decided to draw back from the debate" does not contradict his inclusion—to say nothing of the fact that subsequent to that quote he in fact did not draw back as evidenced by sources you can find in the current revision of the article. --Nethgirb 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to add a little to Netgirb comments. Regarding Theblog's first point, maybe Sourcewatch is a poor choice for an external link (note, this was a link not a reference), but right now there are some 1300+ links to sourcewatch from Wikipedia, and many from articles, so its an understandable gray area / source of confusion. We even have the (admittedly dubious) Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from SourceWatch for things that were directly or partially imported.  On the last point, regarding David Bellamy, as his article makes clear, he has continued to publish sceptical statements in 2006 and 2007.  He diminished his role in public advocacy but didn't stop being a global warming sceptic.  Dragons flight 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just adding a data point to the comments by User:Dragons flight, Bellamy published a rather polemical attempt to debunk global warming only a few months ago. So while he may have stated in 2005 an intent to "draw back from the debate" he has in reality done just the opposite. Raymond Arritt 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Two points, (1)Sourcewatch is a clear violation of WP:BLP, anyone who is serious about the rules should not be adding it into BLPs.
 * (2)I won't rehash the whole Bellamy thing, but you only need to look at the list from StephanSchulz's edits, what happened after that by other editors or on other Wikipedia articles is irrelevant. He does not clearly belong on the list after Stephan's edits.  --Theblog 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another note, re edit [2], to Landsea: theBlog attempted to claim immunity from 3RR for this; the reviewing admin disagreed that this is a BLP issue William M. Connolley 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, my bad, I thought the Landsea was WP:BLP, but it is POV or OR, Steve, I'm sorry I portrayed it as a BLP violation above. --Theblog 21:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (I've struck through that section now --Theblog 23:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Oppose per Theblog. An admin who doesn't take BLP seriously can't be trusted, in my opinion.  Giggy  UCP 22:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While it might be hard to convince Theblog, I do indeed take WP:BLP seriously. I suggest that you search for "BLP" in my last 500 edits and check them yourself.--Stephan Schulz 08:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose While I may take some heat for it, I don't really like your overall experience. Yes, you have a lot of editing done, but less than 1,000 unique pages doesn't show me a real wide knowledge of the project.  I would prefer a much more rounded set of contributions.  Jmlk  1  7  07:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't use automated tools, and I don't do RC patrolling. Instead, I do concentrate on areas where I think I have some expertise. And to give some perspective, Volume 1 of The Art of Computer Programming is a mere 650 pages.--Stephan Schulz 08:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I do prefer a wider and more varied range of editing around here as a whole. Jmlk  1  7  17:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you believe that the number of unique pages edited demonstrates a wide knowledge of the project? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. A review of your edit history shows a long-time editor with very low commitment to the breadth of the Project, but a focus on one topic area.  Considering your limited involvement in Wikipedia, I don't see a need for the tools.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not trying to determine how strong his "need" for the tools is. —AldeBaer (c) 09:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Contrary to AldeBaer, we are trying to determine his "need" for admin tools. Admin tools allow the user a great deal of power over other users, and as part of establishing that the community trusts the user with those tools, we want to know why the user wants those powers. Admin tools aren't just a "mop", they're a license to hit other users with the mop handle. I don't see that this user does much which would be significantly better-done had he the tools. I also have concerns about his civility. User:Argyriou (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're free to take a candidate's need for the tools (i.e. your perception of it) into consideration, but it is not what we are trying to determine. !Votes, particularly opposes, based solely on that criterion are likely to be ignored by the closing 'crat, simply because it's a very weak sole rationale in determining trustability. —AldeBaer (c) 19:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Particularly since this was not a self-nomination, the need for the tools seems unrelated to trustability. On the other hand... while noting that WP:RFA mentions trustability as the (primary) criterion (how strictly is this to be interpreted?), I would have imagined "expected benefit to Wikipedia" as a reasonable factor as well.  If the candidate is fully trustworthy, they can only be of benefit; but if there is even some small chance of maliciousness or ineptitude—or of the account getting cracked, etc.—there's a risk of big problems. Hence there's a risk/benefit tradeoff, and determining the editor's need for the tools (≈ expected benefit) seems justified. I'm not sure this is the justification that SandyGeorgia and Argyriou had in mind—and in my opinion this is all theoretical in Stephan's case, as my support vote shows—but I can see why in principle someone might take into account the editor's need for the tools. --Nethgirb 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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  Talk 16:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. 1200 talkspace of 5000 edits in total is about the optimal ratio, or which ratio would you prefer? 2. No template edits? 3. 355 wp space edits spread over a healthy area, what else do you want? 4. He is definitely active enough and he has a life. Seriously, please reconsider. —AldeBaer (c) 18:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not 1200, it is very close to 2k. Secondly, I like to see experience in most of the major fields - he has no template edits after almost four years. Thirdly, I can say that I do partially retract my claim of project space. That I retract. Fourthly - he has an average of 105 edits approx. monthly, which I consider inactive. Its not a problem, I'd just like to see him be more enthusiastic. And fifthly - please stop bombarding me, and the editor below. We are neutral, not strong oppose. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Bombarding"? RfA is intended to be a discussion, so it's no crime for someone to respond to you. Voting "neutral" doesn't mean you can post your reasons, which seem to be strongly promoting editcountitis, and expect not to be questioned about them.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, RFA is a discussion. I felt bombarded, because I felt as if he were ridiculing my good faith reasons for being neutral. I have my reasons, as stated above, for being neutral, and that is no crime. And I'm not promoting editcountisitis, im noting the abscence of experience and therefore knowledge in several areas, something that worries me. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of discussions on Wikipedia involve good faith on both sides, so there's no need to imply that anyone responding to you is failing to assume good faith. Even though your comment was made in good faith, I and others believe that your reasons are not well-founded. At the top of every RfA, there is an instruction to thoroughly review the candidate's contributions. If you had done so, you would not need to rely on aggregate numbers. Based on this lack of review, you have conjectured that the candidate has an "absence of experience and knowledge"; when you say such a thing for unfounded reasons, it deserves a response.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never implied that anyone else was not acting in good faith, but you are implying that I have not reviewed his contributions and that my !vote is in some way wrong or untrue. If you really want to know, several of the opposes have only made my lack of support firmer. I am not going to reconsider, and I do not wish to continue this pointless discussion. I'm sorry. He has no edits to the template space. Almost half of his edits are talk space. I do not wish to support this candidate, and that is my choice. Please -- stop trying to find faults in everything I say. It is my belief that more activity brings experience, and it is the belief of the community that I, and other good faith editors, are allowed to participate in RFA. Let us leave it to the closing bureaucrat to decide whether my reasons are unfounded. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 (Wikipedia 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)
 * "Inactive" (which he is not) admins do not harm the project at all. RfA is about trustability. Besides: You yourself have 828 mainspace edits out of 3478 total. Get real, please. —AldeBaer (c) 18:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Calm down, man. I didn't even oppose. 1.) I never said "inactive", so don't quote me. 2.) Inactive admins do not harm the project, but they certainly don't help. 3.) I know RfA is about trustability (which is not a word, I believe). He is not very active and wants to participate in areas in which he does not have much experience. I don't trust him with the tools. 4.) We're evaluating him here; not me. --Eddie 19:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting on your comments, and this is quite the appropriate place to clarify the quality of your input. And I'm calmer than you are: You say you don't trust him with the tools because he says he will probably not be too active and that he will probably close a few XfD's. Makes me wonder how moderate activity increases the chances of him misusing the tools? Do you expect him to inadvertently or rather purposefully misuse the tools? And what is your reason to assume he would do a bad job at closing XfDs? Are there any diffs of bad XfD comments? Or, does he have a strong deletionist/inclusionist bias you don't approve of? —AldeBaer (c) 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether you oppose or not, you're still edit counting instead of looking at contributions. A neutral vote is not a free pass for editcountitis.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (talking to rspeer)Editcount is not the only reason I am neutral, you know. (talking to AldeBaer) 1.) Yes, I have some proof. In the last AfD he participated back in March, he wanted the article deleted because it was not notable because nobody would remember it ten years afterwards. I don't know about you, but I didn't know that WP:EPISODE stated that an episode was not notable because nobody will remember it. In that same AfD, he later uses the Google test to prove the episode is not notable. This makes me wonder if he is capable of closing AfD's correctly. 2.) I don't believe deletionist/inclusionist views are biases. I've seen several admins who openly state their deletionist/inclusionist views, but are great admins and close AfD's correctly, IMO. 3.) I'll be digging deeper than I did originally, and, if I find another one like that, I'll oppose. 4.) I agree with Anonymous Dissident's comments above; let the bureaucrats decide if our !votes are invalid 5.) Comment on content, not on the contributor. -- Boricuaeddie hábleme 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me answer a few of your points:
 * As far as I'm concerned, WP:EPISODE is only a guideline that helps us in establishing notability. It also is heavily slanted towards fiction, where episodes are typically syndicated and live for decades or more. The program in question was a special of a news show, and, as far as I know, has not been rebroadcast or syndicated at all. If it will be forgotten in a short time, there is no reason to cover it in Wikipedia.
 * I did not, actually, use the Google test to argue either way. Another user brought up Google hits as proof of notability, and I pointed out that his numbers were wrong (it turned out that he had confused Yahoo and Google). I think Google is one possible source to determine notability, but much less useful to determine non-notability, as coverage in Google is very uneven for e.g. academic topics.
 * As far as I'm concerned, closing of an AfD should be done by judging the consensus of the discussion. I am fairly critical about cases where some admin closes an AfD one way or the other in obvious opposition to the preference of the participants because "one side's arguments are all wrong". If there was a very strong conflict between my judgement of the arguments and the numerical majority, I probably would not close at all, but leave it to another admin or discuss the outcome on a suitable talk page.--Stephan Schulz 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.