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

Final (56/1/0) ending 20:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Scm83x ( talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure and honor to nominate Scm83x for Adminship. I have worked with him on several articles and I find his edits to be of the highest quality. His interactions with others are helpful and courteous. He has been editing on Wikipedia for over one year, and he has over 3,000 edits, including more than 2,000 to the main article space. He contributes to a wide range of articles and collaborations, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin. He has been instrumental in improving The West Wing (TV series) to Featured Article status, and it is featured on the Main Page as of the date of this nomination ( March 18 2006). In addition to contributing to articles, he helps out with image uploads, [1], [2] 3RR notices [3], [4], vandalism, [5], [6], Wikimeetups, [7] etc. He practices good use of edit summaries (Mathbot says Edit summary usage for Scm83x: 96% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.) [8], and he has set his e-mail. Giving him the admin tools will help him build and protect more great articles for Wikipedia. Johntex\ ^talk 19:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support. I have seen this user deal with trouble users and still maintain his composure. If there's one person on wikipedia who deserves the mop, it is Scm83x. -- BWD ^{( talk)} 20:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
2. SupportDamn! I thought I was gonna get first support. Anyway, as per BWD. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support Moe ε 20:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support Excellent veteran editor. Xoloz 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Texas-sized Support as nominator. Johntex\ ^talk 20:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support-- newsjunkie 20:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Strong support *sugh* Cliche time once again, I really thought he already was. - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 20:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support, As above described. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 20:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support Absolutely fantastical magnificent uber-ultra-megazoid support. Guy who opposed my original RFA and became a guiding light in becoming a good editor, provided some major reference help for my first FA, and has generally become my Wikibuddy for being an excellent editor with a calm head. Staxringold 20:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support - solid candidate. Nephron 20:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
11. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support Without hesitation, even though your a longhorn...hehe -- mm e inhart 21:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support looks good, user could be more active though, only 8.26 edits a day. Prodego ^talk 00:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Weak Support Everything fine apart from not being very active. Gizza ^{Chat ©} 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

    Interesting observation - please see my comment below. Thanks, Johntex\ ^talk 02:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

16. Support. He'll do great with the extra buttons. Hook 'em · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 03:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support per all above. JoshuaZ 04:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Absolute support. A brilliant contributor on all sorts of topics. Has a good grasp of policy and process, as shown in the thoughtful answers. Harr o 5 04:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support. Everything looks to be in order here. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Strong Support. You meet 100% requirements to me Cr na ^t _e ^c Go ra 05:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support. Well-rounded user.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support. Well experienced. haz _{( user talk)} ^e 09:44, 19 March 2006
24. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Deserves the extra responsibility. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 14:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support -- Ter e nc e Ong 15:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support Great, consistently contributing editor. joturner 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support Looks like a long time editor, with plenty of wiki edits. Sounds like a fine pick to me. Weatherman90 16:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support, you'll do. JIP | Talk 17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support good editor -- rogerd 20:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support. Kirill Lok s hin 22:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support. Robert McClenon 01:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support per above -- Khoikhoi 04:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Suppurt -- Ahonc ( Talk) 10:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support good editor. -- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support and Hook 'em. jareha ^(comments) 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support Joe I 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support record is in good standing; no logical reason to oppose. -- Jay( Reply) 02:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support great user, great record. Jedi6 -(need help?) 03:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support-- Jusjih 03:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support. Edit history inspires confidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support -- Latinus 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support I see no evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools.-- MONGO 02:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support per all that above me. Hiding talk 09:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
45. x-factor support. +sj + 10:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support. Sure psch e mp | talk 15:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support. Maybe your promotion will take the intense pain of the Pittsnogling y'all are about to receive. :) nm. youngamerican ( talk) 18:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support Great contributions, no reason to oppose. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 21:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support Ugur Basak 22:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 02:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support -- Mmounties ( Talk) 02:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support I see no reason why this user would not deserve the powers of adminship. KeYYeK 05:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support. Should make an excellent administrator. Hall Monitor 18:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Support Great character, lots of edits where it counts MadCow257 01:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support Good experienced editor. -- Cactus.man ✍ 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support. — FireFox • T [18:42, 24 March 2006]

Oppose

1. Oppose Too controlling and brash.

   "Note: Good Bye Wikipedia. I've deleted the whole thing! I worked hours getting like I wanted it and then you went and messed with it! I'm leaving wikipedia as a user. I will delete my own pages too! --Bumpusmills1 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)"

   Needs more time to mature. -- Masssiveego 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   Bumpusmills1's comments were in response to this edit, which was a style edit from this to this in order to follow WP:MoS. Bumpusmills1 returned to contribute much more to the article. He was, at the time, unaware of Wikipedia style guidelines and thought I had attacked his page when I had just made a style overhaul. Thanks. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   I don't see how another user's uncivil and immature comments reflect badly on Scm83x. He has been nothing but courteous in response to constant incivility [9], belittling [10], and petty vandalism [11] from that user in his attempt to correctly format Cherokee society and mediate a neutral point of view at Secularization of Christmas. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

Comments

1. Comment - Prodego is correct about the edit-count/day. However, IMO, the straight average reported by the edit counter carries a risk that a user may be penalized for being cautious in the their edits when they first join up. Scm83x's editting activity has increased as he has gotten more experienced. Over the last 6 months, he has averaged about 16.7 edits/day. Over the last 3 months, 24.7 edits a day. I agree though, that I'd love to see him edit even more since I think he makes such good edits. Johntex\ ^talk 02:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Edit summary usage: 96% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• See Scm83x's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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.

• Across the Wikipedia, I have noticed and minorly participated in the vast project to appropriately tag all images on the Wikipedia. I have noticed the large backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and I would really like to start running through these images and deleting those that have inappropriate copyright status for Wikipedia. In addition, I have watched WP:AIV, WP:RFP, and WP:AN/3RR for many months now and would help out those places as much as possible, especially in the odd hours of the night when we aren't all awake.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

• I am most proud of the featured article, The West Wing. This article could have had the possibility of coming off as very unprofessional and "fancrufty". However, thanks to the contributions of the community in PR and FAC and beforehand, the article is, I believe, a well-rounded summary of the show that exemplifies FA work.

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?

• As with most experienced editors on Wikipedia, yes, I have been in edit conflicts and stressful situations. I have always strived to keep a level head on Wikipedia. I try to get away from the computer when things get overly complex or heated and think things over. I have a lot of people in my life who are aware of my committment to the Wikipedia and are interested in hearing what's going on there. I talk to those people and try to recenter myself. Above all, in the past, present, and future, I remember that we are here to write an encyclopedia. Name-calling and personal attacks do nothing but hurt feelings and cause trouble. We're here to write an encyclopedia, so that's what I try to do through civil discussion.

The following are some optional questions from Johntex. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! -- Johntex\ ^talk 19:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

4. When would you use {{ test1}} to {{ test4}}, and when would you use {{ bv}}?

• I have had to make this call before, as have many editors. I would use the test series in most cases and have done so in the past. I would use {{ bv}} in the case of orchestrated (Same vandalism coming from multiple accounts at once), repeated(user comes back over several days and multiple IP addresses making the same change), or informed(users changes lead me to believe that they know what they are doing is vandalism) vandalism. As a matter of clarification on the latter, I mean "informed", by way of some users who make changes that seem legitimate but are really vandalism, like deceptive edit summaries or partial reversion of their previous vandalism so that other users think there was no vandalism.

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

• This depends on the user's history. If this is the user's first 3RR "violation", then I would leave them a note on their talk page informing them about 3RR policy. If there was another revert following this and 4 then fell into a 24 hour period, I would block for the appropriate period. If the user had a history of 3RR violations or near violations, I would inform them of their near violation and likely give them a shortened block. Of course, every case is different, and there are almost always mitigating circumstances. I would be sure to analyze these before instituting any block.

6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?

• My change is a broad and massive, but you did say anything. If it were possible, I would love to raise the level of civility and high-minded debate on the Wiki. The number of normal simple content debates that I have seen devolve into shouting matches because of incivility is upsetting. As I said above regarding edit conflicts, shouting at the other people in a debate will do nothing but hurt feelings and cause trouble. Civility is an essential key to Wikipedia's continued success. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 20:05, 18 March 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.