Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zappaz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Zappaz

Vote here (15/15/6) ending 18:25 15 September 2005 (UTC) Zappaz (talk • contribs) - Zappaz has been a Wikipedian since Sept 2004, 5,191 edits in 425 articles. He has been instrumental in promoting religious tolerance and a more balanced approach to articles in which Eastern religions are discussed. He has an excellent grasp of WP:NPOV and has applied it to balance articles related to New religious movements. He has ruffled the feathers of some editors with his lack of tolerance for advocacy against new religions, but the articles he has created and contributed to have become better due to his involvement. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored to be considered for adminship. Thank you for the kind words. --ZappaZ 03:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
This nomination process has been a humbling experience. I would like to take the opportunity to thank those of that have participated.

To those that supported my nomination I thank you for your trust and your kind words, but I still have a lot to learn to be able to be worthy of that trust.

To those of you that provide actionable feedback instead of criticism, regardless of vote, I also thank you: I am taking your feedback very seriously and will apply it over the next months to become a better wikipedian worth of the respect of the community; I am a persistent SOB, even my critics will endorse that :)

To those of you that voted against my nomination along POVs or political lines, related to my involvement in the Prem Rawat and new religious movements articles, I thank you as well as you have demonstrated to the WP community how difficult is for an editor to get involved in controversial articles: no matter what you do, there will always be those that will paint a bulls-eye in your forehead because of that. Rest assured that I will continue to provide a balance in these articles and defend NPOV against self-declared POV pushers and anti-religious bias. I must be doing something right to deserve your criticism.

And last but not least, I would want to say a few words to my most vociferous opponents, with the hope that these words are taken in good faith. I am writing these with the most sincerity I can gather after reading the scathing comments they have made against me during the RfA process: Anger is more corrosive to the source than to the target. Wikipedia is not a place to get angry or to be angry, but a place in which we can attempt to create something that was never though possible by people that most likely would have never got together to work on anything, for any reason. That is the challenge. I invite you to check that anger at the login page and join me in creating a more pleasant environment for editing. Call me an idealist. I leave you with the words of Ben Hecht from Footnotes on Wisdom and Folly that I find highly appropriate in these circumstances:

I have learned—[...] That a wise man canot evade pain or rage, but when they come to him he treats them as visitors and not as permanent relatives. A man who suffers too long or remains too long angry is not at grips with an enemy, but codling a disease

And another quote from Eric Hoffer's True believer

The awareness of their individual blemishes and shortcomings inclines the frustrated to detect ill will and meanness in their fellow men. Self-contempt, however vague, sharpens our eyes for the imperfections of others. We usually strive to reveal in others the blemishes we hide in ourselves.

With that I withdraw my nomination. Thank you again for your participation. --ZappaZ 23:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


Post-Candidacy Comments for ZappaZ

  • Thanks Zappaz for your comments above, which cut straight to the heart. -Scott P. 08:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You are a credit to this encyclopedia. I look forward to supporting a future nomination. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, my comments, above. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support —please promise me that you will get more "involved". While you have over 5000 edits, you have only edited about 500 distinct pages. What made me support however, was that you had over 200 edits in Wikipedia namespace; that shows you participate in VFDs etc.

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  3. Support With over 5,000 edits? Molotov (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian (t) (c) 22:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support Please use edit summaries more often though :). Great candidate. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support — Over the years, he has demonstrated an enthusiastic effort to ensure open religious views and a continuous requirement for clarity. While he tends to be very agressive, his position has always been clear. An excellent candidate.--ChuckJ14:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    Hi Chuck, since you are registered since Oct. 2004, i suppose you know Zappaz over the years from his time and activities outside of Wikipedia. Other sources would be welcome, maybe it could change my mind Thomas h 16:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Zappaz has demonstrated an admirable level of restrain in dealing with a barrage of personal attacks and frivolous complaints that are most likely to be politically motivated than anything else. In my interactions with him, I found Zappaz to be one of those editors that actually researches a subject before editing, with a passion for providing copious and solid sources for his edits. If more editors had that passion, Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia. I would like to express my concern about a voting process in which editors votes are not based on the capabilities of a nominee to becoming a good Administrator, but on the voter's antagonistic POV: this seems to be a perverse exercise of "revenge" against a nominee who has created and contributed to countless articles and discussions. We need more editors involved in helping with controversial articles, not less. Let's not penalize Zappaz for his involvement in controversial articles. --Senegal 17:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    Note - user defines self as a Sockpuppet. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    Your arguments sound quite reasonable but if i look at your contributions list there are almost only Prem Rawat related entries, like mine. With this in mind your arguments are very clever but do they really tell the truth? Thomas h 18:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support --Stefano Ponte 18:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, and kudos to jossi for the thoughtful nomination. Zappaz stands firmly for NPOV in the face of untiring abuse by Andries Dagneaux who shamlessly abuses Wikipedia as an outlet for his anti-religious activism. --goethean ॐ 18:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. I've read through all the opposing comments so far, and read through the articles where Zappaz has been involved in controversy, and have found no reason to oppose his adminship. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 00:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. I'll echo what I said below, on dave souza's nomination: Adminship is about wearing a hat. It is a fundamentally different activity from editing. One should support or oppose an admin not based on "does this potential admin hold opinions that differ from mine", but "will this admin abuse his extra buttons, or use them responsibly?" I see nothing to indicate that Zappaz will abuse admin powers. If the test for becoming an admin morphs into a vote on editorial position, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot and losing a lot of potentially excellent admins. Nandesuka 02:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    1. You're correct; voting for an admin should not be based on whether the candidate holds an opposing POV. However, accepting at face value the candidate's claim that all comments made against him are motivated by his holding a POV different from the commentators' is surely not the correct way to proceed. If you "see nothing to indicate that Zappaz will abuse admin powers", may I ask then what you do see when you look at him creating a POV fork, Hate groups and new religious movements, in order to restore disputed text without breaking the letter of the three-revert rule? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. Ruairidi 02:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  13. While hesitant due to some of the concerns brought by the opposition, as well as some of the support votes (new user directly above, for ex.), not to mention that I want more anti-religious bias, not less(!), still, somehow, I support. El_C 06:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support I support without reservation the appointment of ZappaZ to admin. I have seen his careful edits, precise use of language, and a clear understang of the pitfalls that collaborative projects require. He seems to have a high degree of tolerance in dealing with somewhat obsessed agenda-driven people, no small feat. I strongly urge his support. Nosmo Reyes
  15. Support. In fact, I dedicated 15 min of our wikitime to have an idea about you and your nomination. I'm happy that I haven't wasted any of that WT. You deserve an Admin seat as long as your interests are of ancient nature (few people are interested in that). Please remember, I voted positive in order to push you to contribute more than using your admin powers ;). One pertinent advice; promise yourself to correct some of behaviours noted by some our wikipedians below. Good luck. -- Svest 00:31, September 13, 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Oppose

  1. Oppose, behavior on List of people who have said that they are gods was unnaceptable all around. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC). I'd like to add that I am reasonably uncomfortable with the behavior of some of my co-opposers. The scattershot commenting on this RFA all over is totally uncalled for. The attacks on this individuals motives are totally uncalled for. The poor behavior of others does not address my serious concerns about attention to detail and keeping a level head. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC). Additionally, I swear before someone that I've never heard of Prem Rawat before this RFA. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    I think I conducted myself quite well, given that many of us had to face a strong pride of authorship by a main editor of that article. So far, no one has been able to contribute to NPOV'ing the article, including myself and several experienced editors such as android, Friday, SlimVirgin, and others that came to help and attempt to reach consensus. The result is that the article is now protected with no clear way forward. --ZappaZ 05:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    I really really didn't want to get into this, but Just prior to the page-protection contravercy, you removed a number of people from the list, all but one of them with an edit summary. The one without an edit summary? The one being consistantly disputed -> no edit summary edit summaryedit summaryedit summaryedit summary. Additionally, when doing your bulk removals, you left the article poorly formatted -> bad formatting version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 09:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    It's not the first time Zappaz has completely trashed an article. Consider these before and after shots --Alterego 16:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Zappaz has no sense fairness and uses double standards when pushing his POV that I consider extreme. I have been in constant disagreement and conflict with him since he entered Wikipedia on a number of articles, including Prem Rawat, Criticism of Prem Rawat (on the list of most edited articles), guru, post-cult trauma, apostasy, and more. And it is not because I am a narrow-minded anti-cult activist: user Ed Poor who is a Unificationist wrote that I am knowledgeable and fair about New religious movements. I disagree with Jossi: criticism of gurus, cults, new and alternative religion has very little to do with freedom of religion or lack of tolerance. And besides since when is the stated aim of Wikipedia to promote religious tolerance? I will soon compile a long list of inappropriate, biased, or erroneous comments and edits by Zappaz. Andries 10:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    Most definitively, Andries has been extremely difficult to work with and our POVs have clashed over many article. But I have always conducted myself with civility, and within policy. Hope that Andries would have done the same instead of resorting to personal attacks. --ZappaZ 14:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, i have seen Zappaz as extremly double standard when envolved in controversial topics.Thomas h 12:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    Your opposition is noted, but please refrain from trolling for votes agains me. Thanks. [1] --ZappaZ 14:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    How farcical, Zappaz. "trolling"? "Trolling" makes it sound like Thomas picked people at random to say "Hey, you wanna vote against this guy you barely know?" instead of what any person can verify he actually said by following the link you provided, which is that since he knew I am not sympathetic to you (putting it mildly) he thought I would want to be alerted that you were being proposed for adminship, in which he is completely right. If it's incorrect to alert people to major decisions being made that you think they would care about, then stand in line, because you've not only done exactly that yourself, but personally instructed others to do so.[2] -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    AI was here. --AI 13:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, and showing their true colors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose: Zappaz has been put on the administrator's noticeboard for violating 3RR, and uses double standards when involved in disputes. --Alterego 14:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    I was never blocked for breaking WP:3RR. I was warned once since I started editing WP. --ZappaZ 15:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose: When Zappaz first appeared as an editor of the Prem Rawat articles, I did a search of Wikipedia to determine what other articles he had been involved in and there were almost no non-Rawat articles, and yet he was clearly an experienced Wiki-editor. It has been suggested that 'Zappaz' is a new identity of an existing editor created especially for his pro-Rawat work. It has also been suggested that Zappaz has been paid by the Rawat cult for this work. I would just like to add that if these allegations are true, then Zappaz has earned every penny as his dedication to portraying this cult leader in a positive manner is a credit to his professionalism. --John Brauns 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    Editors: Please note that this is the kind of abuse I had to withstand from these ocassional editors that have no interest in WP other than using it as a platform to air their grievances. Note that I have sustained such attacks from ex-followers of gurus, anti-scientologists, and anti-cultists, for the only reason that I espouse an opposing POV to theirs. --ZappaZ 03:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    Editors - do your own research - look at the when Zappaz's obsessive interest in editing Rawat articles started and try to find evidence of involvement in other subjects pre-dating this. Why would someone who claims no involvement in Rawat's cult suddenly appear and spend so much time on Rawat's articles? Judge for yourself. --John Brauns 06:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)\
    Editors: John Brauns is using propaganda by employing a weasel ("It has been suggested that"..) to stir up anti-cult sentiment against Zappaz. --AI 13:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    Editors: Please note that Zappaz states, as if it were fact, his version of why these disputes occurred. What he characterizes, martyringly, as "attacks from ex-followers of gurus, anti-scientologists, and anti-cultists", he claims happens "for the only reason [sic] that I espouse an opposing POV to theirs." However, as many of us have cited in this very RfA, the real reason we have opposed him is his shameless lack of integrity in pushing his POV via double standards and reprehensible gaming of the system (see account below of Hate groups and new religious movements). If Zappaz actually truly believes that all these "attacks" that he moans about occurred purely because of his POV -- then it goes to show again how poor an admin he would make, because it shows that never once did he assume good faith of the editors who clearly spelled out that it was his underhanded tactics they opposed -- and never once has he considered that maybe his actions are open to criticism. Do we really want an admin who is going to characterize any concern that ever comes up about his use of admin powers as "for the only reason that I espouse an opposing POV"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC) (P.S. If there's any doubt about the difference between what Zappaz says he's faced and what he's really faced, here is an example of a personal attack motivated by POV for contrast. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC))
  6. Strongest possible oppose! Zappaz has shown over and over basic untrustworthiness -- I would point you at the sordid fiasco of Hate groups and new religious movements for perhaps the prime example. Zappaz kept trying to insert into Hate group the fact that Elan Vital claims the former members it calls "ex-premies" are a hate group. Other editors such as myself believe the material should be removed, because nothing about that fact really illuminates the subject of hate groups in general. At one point in the editing, Zappaz finds himself at his limit of three reverts: [3], [4], [5]. So what does he do? Does he respect the spirit as well as the letter of the three-revert rule? No -- with his very next edit, he creates a new article on the spot, starting it with a cut-and-paste of his preferred version of the section under dispute. Do we really need an editor who will look for new, sneakier ways to game the system? For a further illustration of why this editor cannot be trusted, read the arguments he made during the above revert war, that "if any other organization, controversial or not, (church, NRM, group, etc.) makes a substantial point of calling another organization or group a "hate group" and publish that in their literature, then definitively it should be mentioned in this article as well", and compare with his comments in a recent VfD about how a list article is too POV and deserves deletion because the items of the list are "a one sided POV expressed". If you find yourself tempted to vote for Zappaz because at one point you saw him (supposedly) disregarding POV to act on principle, take a closer look at his history and you'll probably see him upholding the opposite principle when that's what suits his ends. Wikipedia needs admins with integrity enough not to abuse their power. For that reason it doesn't need Zappaz as an admin. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose as above. Borisblue 01:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose for now. I have been a Wiki editor for approximately 3 years, and was also once (20+ years ago) a student of user Zappaz's current spiritual teacher, Prem Rawat. Also, I was the original founder of the organization ex-premies.org, towards which Zappaz appears to be most animately opposed, but which I have not been active in for approximately 10 years. Zappaz's very first article-text edit shows him deleting a critical link to his spiritual teacher at Zappaz's first article-text edit. For this deletion his only editorial explanation was: Maharaji in the Press - rv - not relevant to section. The section that the link appeared in was the external links section. Does this mean that to Zappaz, any criticism of his spiritual teacher is inappropriate? This does not seem to me to be consistent with Wiki NPOV policy. In Zappaz's last major article-text edit, again he did not appear to be following standard Wiki policy. This was Zappaz's last major article-text edit on 09/07. In this major edit, he inserted reams of undocumented assertions, presenting all of these as fact, all apparently aimed at undermining any potential criticism of Prem Rawat. In this edit he also again erased critical external links, such as the link: Gateway webpage explaining this deletion with the cryptic comment, mv to refs. All of these edits seem to me to show that Zappaz somehow places the priority of his need to defend the reputation of Prem Rawat over the need to let the simple facts plainly speak for themselves. When Zappaz demonstrates the understanding that in Wiki facts should always be allowed to speak more loudly than personal agendas, consistently demonstrating this over a significant period of time, then I will gladly support his nomination if asked, but not sooner. -Scott P. 00:13:00, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
    HONESTY ALERT!!! Scott old pal, why have you failed to disclose to the editors here that you not only are the "original founder of the organization ex-premies.org" but are also the original owner and registrant of the hate speech website ex-premie.org? This is very interesting indeed for you to use this word, because Brauns and his laywer Bachers have repeatedly DENIED (here and in courts) that they are any kind of organization: yet you come right out and admit it. Either Brauns is lying or you are...who? So you created an organization that Brauns says doesn't exist...very interesting.... Why don't you explain why after having run-ins with Scientologists you skipped out of Clearwater, Florida and made your way to Michigan, giving over the website to John Brauns? If it's NOT a hate site, you surely would have been proud of it, no? Instead you did not disclose your hidden agenda. Your actions speak pretty loudly...Nosmo Reyes 21:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
     
    Nosmo,
    You seem to be trying to say that whether or not Zappaz is qualified to be a Wiki administrator somehow depends on whether or not the voters on this page love, hate or are indifferent towards your spiritual teacher, Mr. Rawat. This, and other apparent assertions of yours above raise four questions for me.
     
    1. Since when have voters on Wiki had to clarify whether they loved, hated or were indifferent towards your spiritual teacher before they were allowed to vote here?
    2. What does the opinion that any particular voter may hold regarding your spiritual teacher have to do with Zappaz's potential abilities to make a good Wiki administrator?
    3. While I no longer consider Rawat to be my teacher, I do not, and have never considered him to be evil or malicious, any more than any other regular person . We all have our good and bad days. Personally I consider myself to be basically indifferent towards him. Why do you seem to believe that this position of mine towards Rawat somehow equates to 'hatred', and that your belief that I supposedly 'hate' your guru (which I don't) would somehow prove that Zappaz would make a better Wiki administrator?
    4. What bearing does the question of whether or not the ex-premie.org site is or was an ‘organization’ have on whether or not Zappaz would make a good Wiki administrator?
     
    I cannot see how these questions bear at all on Zappaz’s qualifications for being a good Wiki administrator, so I will try to answer some of these questions for you on your own ‘user-talk’ page, should you wish to continue this discussion there.
     
    Originally entered: 2005-09-13
    Revised:Scott P. 00:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
     
    In an effort to reduce the polarization between "pro" and "against" Rawat factions that my RfA has triggered, I will respond to your above comments, assumptions and complaints (and to any other comment about this specific group of articles) after the RfA is concluded. --ZappaZ 14:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I have the impression, that ZappaZ does not always recognize his own bias (though he honestly tries to). Also there have been several instances where ZappaZ made a revert (and even a repeated revert) instead of discussing the matter and where ZappaZ did go against consensus of other editors. I do think that ZappaZ works at improving himself, but from an administrator I'd expect above average abilities in interaction with other users, and that's not (yet) the case with ZappaZ - which is also visible in some of his reactions on the votes here. --Irmgard 18:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for your feedback. I just hope that you and others recognize your biases as well. I am 100% for assuming one's POV, as we all have one and there is nothing wrong with it. I look forward to editing moree articles with you. Our forced "partnership" (by virtue of our POVs) as always resulted in better articles. --ZappaZ 19:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. While I didn't have any personal dispute with him yet, I noticed his activities in the Rick Ross discussion page. The thought that he would be an admin and thus have more control on these areas (where I also edit) is scary to me.Tilman 17:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman
    So, Tilman, if you do not have any disputes with me, and for the record: are you voting against my "activities" and my POV (that is opposite to yours)? --ZappaZ 20:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    I don't understand what you mean. The vote is about you becoming an admin - which I have voted to Oppose. And such a vote, pro or con, is always based about whether or not people liked your activities.Tilman 22:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman
  12. Strong oppose. Completely throwing away all of the other reasons not to support, you have attacked, in one way or another, at least three of the oppose votes against him. I don't really care if you're a Wiccan, a Scientologist, a member of Heaven's Gate, a murderer, or Richard Simmons. The question is, do I think that I can trust you with the administrative tools? At this point, I can't. Ral315 21:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comment, but please note that I have shown enormous restrain given the animosity expressed against me by a few individuals that have opposing POVs to mine. I made comments on these votes that are clearly politically motivated. Or is that wikiettiquette calls for remaining silent during an RfA? --ZappaZ 21:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    Wikiquette calls for assuming good faith of editors, which is exactly what you fail to do every time you read a comment that says nothing about your POV, heave a melodramatic sigh of martyrdom, and moan about how can you keep going on with all these nasty, vicious people attacking you because your POV differs from theirs. The more you do this the more clear it is that you are, at best, too willfully blind to your own faults to ever make a good admin. (And yes, I'm aware that you withdrew your nomination, but you've been showing incivility to editors by attributing ulterior motives to them in this fashion long before this nomination.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, I'm afraid. It was going to be "neutral", but his reaction to "oppose" votes on this RFA is itself enough reason to seriously doubt about his ability to keep a cool head in controversial circumstances. (For a comparison, I'm thinking of the RFA for Tony Sidaway, who is highly opinionated and happy to wade into controversy - but he took on board "oppose" criticisms so well that he converted many to "support" over the course of the seven days.) Six to twelve months down the track, maybe? - David Gerard 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, I have to admit that it has not been easy to be the target of so much animosity and criticism. I guess that I have yet a lot to learn. --ZappaZ 21:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose as per David. Snowspinner 22:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Fadix 23:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Vote moved to neutral after reading Andries's and Thomas h's comments. Zappaz has enough experience but seems to be too controversial. — JIP | Talk 12:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    I would appreciate thay you read the ongoing personal attacks from Andries. He is a ex-follower of a guru with a very strong POV against gurus and finds nmy edits controversial. As for Thomas, he is also an ex-follower of a guru, has contributed almost no content to WP, with the exception of advocating against his ex-guru. I would count with the fingers of one hand, those editors that see me that way. I would appreciate you read some of the talk pages, and reconsider. Thanks. --ZappaZ 13:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    To my defense:Due to my minor english skills i haven't contributed that much, but that doesn't mean that i haven't read much either. You will find in Zappaz' edits over a long time the work of an active anti-anti-cult activist. See through his edits in the Prem Rawat articles that were his very start,moving to Hate Group, Apostate, Massimo Introvigne, Cults and many many others. A framework in favour of Prem Rawat and due to his declared bias of other NRM's. His work concerning neutral articles may be of excellent quality, no question. You have to decide if you want to vote for an excellent writer and buy with that somebody who has extremely one sided positions in certain topics or let him wait until he has proven that he can control his bias.*Thomas h 14:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    Uhh, i have almost forgotten, Jossi Fresco the person who has recommended Zappaz, is an active follower of the guru Prem Rawat, and was once his personal webmaster. Please decide for youself if all that is some kind of an accidental happening or notThomas h 14:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry people, you guys have argued amongst yourselves for far too long for me to simply step in and see who is right about what. I'm standing by my neutral vote. This will neither support or oppose Zappaz. — JIP | Talk 16:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Currently too controversial for my tastes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Between the controversy and the odd distribution of edits, I'm not comfortable supporting at this time. --Alan Au 07:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Like Zzyzx said, too controversial. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 18:32, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Really concerned about limited focus: not only only 400-some distinct pages edited, but well over half (at least 2775 of 5294 total edits) are among the dozen or so articles/pages with "guru", "cult", "Rick Ross", or "Prem Rawat" in the title. Titles containing "Prem Rawat" alone counts for 561 of the user's first 794 edits (over a 4-1/2 month period). Niteowlneils 09:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    I would appreciate some clarification (on my talk page, please) about why limited focus is a problem. I gravitate toward the subjects I study and that are of interested to me and that I can make a contribution. Should I spend more time doing janitorial stuff? That may be a good idea. Thanks. --ZappaZ 14:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutral based upon the comments of everyone in this RFA. Hall Monitor 22:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Disclaimer: I admit that I have had my share of conflicts with a handful of editors with opposing POVs. I am all for owning our POVs while at the same time respecting consensus building and working together toward NPOV. I have done both these things in all controversial articles I have edited. Editing these articles and dealing with the high tempers of some participants is not fun, and I have been the target of personal attacks, and conspiracy theories, due of my involvement in these articles. On the other hand, I have managed to build good working relationships with other editors that have opposing POVs to mine. I actually think that my exposure to these types of conflicts will make me a better admin as I understand what it takes to be exposed to and be effective in dealing with controversy. The editors I have had conflicts with are: User:Alterego in List of people who have said that they are gods; and user User:Antaeus Feldspar and User:Andries in numerous articles related to gurus, cults, and New religious movements; and several anons and occasional users such as User:Thomas h on Prem Rawat related articles. --ZappaZ 15:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
i find it noble from you that you admit that Guru and Hate Group are Prem Rawat related articles for you. With so much honesty that you have learned by now, you may earn your adminship Thomas h 17:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't forget Moral panic where you repeatedly reverted my edits saying that you'd consider them if they came from someone else, but, since I have a POV you don't like "it is unacceptable". Gee, that's swell behavior for a would-be admin -- ignore the content of the edit and ignore the reasoned explanation of the edit that you requested, and focus on your beliefs about the contributor! (Keep reading, folks, it gets better.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    I fully admit it was a poor comment. Nevertheless, check the reasons of your edit, and your argument for deletion, and tell me and others that you are "free from sin". Let the man without sin throw the first stone. --ZappaZ 01:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    I stood by my reasoning then, Zappaz, and I stand by it now, and I invite every single person who is interested to go see the whole debate on the talk page and see how when you reverted my edits before asking for an explanation, I gave you an explanation, and you still reverted those edits. You took three days to come up with a reason for the reverts that wasn't 'It's an edit by Antaeus Feldspar so it must be all about his POV' -- and even then, it was just 'Somebody thinks it's so and therefore Wikipedia should repeat the allegation', a principle you were curiously four-square against when the article was List of purported cults. If you truly believe what you're mouthing now about "let the man without sin throw the first stone", it says a lot about your ego that in that discussion, you did throw the first stone, and kept on throwing more. I urge everyone to go read that whole discussion and see for themselves who behaved like a mature Wikipedia editor and who insisted 'I acknowledge my bias and you do not and therefore even when you can clearly elucidate your reasoning and I can only mock you for being verbose, I must be right!' -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Jossi wrote in his nomination that "He has been instrumental in promoting religious tolerance" In other words, Zappaz has according to Jossi engaged in advocacy. An excellent reason to oppose his candidacy. Zappaz is the only person in the whole of the Wikipedia community who has often made me angry. I have to admit that as a result of his unfairness and constant use of double standards, I have used tough words about the quality of his edits (but not about him as a person). I also admit that because of the editing dynamics of opposing POVs between Zappaz and me, some good results have been created. Andries 17:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    So, what your are saying is that standing against the POV pushing of anti-religion, anti-guru and anti-Rawat activists is advocacy? Are you also saying that stating repeateldy in talk pages that you consider my edits an hypocritical, ignorant and stupid is not a personal attack? I would suggest that your read WP:No personal attacks so that you can understand the policy better. --ZappaZ 01:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Jossi wrote "promoting religious tolerance". He did not write "standing against POV pushing" etc. The alleged personal attacks that I made on you is not a point of discussion here. Here we discuss your behavior and your defense of it and your bias. (Btw I re-read the WP:No personal attacks) (unsigned - by User:Andries
      Of course that you POV pushing is relevant to this discussion! Read your own admission that you are a POV pusher. [6]--ZappaZ 21:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I have one more important point that i would like to mention: Since Zappaz startet at wikipedia, he has spent almost 4 month on Prem Rawat articles alone, for which he had done a research before for almost a half year, so his own words. The Edits were with the heaviest conflicts one can imagine. In Questoins and Answers Point 3 he only mentions Rick Ross ans Human by name. This i find a bit dishonestThomas h 17:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Messing up a list and leave the work for other editors Here is an article list of new religious movements that I created to which made Zappaz made unconstructive edits and has not helped to clean up the mess. He inserted among others Zen Buddhism [7] to the list and the list may contain other groups and movements that clearly do not fit the various definitions. It takes a lot of time however to find them all and Zappaz has hardly helped. Here is the version of the article that I created [8] Andries 19:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Zappaz's pointing out that that article is completely untenable under WP policy is praiseworthy. --goethean ॐ 19:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Adding a list of NRM's from a notable scholar (Jeff Hadden), a source that Andries has used in the past as a reference (University of Virginia's New Religuous movements home page), is considered "messing up a list"? I call that collaborative editing and one of the pillars in which WP stands. --ZappaZ 01:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • When you check further Jeffrey Hadden's list then you will see that the title is religous movements [9], not NEW religious movements. And apart from that common sense should have told you that something was wrong when you added Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Zen Buddhism. My main objection with your behavior in this affair is not that you made this mistake but that you do not acknowledge the mistake and above all that you did not clean up your mistakes and obstruct me who tries to do so by reverting my revert. Andries 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Failure to assume good faith of other editors (in this case me) [10] This was a sincere mistake by me, not a bad faith edit. I had made this mistake because I remembered what the Member of the European Parliament and Chris Patten had written in e-mails that they had sent to me personally and that I had on my old HDD. In their e-mails they went much further than in their public statements. The other reason for my mistake is because of my lack of knowledge of the procedures of the European Parliamentary . Zappaz did not apologize until now. Andries 10:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The one that needed to apologize to me and other editors for his behavior in pursuing that edit, is Andries, not me. Read the talk page and read what you said and the edits you made. How can one assume good faith when Andries, by his own admission, speaks of his edits as based on anger against gurus? --ZappaZ 01:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I had already admitted that I made a mistake and I hereby apologize for it, but you should assume good faith. Again, we are not discussing my behavior here, but your behavior. I do not remember that I wrote on [talk:guru]] that my edits are based on anger against gurus. Andries 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Fairness. Zappaz mentioned above in an argument, the lack of my contributions to Wikipedia, because i am opposing him. He doesn't have a problem with the even lesser edits from Chuckj,Ruairidi or the vote from sockpuppet Senegal, which might be himself or another voter already voting for him. He inserted notes about my former membership of Prem Rawat but leaves out to insert the same to the current followers which are indebted to him for his work, so that i had to do it for him. In my eyes he is demonstrating here what he is up to do when he gains the rank of adminship.(maybe i am just to naive ,'cause this is the first admin election i am taking part) Thomas h 08:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If this is your first time, I would encourage you to read about the role of administrators. If you do, you will soon realize that I will be held accountable to a much higher standard and that I will not be able to excercise any "privileges" in controversial articles I am editing without being challenged by my peers. So your fears are unfounded. Relax and please tone down a bit of the rethoric. This RfA is already super charged. You have made your vote, now allow the process to unfold without any more comments from you. Thank you.--ZappaZ 14:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Why do then oppose so many experienced editors for the same reason, when it is such a harmless thing? And what about articles that you are not envolved in as an editor but that are subject to your bias? Thomas h 08:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Insisting on restoring opinions that should clearly go to wikiquote [11] I had been blocked for re-inserting several times a NPOV warning to that article for among others that reason but the person user:Geni who blocked me did what I had been saying all along on the talk page [12] Zappaz made no admission of being wrong nor did he apologize, as usual. Andries 21:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The only reason for the opposition to these informative quotes, is that it painted Prem Rawat in a positive light. Had these quotes referred to libelous allegations by ex-followers, Andries would have supported them wholeheartedly. --ZappaZ 00:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, my mistakes and bias are not a point of discussion here. Please give a detailed rebuttal or admit that you were wrong. Andries 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • censoring repeatedly relevant information on the talk page and stopped doing so only after mediation See e.g.[13]Andries 22:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • How much vitriol you can spread around, Andries? Should we post a list all of your personal attacks against Zappaz (such as calling him extremely biased, naive and ignorant)? Or should we post all the requests by Zappaz to apologize that you ignored? You have made your vote, and voiced your grievances already. I thing that it is enough already, let the RfA process continue with some degree of dignity. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have many more grievances against Zappaz and I will only stop voicing them when he revokes his request for adminship. I only made negative comments about his edits, not about Zappaz as a person so I made no personal attacks. Andries 22:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree, Andre is entitled to his criticism. I must say that I'm rather concerned with the libelous statements, not allowed even in talk pages edit summary on Zappaz part, and would like to hear an explanation for it. El_C 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Andries is indeed entitled to his criticism, and doing a pretty good job of it. In reference to such edit, I would encourage you to read the context in which that happen. Ask also Andries about his unabated advocacy against gurus, his self-declared anger against gurus, and his collusion with ex-followers of Prem Rawat. Then you may understand my action in this deletion. Andries, note that I have no intention to revoke my nomination. On the contrary. --ZappaZ 00:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Andries, he will of course not revoke his nomination, he is standing like a rock, though he is using this option to influence editors on the compassionate level [14], which is very clever, but something that makes me fear. Knowing his detereminedness i am sure he is still holding his auxiliae in backhand in case it will be narrow Thomas h 06:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Insisting on restoring an incorrect reference to a book that he had not read [15] I have read the book Politics of Religous Apostasy edited by Bromley incl. the article by Carter and have it at home and it does not contain any such sentence. I had warned him on the talk on 22:36, 13 June 2005 but he simply restores the incorrect reference. I usually read the books that I use for references. Andries 23:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • My response to Andries was that the text is not a quote but a summary of some of their findings as presented by Melton in his article Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory [16] --ZappaZ 01:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Does this mean that you admit that you were wrong in this case? Does this mean that you refer to articles and books that you have not read? Everbody, including admins are allowed to make some mistakes. Andries 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Insisting on restoring personal attacks on user:Andries [17] Andries 23:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    An extensive posting by a critic of Andries was deleted from the talk page so I restored it (Culver's complaint against Andries and Willmcw). You have the right to refactor any personal attack (as I have done in countless ocassion in which you resorted to that appalling tactic against me).--ZappaZ 00:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    The negative comments that I made about your edits are peanuts when compared to the libel against me that you insisted on having restored. Again, my alleged personal attacks against you are not a point of discussion here. Andries 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, yes, they are Andries. --ZappaZ 21:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I would like to spend more time responding to RfCs (I think that we all ought to dedicate more time to responding to these) and VfDs. Lately I found it rewarding to welcome newbies, and maybe I would start some kind of mentoring effort. My assessment is that WP shines in direct proportion of the number of people engaged. The power of the network coupled with the power of a community based on individuals with a passion. You cannot beat that. So, mentoring newbies could be what I could do (don't know if that is a specific admin chore, but it should be, IMO). I would also like to get more involved in helping shape WP policies. This is history in the making, and I want to be part of it. --ZappaZ 03:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. That would have to be Names of God in Judaism. I took that article all the way from a semi-fotgotten article all the way to Featured Article status (with the wondeful help of User:Raul654 and User:Garzo and other editors, of course!). That was a very rewarding effort.--ZappaZ 02:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
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.Oh yes... I have had my share of these conflicts. On specific articles such as Human, Rick Ross and other controversial articles, once I saw that I was unable to resolve conflicts and was getting "too involved", I will simple apply a self-declared moratorium and refrain from editing that article for a few weeks. That kept me sane, and allowed other editors to make their contributions. I found that the self-enforced moratorium or Wikivacation works wonders (and gives you the perspective that the power of the community to enforce NPOV is quite remarkable, even without your help...). I have a couple of editors with which I still have a hard time collaborating with, (in particular those that have accused me of POV pushing and resort to personal attacks, or to revert edits without discussion), but I guess that this is part and parcel of having a large community such as Wikipedia. I just hope that with time and patience, I can find a way to work with them as well. --ZappaZ 02:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Zappaz_bb81.html"