Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zxcvbnm

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

[edit] Zxcvbnm

Vote here (8/13/6) ending 3:08 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm (talk • contribs) -Self nomination, I have done more than 3200 edits in the English Wikipedia since November 2004 and I am a major contributor, I have cleaned up many game and technology articles and have participated in Spanish Translations such as Geology of Venus. I am male and live in New York, USA. Like others, I forget to preview sometimes, but I have good faith. I participate fairly well on VFD and if i am elected I will use edit summaries on every edit. I save a lot because sometimes my data cannot be added when the edit fails. Although I may not have as many full edits as the edit count says, I can still be a good admin, and I am not biased or deletionist. I assure you that I will interact well with others if need be. In response to Ryan, I thought that you also had to list the time in military time, that's why I also put 15:08 which is 3:08 in military time. Also with the blank talk page, you are free to browse my history anytime.--Zxcvbnm 02:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.--Zxcvbnm 20:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Not a vandal+reasonable knowledge of policy+good faith+reasonable civility=my support. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
2. Support  BRIAN0918  23:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Support What Y0u said. Should use edit summeries (PLEASE DO THIS... most of yours (actually all I saw) were EMPTY, which forces you to look at the diffs even on simple edits which is annoying), and maybe use the preview button a bit more but the latter does not appear to be as much as a problem as Pavel indicates... maybe he could cut the post count down by 1/2 if he did (for the record I sometimes do the same thing - although there is a difference between that and deciding to add stuff later too). Also, the claim about VfD seems dubious as I don't find that much in its history, but that hardly concerns me... --RN 09:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Redwolf24 06:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
5. Support I changed my mind. I think that you will be a good admin. Really, it should be no big deal. You're a solid contributer. I'm sure you'll learn as you use more of your admin powers.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Leave me a note!} 06:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

   Thanks.--Zxcvbnm 13:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

6. --Jusjih 03:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
7. Edit summaries are commonly used by vandals to try to disguise malicious edits, so they're not foolproof. --Merovingian (t) (c) 04:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

   I have saw this in only handful of cases. Most of the time vandals ignore edit summaries altogether or add some expletive. Pavel Vozenilek 20:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

8. Support, I have had only positive experiences with Zxcvbnm and I am confident in his leadership Derktar 03:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC).

Oppose

1. Oppose: should you be using preview button number of your edits could be easily reduced to 1/10. Majority of your edits are related to sci-fi+games; I see only little participation on VfD, reverting and other admin associated activities. There's not much of communication with other users. You do not use edit summaries making it harder to people on RC. That said, I didn't find any edit of yours being questionable. Pavel Vozenilek 20:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose, I largely agree with Pavel Vozenilek. The claim in the opening statement about VfD work is true enough, but only really applies to the last 7 days — before that I don't see much work there at all. There appears to be none in TfD/CfD and I presume only incidental reverting (though without edit summaries it is hard to tell). Editcountitis is not too important, but there are an awful lot of save-without-preview edits, so I have to wonder about how carefully things are checked before pressing the button, which is important in an admin. I don't fully understand the additional claim in this regard in the extended opening statement — is this a widespread problem? -Splash 21:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

   If the problem means seemingly lost edits: yes, it happens almost daily to me. Now I am used to it but it could be traumatic for the uninitiated. Pavel Vozenilek 02:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose, I observe little interaction with other people in the course of Zxcvbnm's contributions, and some of what I see leaves me concerned about whether certain principles about Wikipedia have been absorbed. I don't normally care about edit counts, but the inflated number here suggests to me that perhaps more experience would be appropriate. --Michael Snow 02:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose Blanks talk page, doesn't use edit summaries, and most importantly, tried to pull a fast one by stating that the nomination would end August 8, 1508. Ryan 06:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

   Military time is fine, but you put it where the year is supposed to go. You even internally linked to the year 1508. And, of course I can view your history anything. However, it is both a courtesy and a standard to archive talk pages. Otherwise, it looks as if you are hiding something. Not that you aren't, but still. Ryan 12:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

   It was a simple mistake most likely. Also, some admins do wipe their talk pages. --RN 16:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

   Thanks for the support. Maybe it will convince some neutral guys to support me :)--Zxcvbnm 16:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

5. weak oppose we're not desperate for admins, and I would prefer Zxcvbnm to take some time to consider the issues brought up here. I will certainly reconsider should he re-apply in a month or so. dab (ᛏ) 18:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose because of his reactions below. Although it is unrelated to my vote, I must point out that I strongly object to my actions being quoted out of context here as an example of how not to do things. Radiant_>|< 20:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

   What is the big problem with wiping your talk page once and a while?? I do it once a month!! Just because someone used your page as an example doesnt give you the right to object without a reason pertaining to the vote.--Zxcvbnm 22:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

   • Excuse me, are you disputing my right to vote here? Radiant_>|< 07:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
     • Maybe, but I think he thinks that to vote you need to comment (which I'm pretty sure is not the case). Hopefully this doesn't escalate... --RN 07:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

   Well, it was me not the candidate who made an example of "your actions" (although it has nothing to do with you personally) - How is it out of context? You do wipe your talk page and don't archive it, which is what everyone here is saying is wrong for the candidate to do. --RN 01:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

   • I do not wipe (e.g. blank) my talk page. I occasionally remove old issues when the page gets too long. There is a huge difference. Radiant_>|< 07:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
     • Yes but I believe that is what the candidate is arguing that he's doing (if its a he :)). Anyway thanks for the response :) --RN 07:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

   Radiant, you shouldn't vote oppose for a candidate just because you don't like what he did to you. Don't let personal issues take control.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Leave me a note!} 06:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

   • This is nothing personal. Zxc and RN are basically saying "this is considered a bad thing but it's okay because Radiant does it, too". That is 1) a bad reason, 2) wrong because what I'm doing is something else, and 3) not particularly civil - all of which are not good signs for a candidate, or his prime supporter. Radiant_>|< 07:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
     • I disagree with at least #3 of that assessment - It was a hypothetical example at best, nothing personal at all. Also, I am just a lowly voter, not a "prime supporter" and my actions should not be construed as those of the candidate. I do want to apoligize if you thought I was not civil in the matter, however. --RN 07:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
       • Accepted - but note that you are mounting a defense on Zxc's behalf here, in response to several comments. There isn't anything wrong with that per se, except for 1) the idea that it might be necessary, and 2) that he should be able to speak for himself. Radiant_>|< 14:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

   • Well, there's nothing "necessary" about it - it's just me being nice, 'tis all. Also, it isn't about him not being able to speak for himself either - he probably thought my comments were good enough on the matter. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Per Splash, Pavel, and Michael Snow. The response to Radiant does not leave me feeling convinced on civility. siafu 00:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

   If you use every little thing I do against me, so be it.--Zxcvbnm 01:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

8. Oppose as per dab and Michael Snow.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
9. Talk page goes back only one month, which gives us little interaction to look at. May support a future nomination if talk page has been archived and if edit summaries are used more in article space edits. Jonathunder 23:16, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

   I can't believe that you don't know what a "history" button does....You can see all the past talk pages by clicking on it...the reasons for opposing are absolutely AMAZING....--Zxcvbnm 00:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

   Ridiculing all of your opposers is unlikely to help your cause, now and in future. You could look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThomasK to see what happens when you're just mildly rude to them.-Splash 00:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

   I see your point. However, I also see voters turning ThomasK's statements against him, and that's uncalled for.--Zxcvbnm 02:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

10. Andre (talk) 21:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose. User:Zxcvbnm is a good editor, but I don't think adminship is appropriate for him, at least not now. Would support user in future if 1) learned to interact more civilly with other users, 2) archived rather than blanked talk pages, and 3) used edit summaries consistently. See my comments below. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose doesn't have the temperament to be an adminBorisblue 08:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I don't feel he is civil enough. I would support in the future if they were a little more civil. --Phroziac (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    Sorry, didn't notice it said you were male! --Phroziac (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. While I don't fully oppose, many times I see this user throughout video game articles and I am constantly asking myself why he does not use edit summaries. As said above, you need to use the preview button more. Also I am concerned about the user blanking his talk page, as it looks like you don't other people to see it. I understand that it is your talk page and you can do whatever, but it is a concern to me. Thunderbrand 04:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral. He is a solid and knowledgable contributor, but I cannot vote support because he has little experience with admin related stuff, and also blanks talk pages. I might change my mind if he reapplies for adminship after he gets more experienced with admin related stuff--Exir Kamalabadi^{Leave a note} 09:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC) Vote changed to Support.
3. Neutral. Plenty of article edits, edits a lot for one day, helpful around here, but Zxcvbnm doesn't seem to use edit summaries, blanks talk pages, or participate very much in some of Wikipedia's activities. I do not think that he's not suitable for an admin, but I will vote Neutral. Overall, great person and works on articles. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Not enough experience with admin-like activities, and responses to concerns laid out here are a bit on the confrontational side. android79 04:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral, mainly because of lack of edit summaries, but also due to the sarcastic answer to Jonathunder, which is not what would be expected of an admin. --Sn0wflake 16:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutral, if it weren't for the civility issue, i'd vote in favor. His edit tally is certainly impressive, bugs or not. He should come back in a month or two and i'd be glad to support then. Karmafist 19:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• The problem with failed edits is due to a bug in Wikipedia. Most of the time one's edits actually go through and it generates error mistakenly. It is pretty annoying, though, and valid reason for frequent save. Pavel Vozenilek 21:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• In response to Micheal, I'll say that pretty much any candidate that has come through here has an inflated edit count on some level - sometimes you see people spending a whole week just doing welcomes, or fixing redirects etc., which will inflate it dramatically - which is generally why I ignore edit counts anyway. That and when they become an admin a lot of times they do less article editing anyway, unfortunately. --RN 09:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• You definitely have to work on your civility. Administrators often receive criticism, deserved or not, and must respond in an appropriate manner. Learn to use constructive criticism to modify or improve your behavior rather than getting defensive. The reply to Jonathunder's comment about talk page blanking, "I can't believe that you don't know what a 'history' button does" is unnecessarily sarcastic and rude, in my opinion. Even if the voter is misguided, there are much more polite ways of disagreeing (for example, "I don't archive my talk page because I feel that if people want to read my old messages, they can easily find them in the history" or something like that. The reason I object to talk page blanking is that it is difficult to go through the history to read old messages, especially when you don't use edit summaries indicating when you are blanking. My preferred method is to copy old messages to archive pages, as you can see on my talk page. Archiving to history is fine as well, but what would then be helpful would be links to the versions in history prior to blanking, so that it is easy to peruse your messages. This is especially important for candidates for adminship, as the messages one receives helps to give us a picture of how you and the community deal with each other. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for more information, and I would be happy to help you set this up. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:51, August 7, 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 help delete vandalism and articles marked for deletion, I would also fix errors in areas that are locked from editing. I don't believe you should be nitpicky about choosing an admin, especially if they have pledged to help. I mean, what does "not having experience" do to your admin abilities??

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

A. I have made major contributions to the Fire Emblem and Halo series pages and Geology of Venus as well as other science fiction articles.

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.I have not had many conflicts in editing and if I have one in the future I would not overreact and listen to both points of view.