Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tznkai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Tznkai

Candidacy has been Withdrawn, no further votes please!

Vote here (16/10/0) ending 01:58 18 August 2005 (UTC) Tznkai (talk • contribs) - User has been mediating disputes and NPoVising articles successfully. User would have an easier time with admin power such as 3rr blocks for people who refuse to bother talking instead just revert. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Gratefully accepted. Will post answers to questions after crisis Kim alludes to is taken care of. Answered.--Tznkai 04:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)-- Withdrawing: I appreciate both the support and legitimate criticism I have recieved. ( I don't count 2 weeks short of three months as criticism since well... you can't change that?) I cannot and will not entertain further comments about AmyBeth. That person (as opposed to user or editor) trusted me with personal information. She had a hard time and put herself in a difficult situation. I will not allow something to continue where her presence continues to be publizied. Its outside of wikipedia, and its a matter of trust. I trust if I am ever up for RfA, RfAr, or RfC or anything else she will NOT come up again, because I will not answer. Its none of your goddamned buisness, because this is an encyclopedia. She has nothing to do with this, and I am appalled that other editors here allowed these questions to continue.--Tznkai 15:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Great user, fair. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. FeloniousMonk 02:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Everything CoolCat said, plus.
  3. Support Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Adamant Support. Cool Cat stole my nomination! Tznkai just did something I thought was practically impossible. Half the developers were grovelling through the db, and tznkai just picks up the phone, and asks! And he got the answers, and is currently staying up, solving the situation. This goes very far beyond what we expect from an ordinary admin indeed! Kim Bruning 04:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. I have to echo Kim. Tznkai just gets on with things. And it's my turn to say, "what, he wasn't already?" Rob Church Talk | Desk 04:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Looks good, mostly. At least from a quick look at the edits this user should comprimise just a slight bit more - just something to keep in mind. Otherwise, looks great - user actually enforces 3RR! --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian (t) (c) 04:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I've had Tznkai on my shortlist of people I would nominate after they got enough edits that the editcounters that infest RfA wouldn't shoot him down for stupid reasons. But apparently someone beat me to the punch, so support it is. Remember, editcountitis can be fatal! Kelly Martin 04:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Too parrot another user, "Cool" gkhan 06:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support Proto t c 09:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Ho-hum Support. Tznkai has some readily obvious POVs, but nothing about his edits and interaction style lead me to believe he would be even remotely likely to abuse admin "powers", such as they are. In every dispute I've seen him involved in (of which there are more than a few), he always comes off much more civilly and sensibly than his opponents, which sometimes doesn't take much, but which leads me to regard him as both civil and sensible (go figure). Before I wax too verbose, I'll just shut up and sign: Tomer TALK 10:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    I agree. We all have POV. I dont believe Tznkai will abuse admin powers to "push" pov, and frankly I do not see what advantage admin privilages give to a "pov pusher". Maybe the ability to block opposition or lock pages. Wrongful blocking or locking, but I do not see any such notion. Admin powers on such incidents can be revoked at warp speed. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Having a POV isn't wrong. It's pushing it in an uncivil manner that's wrong, and Tznkai doesn't seem to do that. ral315 17:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  14. I've had a very productive discussion with this user at Talk:Pro-life; he was courteous throughout. Meelar (talk) 19:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    Restored Meelar's signature. I think it wasn't Talk:Pro-life but Talk:NARAL Pro-Choice America, unless you're talking about something from a very long time ago.--Tznkai 22:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support --Celestianpower hab 21:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support Tznkai is a very fair and sensible user.Heraclius 00:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  17. support to express I'm glad he's around. Since this nomination seems bound to fail, I recognize that the community thinks he has yet a little way to go to suppress his 'teacher habits' more, and I hope he will address the concerns voiced, and reapply in a month or two. dab (ᛏ) 11:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Doesn't meet my personal standards. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Could you please elaborate? I'm unfamiliar with Tznkai so would like to hear both sides of the argument. Radiant_>|< 08:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    BlankFaze...just out of curiosity, based on your established criteria, how would you vote if I were nominated, theoretically, for RFA? I'd be happy to hear your response, even if only via email. Tomer TALK 10:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    BlankFaze your are welcome to have your criteria so long as it doesnt conflict with wikipedia. Can you provide us a list/link to your requirements? --Cool Cat My Talk 14:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, since there aren't any standards for Adminship (other than rough vote totals) it would be awful hard to conflict with that. Wikibofh 02:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. Most recently the user has, from what I have seen, been unable to maintain civility and avoid personal remarks, when things get heated in discussions about controversial issues. -- Karl Meier 07:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Not trolling, but would you mind, terribly, for those who haven't yet come to a decision, or who might consider changing their votes, providing some diffs to support your opposition? (I realize, of course, that you don't have to do so, but when you make a claim, sometimes people wonder...) Tomer TALK 10:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose.Makes condescending remarks and ad hominen attacks, almost always is "playing to the crowd" and pretending to be in charge of the consensus, selectively invokes rules and is a 32k page size fundamentalist. He talks as if he is giving people chances, that aren't his to give. Supports protection for "edit wars" in which noone has even come close to the 3RR rule, so has a tendency towards using authoritarian means like article protection and threats of "dispute resolution". Appears to the type that will only get a strong sense of entitlement if he gets admin power. Just check out his remarks and tone at Intelligent design.--Silverback 10:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    This is something that should have been sorted out before Tznkai was nominated, I agree. What can be done? Kim Bruning 13:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    Kim, personaly think people have their methods of solving disputes. If threats of "dispute resolution" makes another user more "talkative" I really dont see the problem.--Cool Cat
    Showing initiative and leadership while supporting consensus are traits I look for in an admin. Silverback, despite having some good contributions for the article in question, has refused to abide by consensus. Tznkai should be commended, not berated, for standing up against those who flout consensus. His handling of Silverback, despite much provocation, has also been commendable. About Coolcat's little problem "premature nomination"... I've always believed the hardest metal comes from the hottest fire, and Tznkai's chosen to jump into some pretty hot fires. And he has always come out the other end looking a lot better than those who challenge him. My opinion is he's ready. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose3 months is too short. freestylefrappe 13:19, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    *nod* Coolcat nominated a bit too early really. What should be done? Kim Bruning 13:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    I sincerely think user is more than qualified to be an admin. IMHO time is irrelevant so long as the user is experienced and I feel he is more than qualified. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Nothing personal, but hasn't been here long enough. --BaronLarf 13:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose. I think 1500+ edits is enough to determine the nature of the person we're dealing with, but I don't like it when admin candidates are currently duking out an edit war (Intelligent Design). Nothing personal, and I'd probably be inclined to support upon conclusion of that war. --Scimitar parley 14:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose because less than 3 months as an editor is not long enough, and because of this blanking of the 3RR page here, SqueakBox 00:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, came across to me as a haughty admin, full of bluff and bravado, which seems all the worse after discovering that he is a relative nube instead. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Less than 3 months is too little.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. 3 months is not long enough. Dmn € Դմն 14:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. To put it simply, Tznkai is perhaps a little alacritous in being able for adminship and needs more time at Wikipedia. 3 months is scant.--Knucmo2 20:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. User hasn't really been here enough time to be an admin, but, looking through his contributions, he does appear to enjoy acting as the only rational person amongst us. I haven't had much contact with him, but find his taking charge of consensus making a little high-handed at times, his request for an "in crisis" notice to be placed on his page for the hour he was counselling an supposed amnesiac to be, as someone else said, "trolling for complements", and his notices that he's given other admins "proverbial slaps on the wrist" a little worrying for someone so new. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 11:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    That was done by SPUI! (S)He's crazy like that! :-P Kim Bruning 12:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    Huh? That's what I said: he asked someone else to put a message saying that he was busy during the "crisis" he was "averting" (words taken from his later removal of the message). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)

Neutral

Comments

  • 1554 edits since 24 May 2005. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Here's Blankfaze's standards, which I think are pretty fair and insightful. That doesn't mean I'll necessarily oppose this RfA yet though. Everyone should go by their own standards as long as they don't go against Wiki general policy, and mine are still coalescing since i'm at around 900 edits now. Karmafist 04:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Blankfaze: Coolcat did this nomination too early. I was going to wait some more weeks out of respect for you, but things being as they are, Tznkai is "wise beyond his years edits", and already more than ready to be an admin, IMO. Would you reconsider your vote if we discussed? Kim Bruning 04:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on this guy's way of talking over IRC, I get a distinctly "superior" vibe from him. In particular, I believe his handling of the AmyBeth situation (see Reference desk) was both dangerous and inappropriate--he claims to have called the amnesiac and attempted amateur counseling. He also requested that a "in crisis" message be added to his user_talk page while he was talking to this woman, all of one hour. Frankly, he seemed to be trolling for compliments. Although he is proactive in vandalism removal and mediation, I question his motives. -D. Wu 05:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Moved from neutral -D. Wu 06:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • He did call. And he has been checking up on me. I'm extremely inexperienced here, but I don't see in the least how dealing with me personally should have any bearing on if he's fit to be an administrator or not. Could you possibly leave me out of this?--AmyBeth 06:25:21, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
  • I don't feel that he's experienced enough... I mean, I like how he's been acting at Jihad and how he has dealt with some of the editors I feel are causing problems on the Islam pages... but... it's not the edit count itself that bothers me... it's the fact that a lot of them are minor and haven't shown me enough about the user (partly too because I see him in a limited scope). I'd vote yes for what I know about him... but for now I won't vote because there's too much I don't know about him. gren グレン 10:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I hardly ever vote to oppose. In this case, I nearly did, though. Something does not feel right. Unfortunately I can't be more specific. It could be the amnesia thing, or it could be the 3RR or the view on adminship. — David Remahl 10:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • <friendly cajoling>Or it could be paranoia. c'mon chmod 007? Let people in! chmod 777! :-p </cajoling but let friendliness live on> Tomer TALK 10:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • You are aware that the order is owner-group-others, aren't you? :-). — David Remahl 16:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you're sensing "green-ness". :-/ Tznkai is remarkably good for time he's been here already, so this is something that will sort itself out given time, likely a rather short time, if tznkai starts out carefully. Do you have any particular suggestions? Kim Bruning 13:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Most of the oppose votes are based on Tznkai's relatively short tenure on Wikipedia. If this RfA doesn't suceed, the easy solution is to wait a month or so. Carbonite | Talk 14:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A chart showing this user's edits along with an average # of edits line is available here: Image:Tznkai-edits.gif. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count and short period on Wikipedia. --Durin 19:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That is unbearably cool. Can you get one with bytes edited too? I'd be intrested.--Tznkai 19:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No, at least not using the data that was the basis for the graph which is just Special:Contributions/Tznkai. It takes some time to generate as I don't have a script to make it. I thought it might prove useful to the discussion for a nominee such as yourself that might not be acceptable to some based on edit counts and time in Wikipedia. A person can make their first edit months before their second edit. Thus, time on Wikipedia doesn't tell us much. Similarly, the number of edits is not tremendously useful. Showing a pattern of contributions I think helps to show the value of a user who is up for RfA with regards to edit counts over a time period. If others think this is useful, I'll continue doing it for other RfAs where the nominee has a low (say, below 2000) edit count and/or short period on Wikipedia (say, less than six months). --Durin 19:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Tznkai recently walked out of Wikipedia (over the VfD deletion thing). Then he walked back in again a few days later. Not just a Wikibreak - a user/talk page blanking type break. Does this show a tendency to act in the heat of the moment? -Splash 23:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgive me if that is sarcasm (I lack a sarcasm meter :)), but I think it really depends. I did note User:Tznkai/Petition seems to have discussion page and not an actual page... I can't find history for it either. Anyway. If someone just walks away from a situation sometimes it can be a sign of maturity (which is a good thing), and a lot of good editors around here have done this (especially one of the admins I really like). The user page blanking part isn't really troubling, as in this case it doesn't appear the usertalk page was wiped (just archived). --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt this will pass at this point... but I'll comment. An admin wields minor de jure power but a great deal of de facto power that's kind of an interesting statement... I see "admins" (maintainer is sort of how I think of it) as just users with a few extra tools, which someone flips with a flag in the software (maybe the POV of someone who make a wikisoftware, however). I think its just something that someone should naturally get after a while as long as they don't show any potential to abuse it (which is rare). More importantly, it probably doesn't help the perception that some people think you have a "superior vibe". --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Below you talk about the benefit of the roll-back button, but, except for your first three days of editing, I can see nothing in your contributions that seems to suggest you've ever been on an RC patrol. Your edits have been almost completely confined to articles related to abortion, intelligent design, christianity, islam and homosexuality. What would you do with the roll-back button if you had it? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:18, 13 August 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. The roll back button will be helpful when I get back to doing RC patrol like I started editing with. I think WP:AN/3RR, and WP:RPP need to also be watched carefully. While not every request needs to be granted, Admins acknowledging legitimate dipsutes and firmly denying spurious ones I think is important. Deletion is currently a live wire, so I'd leave that to the experts for the time being. Mostly, cleaning up after vandalism, keeping an eye on particularly bad 3RR breaches, and collaring Vandals In Progress. Appeal to me "duty" wise.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Abortion, hands down. I have made two major edits and a host of standard edits to that page, and have been editing it since I got here. I have stuck to WP:TRI with the addition of keeping everyone else, politely as possible within the constraints of WP:NOT. While I havn't been perfect there, I think my conduct and quality of edits was above par. Intelligent Design is another article I am a regular on. I think I have managed to get along with the majority of the frequent editors there and made singificant improvments, and still seek to do so.
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. Lesee. I have been in heavy conflict with User:FuelWagon and User:FeloniousMonk. For us, a few weeks of concentrating on the articles have done wonders. I have had conflicts with User:Ed Poor and User:Sam Spade. The solution to both of these is to listen more before slapping their wrists. Its hard to get rid of the teacher mentality, but I'm working on it. I am currently in conflict with User:Silverback and User:Zeno of Elea. The first is over Intelligent Design, and I stand by my record. I could have dealt with it better by stepping away and letting someone else handle it, but I maintain I did nothing wrong. With Zeno, I again stand by my record with the caveat that I could have done things better by letting things lie longer, as well as working through an intermediary.
4 Other: An important note on my Admin philosiphy. Adminship is a Big Deal. Perhaps it should not be a Big Deal, but it is. An admin wields minor de jure power but a great deal of de facto power. The power of page deletion and block is nothing compared to the influence an admin can have on wayward trolls, and a few edits on pages. Adminship is a mark of trust and respect from the community. To have it, is an honor, a pain in the butt, and also an important tool to be used to diffuse edit wars and encourage community spirit, not to gain the upper hand in conflict. Its a delicat balance. While the best situation is for an admin to never, even accidently missuse this trust, the next best thing is to have someone willing to listen to the opinions of others. I believe my record speaks for itself on this point.
5 Other part 2: On Rules. I am a self described lawful good individual. WP:TRI is the guide for common sense editing. The rest of the time, wikipolicies are used to help police, encourage, and inform wayward users of the way Wikipedia does things. In particular WP:NOT is probably the one I find most important. WP:IAR has never been an excuse to break all rules, it is merely an extolation to use common sense. Rules are best when used to protect the community by refleting the community will. They also serve as fair warning, so all editors, upfront, know what they are getting into.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Tznkai_30bb.html"