Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zachary crimsonwolf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Zachary crimsonwolf

FINAL (3/7/3); Withdrawn by EVula 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Zachary crimsonwolf (talk · contribs) - I am aware that my edit counts are rather low for an RfA (550+). However, there is no mention whatsoever about edit counts on the front page, so I'll go on. I have received positive response from my Editor review, and have been in several MfDs. Besides, I have also made quite a number of edits to articles. I hope that you will give me your fullest attention and voice whatever opinion that may come into your mind. I still have the need to improve myself. Cheers! Sincerely, -Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I generally prefer to take part in MfD and AfD works. I have been in several discussions, I find them rather interesting. If I were to be an Administrator, then I would do whatever I can to solve a particular debate or discussion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:They would be regarding the articles about geography. I have some reliable sources where I get my information from. Besides, I had fun editing the articles, and am happy that I can share my knowledge with the public.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:Yes. Once. I was new to Wikipedia then, and behaved rather irrationally. But if I were to come across the situation again in the future, then I would be sure to keep a calm head.

Optional questions from User:Richardshusr

4. You wrote that you would "do whatever I can to solve a particular debate or discussion". What do you envision that an admin can do to solve debates and discussions?
A:
5. You wrote that you "behaved rather irrationally" during a conflict. Can you provide a diff (web link) to the incident? Also, can you provide an example of a conflict in which you behaved more rationally?
A:

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Zachary crimsonwolf before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Moral Support Because of the self-nom and some not bad answers to the questions (your reminder that it's fun is excellent). Your input to the project is much valued and appreciated. I can't offer a full support, as I feel your main space edits are insufficent for you to have a full grasp of policy at this time - or at least for me to judge that you do. However I wish you well in this RfA; should it fail take it in good spirit, and lets hope the editcounters stay clear for once. Pedro |  Chat  12:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Moral support Seen you around often, and I think you'd make a good admin. You definitely need more experience though. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Moral support. Clearly a good user, but not really enough experience yet - wait a couple of months, gain some more experience (extensive participation in XfDs is always a good idea, for instance), then try again. I would be happy to give you any help and advice you need. (Although in response to the opposers, I have to say that working out someone's percentage of edits to userspace seems a little pedantic...) Waltontalk 17:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a little? MoodyGroove 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose only 141 mainspace edits, 564 in total. Highest number of edits to single page is to own userpage 117 in total. Come back when your edits to your own page drop to less than 1% of your total edits instead of the current 21%. -N 12:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    I calculated my own edits to userpage at 2.2% of total edits. Come back when your edits to your user page drop to less than 5% of total edits. -N 12:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    Using the wanabekate tool I calculated my own userpage edits at 2.93% and this bloke to be at 2.98%. I think sub 5% seems realistic! Cheers! Pedro |  Chat  13:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    Heh. Bear in mind there's no way Jimbo would pass an RfA at today's standards, if he were just another user. He doesn't even meet the edit count requirements any more... and he'd lose points for being "too controversial", too. (I can see it now. "Any time anything major happens here, he always seems to be involved. It's almost as if he goes looking for trouble.") – Gurch 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    xDDDD. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose- the edit count is very low... which may show that the editor lacks experience too. Francisco Tevez 13:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    If I may, I say that edit counts do not make an experienced editor. But if you think I should work more on them, I will. But could aynyone be so kind as to explain how editing a main space article make one an experienced editor? And all the edits I make to my user page are for reference (and adding userboxes). By the way, may I know what "something major going on" means? The "majorest" major thing I can think of is the Gnome Week, and I chanced upon that by accident. Cheers!!! -Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    I take it you've never heard of BLP or badlydrawnjeff? -N 13:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    Er...no. What would it be, excactly? Is it BLP, incidentally? Sign my autograph page!! Cheers! -Zacharycrimsonwolf #13:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, and...er... you ought to get rid of that autograph page, too. This isn't MySpace. I wouldn't put it past people to oppose you just for having one of those – Gurch 14:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    I would, but if you'd take a look at the page, you'll see a quote from Jimbo Wales (bless him!) saying that autograph pages are okay, as long as they promote hapiness and frendliness in the 'pedia. -Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    But they don't! They just annoy people, especially when linked to in unrelated contexts – Gurch 15:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Insufficient grasp of major policy issues, I seem to remember some odd stuff with Esperanza, as well. Probably needs some more time. Moreschi Talk 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Don't think candidate sufficiently 'gets it'. Riana ⁂ 17:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per above. Slade (TheJoker) 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose Your edit count is way to low for me. I don't really support people with less than 5,000 edits. Get more edits, and I will be happy to support you. Politics rule 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, I'm not going to be an idiot and say 5,000 edits are necessary, but with well under a thousand edits are the tools even that beneficial? -- Phoenix2 (holla) 18:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Not going to pass, so no point opposing. Make more edits, people love counting 'em round here. Just don't revert too much vandalism, else you'll need to make even more edits to compensate for this :) And... yeah, while there are perfectly legitimate reasons to edit in your own userspace (article sandboxes, etc.), you might want to go easy on them for a while. Re-apply one day when you're a bit more experienced (but not any time in the next 6 months otherwise someone will oppose you just for that) – Gurch 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. You may make a fine admin one of these days, but need more mainspace editing experience. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor 13:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I will remain neutral on this. Your edits, although low, show activity in a decent range of Wikipedia, which is encouraging, but the gap between Wikipedia edits from January to June did pique my interest. Rather than oppose I will remain neutral and hope that you continue to stay with the project and in due time give this another try. --Ozgod 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.