Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zanaq

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.

[edit] Zanaq

Final (5/23/5) ended 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am active (count) on nl (count), es (count), and commons (count). I aspire to become an administrator because I want to be able to do some things myself.

I combat vandalism using my watchlist (so I'm not a really fierce vandalfighter). Recently I encountered some blatant vandals for which I put out blockrequests, but I think it would be easier if I could singlehandedly dispense blocks.

Also on the dutch and spanish wiki's I encountered difficulty in getting the pages in the mediawiki namespace modified to get in line with the w3c (some scripts were broken): first I had to explain what the w3c is. This has not yet been an issue for me on the en.wiki.

My RfA on the dutch wiki failed because I "vandalized" the spanish wiki in december 2005. Since then I made more than hundred additional small edits there (I hope good ones), so I think I have rehabilitated myself. I will try again in a couple of months. I'm not sure I will succeed then, because I am a little bit controversial over there: User:Waerth for one thing has totally no confidence in me.

I usually am kind and warm to new users , but I despise linkspammers and pov pushers. I have sometimes engaged in editwarring over trivial matters but I would never abuse my admin powers in such conflicts.

I hope to help the community in ways I cannot possibly imagine. I will certainly watch the Admin request pages and try to assist whenever possible. I accept the guidelines and fully support the principles of our wonderful encyclopedia. Zanaq 11:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (self-nomination)

  • Closed: looks like I didn't make it. I'd like to thank everyone for voting. I will try to make some good use of the recommendations: see y'all in a couple of months. Zanaq 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Support

  1. Support - He has many thousands of edits across at least 5 languages. It is preposterous to suggest that he doesn't have enough experience. What does bother me is that his English grammar and usage are clearly fluent but carry enough mistakes that his English edits require a second look by a native speaker. - Richardcavell 12:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support per Richardcavell. And we need more admins! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, he has a history of good editing, seems a passably swell guy, speaks solid English, has no black marks against him that I can see, and, of course, editcountitis is evil. I'm peeing into the wind at this stage but I can still make a statement. Lord Bob 02:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per Lord Bob. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per Lord Bob. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, a little too few edits on the English Wikipedia, answers to standard questions are missing. JIP | Talk 12:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Too few edits for a self-nomination; More experience on this 'pedia is needed. Xoloz 12:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per edit count and unexplained lack of answers to standard questions, although I like the admittance of past problems in the nomination. Kusma (討論) 12:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Impressive commitment across the board but just not enough involvement in the English wiki right now (and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect me to go check out other wikis, I only speak English, lest anyone suggest I do just that). I say come back when you've built more of a profile here and/or achieved adminship on the Dutch wiki, and I may well support you. Good luck. --kingboyk 13:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Very few edits. Only 231 distinct pages edited. - Aksi great 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - inexperience --Mmounties (Talk) 14:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Per my own standards I prefer admins to be more than just vandal fighters--Looper5920 18:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - inexperience + answer to standard question 1. Mikker ... 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, Still lack of experience, need to do some more work before to be an admin. Shyam (T/C) 20:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, Too few edits (About 700) but just the right number of time on Wikipedia, according to my standards. Comment: EDIT MORE! Crna tec Gora 20:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Self-nom is usually not a good thing. Thousands of edits spanning across multiple languages/wikis doesn't make you qualified for adminship on Wikipedia. Good vandal fighter but theres more to wikipedia than that. Keep up the good work though. :-) Moe ε 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose lacks experience on the enwiki. Computerjoe's talk 22:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Computerjoe, among others; not enough experience on the English Wikipedia. Try again after reaching about 2000 edits and I'd probably support. joturner 00:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose for insufficient experience here.--Jusjih 05:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose insufficient en: activity — xaosflux Talk 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 08:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose The reason why you need more experince at the en-wiki is because you need to understand our policies, which differ slightly and also not have edit-wars with the people here. GizzaChat © 08:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Kingboyk. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per above.--HereToHelp 13:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per above, sorry. Weatherman90 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose more time bud. --Jay(Reply) 17:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per above --Ugur Basak 13:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. I would prefer to see more en-article and en-WP involvement, particularly for a self nomination. --Alan Au 23:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, I'm concerned by the vandalism/lack of trust issue on the Spanish project. Hiding talk 13:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Vote changed to neutral after seeing the answers to the standard questions. However I still think there are too few edits on the English Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 14:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Zanaq mentions "My RfA on the dutch wiki failed because I "vandalized" the spanish wiki in december 2005." Since many of us don't read Spanish, perhaps Zanaq could explain what this vandalism was and why he/she puts the word in quotations as if he/she disagrees with having been labeled as a vandal. My vote will depend on what Zanaq states about this episode since I take possible vandalism by people wanting to be admins very seriously.--Alabamaboy 14:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    I started out with renaming es:Jabba the Hutt to es:Jabba el Hutt (and updating links accordingly). Then I uploaded a automatic translation of Kumbaya laden with some humour (It is that in popular culture the song is associated with closeness and cuddling, singing the song by the campfire playing the typically spanish guitar.) and merged 2 articles erroneously. Furthermore I brag about it in my user space on the dutch wiki.
    The spanish were a bit more lenient than the dutch. When a dutch user complained one spaniard explained: Pues no entiendo el vandalismo de Jabba el Hutt, es como se llama en español. parafrased: It is no vandalism on Jabba: that is his name in spanish. Nuria (a spanish admin) was a little bit more upset with me, but we talked about it a bit, I apologized, and he didn't even block me. Zanaq 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the prompt response. While this account is only your version of events, I agree that it doesn't sound like vandalism. Unfortunately, what the event sounds like is an editor who needs more experience before becoming an admin here. You seem like a good person and a good editor. I'm leaving my vote a neutral and if you come back in 6 months with a lot more editing experience here then I will support you for admin. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks. for the opposite side you may contact nl:User:Jcb, but I hope I was a bit NPOV ;-) Zanaq 16:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - Despite having many edits across many different languages, the low Wikipedia editcount on en is troubling. Would support with increased project space edits. --lightdarkness (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral: enwiki is a different animal than most others, though i will say both nl and es are high-traffic sites as well. Edit more on the enwiki, and it'll be fine. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 02:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, too few English edits Alex43223 04:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 94% for major edits and 96% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 12:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Zanaq's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • ...

Standard questions for the candidate

  • I thought embedding the answers in my declaration of candidacy would be enough.
1 What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
I mainly want to do blocking of persistent vandals myself. I will watch the Admin request pages and help where I can. If called upon I might mediate edit wars and temporarily protect pages in the process.
2 Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
List of iconic smokers - an objective list of an inherently POV subject. I am also pleased with my technical changes in tritone, but I think maybe it had been better to have moved the complicated stuff further down. Zanaq 13:17, 23 March 2006 (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?
Yes. When revertwarring I try to improve the article further with each edit so the article will be better when the war is over. I never editwar without using the talk page. I only get frustrated when people clearly didn't read the arguments.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.