Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zazzer

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] Zazzer

Final (2/21/0); ended 23:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and close this RfA early, as per WP:SNOW. With so many oppose votes this early on and with so few edits to this user's history there is little likelihood of achieving consensus at this moment in time. Detailed comments will be left on the editor's Talk page. (aeropagitica) 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Zazzer (talk · contribs) - Hopefully a good editor. Zazzer 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. :)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I want to help clear up the backlogs; especially at requested moves. I'd also like to help with speedy deletions and proposed deletions, and in taking care of the image deletion backlogs. Mostly, I'd like the admin tools so that I could further the care and maintenance of Wikipedia.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I think that the article that I am most pleased aboutwould have to be The Serpent's Egg Trilogy. I am most pleased with this article because I wrote it with, what I believe, to be great aplomb. I started it the moment that I finished reading the series and I realized that it was great enough to have a Wikipedia article, and when I saw that there wasn't one, well I just had to create it.
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: I have had a few minor scirmishes with some other editors, but for the most part no. I always tried to maintain a pleasant demeanor and I am sure that I always thouroughly wrote everything out, and I will continue to do so.
General comments


Discussion

  • Hi; I hate to sound rude, but people might pile-on the oppose votes because of inexperience. If you start to see this, I recommend withdrawing and returning to RfA at a later date. Keep up the good editing though! — Deckiller 12:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

  • Moral Support You are going to need a lot more experience for this RfA to succeed, however, from your position so far, I will give this moral support. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 01:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Moral Support. You just don't have enough edits here to require admin tools at the present. Keep editing articles and wikipedia sections, get some more experience, and I will happily support you at a later date. Jeffpw 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support We have to stop thinking of adminship as a trophy. Even with a 300 edits edit count this user hasent vandalised. He has done some controvesial uploading but that is not revelent to RFAs because adminship only allows admins to delete them. Therefore, the likeliness of vandalization with the tools. How could a user with a good record start misusing sysop tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    Two users have called this user irrational and not something to expect from a non-newbie on Wikipedia. I stand by my vote. Please do not contact me from shock of seeing a non-newbie vote like this.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support per Natl1. Hendry1307 14:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
'Support.' I support this as nominator and nominee. Zazzer 06:54 February 7 2007
I don't think you're allowed to vote for yourself.--Newport 13:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
['crat comment: You can't vote for yourself] =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I support this user as an administrator nominee. JoeMcCoffee
['crat comment: You need to !vote after the nomination has started. Possible sock.] =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

  1. Oppose: per canvassing here and here. David Mestel(Talk) 12:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: per nearly non-existent answers to questions; no nominating statement; voted for self; incorrectly created nomination; 317 edits; need I go on? And please people, quit it with the "moral support". —Doug Bell talk 13:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    Most people vote "moral support" as a means to avoiding biting the newcomers. Although I'm not a fan of it, I can understand the need. — Deckiller 13:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    I know why they do it, I just don't understand it. I would find it insulting if it was my nomination. —Doug Bell talk 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    That's one thing that makes the world such an interesting place - different people think differently about many things, and there isn't necessarily a "right" and "wrong" in what and how they think. Or, as someone wise has said, YMMV. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    Couldn't have said it better. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Moral Support - insufficient experience, suggest withdraw. --BigDT 13:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps you have misplaced your vote? :) - Anas Talk? 14:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    No. --BigDT 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    ...Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per recent block, silly threatening messagebox on his talk page ("DO NOT: Add useless junk to my talk page, I am NOT an administrator, though I know some and if I find that you have, I will have you temporarily blocked. Thank you! :)"). If that reflects his understanding of blocking policy, he's obviously not suited to the job. Sandstein 14:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above comments. It shows that you lack experience and understanding of how Wikipedia truly works, so I recommend seeking adoption from another user and come back in 3-4 months. — Deckiller 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Zero admin-related task edits can be found in your 317 contributions to-date. Try reverting vandalism, warning vandals, reporting them to WP:AIV and contributing to XfD discussions where you can demonstrate a knowledge of policies and guidelines for starters. Do this and return in a year-or-so, or perhaps another editor will notice your contributions in addition to your encyclopedic edits and nominate you. Please withdraw this nomination soon. (aeropagitica) 14:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Sandstein's and (aeropagitica)'s comments above. It also appears that you need significantly more edits in general, please take the next several months to make many more edits that will show what a great editor you can be! Whereizben 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per all the above. --Deskana (request backup) 14:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose and suggest withdrawl before WP:SNOW. --After Midnight 0001 14:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - no where near enough edits yet. However, if this user continues to work in the same way over the next few months, then would be a perfect nominee when they have 1500+ edits.Asics talk 14:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose obviously not qualified. Please withdraw. - Anas Talk? 14:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Multiple evidence of unsuitability as per above. I strongly suggest self-withdrawal.--Húsönd 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Usually I wouldn't do this when it is unnecessary, but I am opposing due to evidence of probable sock-puppetry and your user page, which seems like a playing ground for putting as many userboxes as possible. You speak 10+ languages at an intermediate or better language? And you are a Chemist, Professional Electronic Engineer, Professional Musician, Librarian, Professional Graphic Designer, Professional Editor, a Geoscientist, a Pilot, a Psychotherapist, Systems Analyst, and Webmaster? Forgive me for doubting, but it seems you do not take Wikipedia seriously at all. You will need to drastically change your behavior on Wikipedia for me to support in the future. -- Renesis (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose simply not enough experience for me, 13 Wikispace edits? Continue editing productively, show some understanding of policies (e.g. XfDs), create a more convincing self-nom, or, better still, find someone to nominate you for your good work, and we'll meet here again. The Rambling Man 18:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. I'm glad that you like Wikipedia, but please understand that adminship is something that is granted to editors that the community trusts have the knowledge and good judgement to enforce Wikipedia's policies. Given your short list of contributions, you just don't have enough of a track record to demonstrate those qualities at this time. I'm also concerned by the warning you have on your talk page ("DO NOT: Add useless junk to my talk page, I am NOT an administrator, though I know some and if I find that you have, I will have you temporarily blocked. Thank you!"), which suggests that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's blocking policy. Please also refrain from uploading images like Image:Serpents Egg.jpg, Image:Burning Crown.gif, and Image:Twisted Blade.jpg and claiming that they fall under the GNU Free Documentation License, which I seriously doubt is true. Copyright violation is a serious breach of Wikipedia's image use policy. In this case, I would direct you towards the "fair use" clause. I don't want to discourage you, but you simply need more time and experience with Wikipedia to realistically consider becoming an admin. And remember, many people will tell you that adminship is not a trophy. I suggest that you keep contributing to Wikipedia, become more familiar with its policies, and maybe someday you might become an admin. --Kyoko 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    A few more suggestions: I'm a fine one to say this, with my 366 edits to my userpage to date (out of 3840 total edits), but I would strongly suggest that you avoid editing your userpage for now and concentrate more around articles... either writing them from scratch, or improving existing ones. Giving feedback or suggestions on the article talk pages would also be good. I just noticed that at least half of your total edits so far are to your userpage, when they ideally should be elsewhere. Once you get a feel for how the article or mainspace works, then perhaps you could branch out into the policy pages, such as deletion discussions. Learning about vandalism and how to counter it would also be helpful. I really hope this advice helps! --Kyoko 19:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. You are a good editor, but need more experience. Yuser31415 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Sorry man, but your edit count is insufficient, your edit summary usage is abysmal, and you got little admin task experience. Captain panda In vino veritas 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Only 315 total edits, barely any kind of answers, let alone good ones...sorry, but you're just not ready yet. Ganfon 20:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Not enough experience, and other concerns voiced above (userbox claims, etc.) are also relevant. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, not enough experience.--Wizardman 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose, please come after having more experience on Wikipedia. Shyam (T/C) 22:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.