Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zeibura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Zeibura

Final (34/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeibura (talk · contribs) - To the community, I give you my next candidate for adminship, Zeibura.

Zeibura has been with Wikipedia since March 2006, but he has been active since March of 2007. During that time, he has made roughly 7,000 contributions to the encyclopedia, all of which have been made in a variety of the namespaces. These include over 2,800 mainspace edits, nearly 1,500 to user talk, over 1,000 to article talk pages, over 800 to the project-space, and reasonable amounts to categories, images and templates.

To move away from edit-counting, and onto Zeibura’s skills: he has worked on articles such as Dubstep, Techno, Drum and bass, Red bull, and Shoe. Along with article-writing, he has done vandal-fighting, giving some 55-60 reports to AIV. He also has a decent knowledge of policy, and with his personality, Zeibura is a kind and helpful person, willing to discuss problems and give help to users who need it, and all my interactions with him have been positive.

I believe that Zeibura will make a great administrator: I don’t think he will abuse the tools at all, and I do think that him being a sysop will be a benefit to Wikipedia. Acalamari 03:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Co-Nomination from PeaceNT: It is a pleasure for me to nominate Zeibura - an excellent user with a year experience of editing Wikipedia and around 7000 edits nicely spread all namespaces - for the role of an administrator. On wikipedia, Zeibura is skilled at improving article content; he focuses on music-related articles and contributes heavily to Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music, creating new articles and writing GAs. A list of them may be found at User:Zeibura/Contributions. Regarding the Wikipedia space, he is actively involved at AfD, AIV, and particularly UAA, where he has more than a hundred prompt and accurate reports, which leaves no doubt regarding his sound and dependable judgment. Zeibura's thorough knowledge of our policies/guidelines is also confirmed by his input at deletion debates (e.g [1] [2][3] [4]) . Zeibura is the epitome of responsibility and open-mindedness, as he can gladly change his stance in light of sufficient new materials ([5] [6]), which proves that his participation in the AfD area is not simply a quick "vote & disappear" but a willingness to follow discussions and improve/save the debated articles (Further, we may eliminate the fear of promoting a conservative admin!) Zeibura is engaged regularly in policy talk page discussions, especially in matters related to CSD, please see archive for example. As a friend, I have always found him to be unfailingly friendly, helpful, reponsive and polite, which I believe are qualities that would make a user a very good administrator.

I'm very glad that Zeibura has (finally) accepted an RfA nomination, and I have every confidence that he will use the admin tools extremely well if this request passes. Ergo, I enthusiastically offer my nomination and my support for his candidacy. 07:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you Acalamari and Peace, I accept. - Zeibura (Talk) 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have to confess I'm nowhere near as active in admin-related tasks as I used to be, focusing more on mainspace contributions now, so first and foremost the admin tools would be a help with general editing in situations like moving, history merges, et cetera. From my editing experience, though, I've acquired a good knowledge of the naming conventions policy and the deletion policy, so I would do some work in closing debates such as WP:RM, WP:SPLICE and AfD. I have always had a passion for maintaining NPOV in articles, so I'm confident of my ability to determine consensus. I still newpage patrol a little from time to time as well, so I'd do more of that as well as work in C:CSD and the PROD category.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The most rewarding thing about article contribs is knowing that people are reading and enjoying them or finding them useful. Thus, my most memorable contribution has been my work on Dubstep (GA and hopeful FA in the making), which was a really friendly collaboration with users Kaini and P4k, and got praised off-site at dubstepforum. Also I'm currently quite pleased with my recent and on-going work on bassline house, which pretty much turned this into this. Also, in terms of gnome work on articles, I've happily done a lot of work in this category in the past, though it might only seem more rewarding to myself since ambiguous "pro-non-see-a-shuns" are a pet peeve of mine, aside from being against the MoS.
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've been in a few conflicts, yes, writing about music genres — which is what I seem to do the most — can be a little stressful at times. There was some particularly nasty drama involving several members of WikiProject Electronic music last summer over the naming of the electronic art music article, most of which can be found on Talk:Electronic art music and Talk:Electronica, in which I made some effort to calm the debate down a bit when it got out of hand.
My first tenet of faith when dealing with WikiStress is Wikipedia Is Not That Important, mainly because There Is No Deadline, so if things get ridiculously intense I would always advocate returning to the situation at a later time. That aside, WP:NPOV, WP:V/WP:RS and WP:NOR always come first in content disputes, so I would always take the sides which are supported by these principles. Otherwise, I'm always willing to see both sides to an argument and search for some sources to back them up, or whatever help is needed.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Zeibura before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support!- PeaceNT (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support - would have nominated if others had not got there first (and did inquire some months ago but user declined until it felt right; a decision I respect). My impressions: a quiet "doer", heart in the right place, stable and effective, likely to have good judgement and be a "voice of calm sanity" in a debate, and well placed in spirit. Editing history is good; likely to be an asset to the project if given the mop. Glad to indicate support. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support - Seen Zeibura many times before. Good luck. Rudget. 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. YES Majorly (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Definitely a positive for the project. Music's one of our really dodgy areas on WP, would be good to have more knowledgeable admins with solid content skills in there. Has a cool head and meets my personal criteria. Orderinchaos 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. You're not a mod yet? Support --Sharkface217 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - worthy editor and nice with it. MSGJ (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. I strongly support this candidate, and I agree completely with Acalamari's and PeaceNT's points in their nomination statements. Acalamari 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Yes, finally. miranda 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support per aboves. SpencerT♦C 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support per all above. Having an Acalamari nom is icing on the cake. -MBK004 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support - a valuable contributor, will use the tools well. --BelovedFreak 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. — DarkFalls talk 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support As per Acalamari.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - should get the tools.   jj137 ♠ 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support Needs extra tools. NHRHS2010 12:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support without having to look twice. User:Dorftrottel 16:32, January 20, 2008
  20. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support Should be good with the tools.--JForget 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oh yeah —Animum (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support, of course. Will make good use of the tools. Húsönd 02:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support is a very good editor that could help wikipedia with admin tools Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. I am saying "Yes". -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support. Looks good to me. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support no doubt that this can editor will only benefit the community and the project once he becomes an admin! Poeloq (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support Looked over contribs and think user will use tools wisely. --PTR (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support. bibliomaniac15 00:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support, no concerns here. krimpet✽ 08:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support as meeting my standards, with no concerns except that I wish he'd know more AfD policy. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support, yes, no concerns here. --Bhadani (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
[edit] 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.