Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zsinj 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Zsinj

Final (59/2/1) Ended 2:34, 2006-08-23 (UTC)

Zsinj (talk · contribs) – I am pleased to nominate Zsinj for the mop and bucket. With over 7 000 edits since his first logged in edit on January 05, 2006 [1] he has proved his dedication to this project. His first RfA [2] failed, though he racked up over 2 000 edits in two months the consensus was he needed a couple of more months. I was in that chorus of, "Too new! Too new!" but nearly a half year later I think it's time. He is insightful on AfD, I have not seen any allegations of incivility, and he more than meets most personal standards. That he is willing to serve as an administrator here is a benefit to us all. I would also point out this nomination is unsolicited, he has not "campaigned" to become an administrator. Ifnord 00:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored to have been nominated and accept. --ZsinjTalk 00:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
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 voters:

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.
A: I am currently active at several admin-intensive areas of the project and they include WP:AIAV, WP:RFI, WP:OP, and WP:CSD. Looking at these four specifically, it could appear that what I do is noninclusive and deletionist, however I do not see my activities as such. Through these parts of the project, I preserve article integrity, resolve conflicts with other editors, preserve the integrity of anonymous contributors and maintain a quality baseline for the content we provide to all who wish to access it. By participating in these areas and more, I am already having to perform the actions that the public eye sees administrators do the most: civilly interact with others. In this stead, as an administrator, I will be getting back into areas in which written interaction with others is not far enough. I do not plan on straying far from where I am active as far as the janitorial work of an admin, but I will be getting involved with more maintenance tasks such as CAT:NS, CAT:NL (which I created the shortcut for), and WP:OP (where admin tools are necessary). I will remain active in IRC and available to any editor that comes to me with a conflict.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: All of my contributions to the project please me because they are all for the greater good of the project. (No I'm not sucking up to anyone in saying that, haha.) It takes a lot of effort to make Wikipedia tick and being able to contribute as much as I do is what I consider a privilege.
I know that someone will bring up the question of whether or not I have brought an article up to featured status and I would like to address that now before someone mauls me for it later. For an administrator to give such attention to one page as to bring it up to FA status as a result of their contributions I believe is out of the job description. The person who keeps an art gallery clean should not be going around and modifying the artwork to make it better. In fact, the word "better" is in itself part of why I disagree with those who desire this accomplishment of administrator candidates. It is an opinion. Don't get me wrong as we are all entitled to our own opinions, but just as much, I am entitled to mine in saying that there are editors worldwide who do this kind of work and enjoy it. Administrators should be the guiding hand to these contributors ensuring that their work is not obstructed by those who mean the project of theirs harm. As an administrator, I will be "particularly pleased" to be able to help those editors even more, for that is what I enjoy doing and will continue to do so long as there is a Wikipedia to contribute to.
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: Fortunately, I have never been in a direct conflict with another contributor over any matter regarding the project. Instead, I have been in many situations where I have successfully mediated a conflict between other users. Working at Requests for Investigation, someone asking for help in a case where there is a disagreement (or sometimes just someone who has slipped through the cracks) will encounter someone such as myself who is willing to step in and see things from an outside perspective. Mediating such issues has never caused me stress, although it does do so for the users involved, but I am one who remains calm in times of conflict in order to keep a clear mind and open perspective to the involved parties.
Comments

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 09:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Zsinj (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 192 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 16, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 6, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 98.03% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 20.23 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 441 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 4 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.02% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.26% (13)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 3.92% (196)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 3 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 38.46%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 0.86% (43 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.18% (9 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.04% (2 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 0.08% (4 edit(s)) (2 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.16% (8 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 9.76% (488 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3442 | Average edits per page: 1.45 | Edits on top: 16.96%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 22.82% (1141 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 20.28% (1014 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 45.54% (2277 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 10.82% (541 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 44.38% (2219) | Article talk: 1.74% (87)
User: 4.96% (248) | User talk: 34.36% (1718)
Wikipedia: 7.88% (394) | Wikipedia talk: 0.52% (26)
Image: 4% (200)
Template: 1.24% (62)
Category: 0.52% (26)
Portal: 0.02% (1)
Help: 0.04% (2)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.34% (17)

Username Zsinj
Total edits 6523
Distinct pages edited 4447
Average edits/page 1.467
First edit 11:05, January 5, 2006
 
(main) 3073
Talk 115
User 305
User talk 2168
Image 214
Template 79
Template talk 8
Help 2
Category 27
Category talk 9
Wikipedia 493
Wikipedia talk 29
Portal 1
 G.He 01:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to add that my work with WP:UI has lead to the tagging of hundreds of unsourced and/or unlisenced images that qualified for and were subsequently deleted. According to Interiot's tool on the toolserver, I have over a thousand deleted edits. --ZsinjTalk 01:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • See Zsinj's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Support
  1. supportBenon 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. 1st Support! G.He 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support as nominator, of course. (<grumble>How did someone beat me? I just created this page...</grumble>) Ifnord 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Good deal of user_talk edits, and seems to have learned the tools of the trade. --Nishkid64 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support I opposed his first nom for being too new, I did say I'd support the next one if his contributions continued to be on and above par. KOS | talk 01:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support A very good user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Very Strong Support great editor, more than ready for the mop.--digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Schwarzenegger Support' Rama's arrow 01:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support looks good abakharev 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Very good answers to the questions, I particularly like the comments made about featured articles. I am satisfied that Zsinj will use the tools wisely and in the best interests of the project. Rje 02:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Michael 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. I held off on the earlier RFA because I saw great potential with alas a short time in residence. Now I can fully support and just hope that he doesn't bring his Iron Fist down too heavily on all the poor hawkbats. Syrthiss 02:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Southern Support I'm fer it, great answers. Teke 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support - Insightful, dedicated, knowledgable in terms of policy, civil... what more could we possibly ask for? :) Srose (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Honest-to-God {{RfA-cliche1}} support. Kimchi.sg 03:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support ViridaeTalk 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Looks like another good admin candidate.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  04:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    Support - Calton 05:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    This vote was actually made anonymously by AOL user User:64.12.117.11. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strong support. Great candidate. DarthVader 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Merovingian - Talk 07:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Yes. Good bad-image-worker, acts like a janitor already - give him the mop! JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong support, an excellent user. Will be a great admin. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 08:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. I was too slow to get around to nominating in time... Petros471 10:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. yes, please - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Give him the tools. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support — FireFox (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2006
  27. Support, good user. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 13:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support --Jay(Reply) 14:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support and I wish you luck with the consistant backlogs at WP:RFI and WP:OP. Stubbleboy 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support, deserves the mop and the bucket. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Strong support. Quoting Tim Starling after a database crash/DoS attack:
    Ah, well in that case, I can tell you exactly what happened. The hero of the day was Zsinj, a canny newbie who had his eye on the relevant monitoring graphs, and alerted us to the problem immediately, using very specific terms, allowing us to track down and fix it rapidly.[3]
    He has already proven more than trustworthy, I have no reason to believe that lowly tools such as deletion and rollback should be denied to someone who already got to see the inner sanctum of server administration. Titoxd(?!?) 19:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support has great qualities and will be an excellent addition to the sysop group. -- That Guy, From That Show! 19:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Strong support, of course. This is a great editor, and would make a superb admin. --Rory096 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support exactly per Rory above (that was easy!) :) - Glen 19:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support -- Szvest 20:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  41. Support. Seen his edits around, very civil response to opposes, good editor can be trusted with the extra tools.--Dakota 04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  42. Zsupport -- Samir धर्म 08:03, 17 August 2006
  43. Cleared for adimship --Pilotguy (roger that) 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
  44. Support. Great work so far. TomTheHand 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support looks good to me. —Khoikhoi 03:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support, and I'm a little disturbed by the opposes below. — Deckiller 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support, a civil, responsive, and experienced editor.-- danntm T C 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support, no issues whatsoever. BryanG(talk) 05:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support user does seem to be very civil and does seem to be a good candidate. Note: I changef my vote from oppose to support. My comments can be seen under the oppose section. --HResearcher 05:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Betacommand 05:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support Misza13 13:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. I met him today on SIMPLE, where he deleted pages on Paris Hilton and Ryan Stiles that were created by vandals. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    For clarification, I was granted temporary emergency sysop on simple.wp by Danny due to recent vandalism, as mentioned here. Just so everyone know how I deleted those pages. ;-) --ZsinjTalk 00:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support no reason to oppose. Dionyseus 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support -Blnguyen | rant-line 03:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support, seems to understand things like copyright, which is important for admins.--Peta 04:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support, will use the tools well. --13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Friendly, trustworthy editor. Xoloz 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Nothing wrong here. Yanksox 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support Seems like a great editor who will not abuse the tools. Wikipediarules2221 00:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Fails my criteria. --Masssiveego 03:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    You've been opposing (almost) all RfAs. What exactly are your criteria? G.He 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    Subsequent discussion moved to talk page per Masssiveego's request. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 12:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    I welcome all votes regardless of someone's past voting history. I am not intimidated by the user's vote, as I recognize that there is always room in which to improve. --ZsinjTalk 12:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose - let me explain why, as much i want to suppot someone wanting to work with image management there are a few concerns, first I have been rather strict about a 9 month minimum recently. also, I try to give support to article writters more, and the answer to question 2 shows that this is clearly not the case, best of luck --T-rex 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    I understand this and apologize for not quite being up to muster in your eyes. Rest assured, I will continue to work with the project for many months to come, and who knows, I may just take up encyclopedic writing as a hobby. :-) --ZsinjTalk 12:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose most edits seem to be reverts and anti-vandalism related. I'd like to see how Zsinj treats others in dispute, especially when he is involved in the dispute. --HResearcher 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    I apparently don't see why my involvement in a dispute would qualify me such a position. Are you implying that it is better for me to have had a conflict with another user than to have not to? As mentioned in question #3, I am one who can keep a cool head in situations even when those involved do not. --ZsinjTalk 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    I understand, and I'm taking your word for it sense there's little or no evidence you being a hothead. And the support votes indicate you might may be a worthy admin so I'm changing my vote. Note that I start with the idea to oppose until I see that there's reason to support, nothing against you in the opposition. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HResearcher (talk • contribs) .
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Fails my article talk criteria, which I believe is a sign of insufficient article building experience. Apart from that, seems like a great user and I will support on the next go around. I suspect the nom will get the mop on this go, and wish him the best of luck. Themindset 05:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    I hope you will allow me to assume that your support would be garnered "on the next go around" if I were to contribute more in the article talk space, not just in the event there is a 3rd go around. :-D Thanks for your input! --ZsinjTalk 12:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, that was the natural assumption I was assuming would be assumed by the assumer. Themindset 16:34, 16 August 2006 (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.