Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zsinj

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] Zsinj

Final (7/15/8) ended 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Zsinj (talk · contribs) – I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia for almost two months. I realize that some active editors on RfA will Oppose due to this single fact (or others based upon their own criteria), but I invite you to evaluate my relatively short history for what it is worth.

I have done over 2,300 edits[1] in that period of time mostly by reverting vandalism [2]. I also enjoy tagging Untagged Images [3], going through the new pages looking for candidates for speedy deletions (hence my 100+ deleted edits), and helping out with the Wikipedia Backlog. Most of the tasks I perform on a daily basis involve admin intervention at some point. Be it temporarily blocking a vandalizing IP [4], cleaning out unfree images [5], or deleting CSDs, being able to directly contribute with the ability to block, delete, and protect would make me a much more efficient editor.

I consider myself familiar with Wikipedia policies and methods and I plan on using the admin priviledge only when I am confident I am making the right decision. Although pages can be undeleted, I would prefer to never have any pages I deleted come into that situation. I also look forward to the feedback on my history so far with Wikipedia. Thank you for considering my self-nomination.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This is a self-nomination. ZsinjTalk 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Because admin should be no big deal, right? ......AND I've run into Zsinj around and I believe he'd do a good job. God forbid a good editor gets some additional tools to make the project better. PS: first support, yay! Swatjester (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Easy one. 2 months is plenty long enough to prove yourself; 2000+ is plenty of edits; enthusiasm is important so relatively new editors should be made admins quickly; editing articles is more important than talking about them (this is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a chat room or message board); I could go on. Waggers 11:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support per Waggers. Also, he/she he is a good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    I am a he. ;-) --ZsinjTalk
  4. Strong Support Jcam 20:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support and I hope the RfA succeeds, although it may fall victim to "time-ism" on the part of other voters. I think 2 months is just about enough time, and coupled with the tireless editing, I think Zsinj would make a good admin. haz (user talk)e 16:30, 25 February 2006
  6. Support but more experience will be better.--Jusjih 00:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Nothing missing that can't be learned on the job. — Adrian Lamo ·· 12:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose, lacks of article talk edits, project and project talk edits. I believe you are too new now. However, you may try again in July when you have more edits. --Terence Ong 05:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. While I would like to welcome our new obese Imperial over-warlord, but simply doesn't meet my standards- the real killer for me is the experience and lack of any real interaction as far as I can tell. I am also a little concerned by the fact that while Zsinj does have ~2000 edits, the considerable majority were in January. --maru (talk) contribs 05:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the comments. I usually make a point to say something if it needs saying. As far as edits per month, it is not, yet, the end of the month. ;-) --ZsinjTalk 06:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, too new, and per previous rant. NSLE (T+C) at 06:16 UTC (2006-02-24)
  4. Oppose, with a caveat that you are doing a great job so far, and soon will have the coveted mop. Just too soon. -- Samir ∙ TC 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the future support! --ZsinjTalk 14:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. give it another month. pschemp | talk 08:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose as per above, needs more experience, this is too soon. --pgk(talk) 08:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Two months is too new for me, will support next time if current contributions continue. KnowledgeOfSelf 15:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Sorry, you're too new for my standards. Please try again in the future. Essexmutant 17:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak Oppose per the above vote by Essexmutant. Moe ε 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Too new. Maybe if a user was incomprehensibly stellar, I would vote to support - but in that case it wouldn't have to be a self-nomination. Sorry. Ifnord 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Two months is just not enough time to deduce whether a user is capable of being a admin. DaGizzaChat © 06:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per the reasoning of Cincinnatus and lack of experience. Geogre 13:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    Would you care to emphasize the "reasoning of Cincinnatus?" Cincinnatus seems like a good guy from the article about him, however, I saw no reference to his "reasoning." --ZsinjTalk 19:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry. I in no way wish to insult you, belittle your contributions, or express a judgment on your work or character, and so I was trying to outline my own reasoning on the RFA process. I also don't want to suggest that anyone else needs to follow my reasoning on this, but I feel like being an Admin should sort of be like being a Roman dictator: the people who do it best are pressed into service and grumble about it, looking to get rid of the power as soon as possible. Some people give extra points for self-noms, and some take points away for self-noms. Again, this is not meant to be any denigration, but I, personally, feel that self-nomination with relatively short time on project is something that I, personally, oppose. Geogre 01:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    That makes brilliant sence. Thanks for the elaboration! --ZsinjTalk 03:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose: much too soon, sorry, but please keep building the encyclopedia and try again in a few months.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathunder (talk • contribs)
  14. Weak oppose, please come back in a few months. Not enough experience to date. Stifle 17:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weak oppose Neutral Reluctantly, because 2 months really is too soon. --kingboyk 13:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) On reflection, my argument points to a weak oppose. Sorry. Please come back when you have a little more experience. --kingboyk 16:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, I'd like to support, but less than two months is just too soon. Please try again in a month or two and I will support you 100%. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'm tempted to agree, but I'll let the consensus get made first. If/When this RfA fails, I'll have something to go back to review what I have yet to do in this awesome community. --ZsinjTalk 14:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Rob Church (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral with 2 months of history I just can't tell what you'll be like as admin I'm afraid. Raven4x4x 01:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral So far so good but too soon --Jaranda wat's sup 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Unfortunately, it's just too soon :(. --Dragon695 07:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Good contributor, but please wait a few more months before requesting again. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. If there is something I've learned is that more time can't hurt. Keep up the good work and start writing some articles, to balance out your Wikipedia experience. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. Looks OK but this RfA is a bit too soon. Please reapply in a month or two. JIP | Talk 07:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 88% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 146 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 05:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See Zsinj's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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. As previously mentioned, I also do not plan on changing my daily routine much. I will remain diligent in countering vandalisms, managing un-free and untagged images, and dealing with candidates for speedy deletion (in both the article and image namespace). Although not as active on pages such as RfA and AfD (see my To-Do List [6]), as an admin I will be expected to be active especially on the *fD pages. WP:AN/I will also get a higher spot on my list of daily tasks. I am already active on WP:AIAV and am very active on #wikipedia-en-vandalism (which is perhaps the reason for only 26 edits to AIAV).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Although there is no specific article I am particularly proud of, I find a sense of satisfaction in every one of my contributions to Wikipedia. As a college student, many of my peers are actually a bit amazed that I am "so active" on Wikipedia. Usually right after they say that, they realize themselves just how much has to go into Wikipedia in order for it to continue to be the awesome source of information it is today. It is often that I explain just how much vandalism Wikipedia experiences each day (and each hour in some cases). Even when it is quiet in my apartment and I'm sitting alone at my computer, I feel reassured by messages on my Talk page of people thanking me for reverting specific instances of vandalism ([7], [8], and [9] are a few).
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. I have had editors question my actions before. However, each of these times, I was able to either calmly explain where the misunderstanding was (in the case where I was "correct" in my actions, for example [10] and [11]) or to find compromise and reflect on where I have been wrong ([12] and [13]).
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.