Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zzuuzz

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] Zzuuzz

Final (55/16/7) Ended Sat, 17 September 2006 21:54 (UTC)

Zzuuzz (talk · contribs) – A solid vandalism reverting user who has been serving the wiki community in an exemplary manner for over a year now. I must admit when I saw that he wasn't an admin I had (a first for me) the cliched 'oh, he's not one?' thought. The user has already been entrustd with Vandal Proof and Zzuuzz's regular speedy-article tagging, 3RR and vandlaism reports indicate a thorough familiarity with policy.

Put simply, a perfect example of a dedicated user who would serve the community as a civil, intelligent vandal-busting admin. Robdurbar 09:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Thank you all for your comments. I am withdrawing this nomination. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:54, 16 September 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 will mainly continue the battle against vandals by helping with AIV, which I already monitor - I like to have all the vandalism reverted by the time the user is blocked :) I will also help with the speedy deletion backlogs, PRODs, page move/merges, and category renaming. I would like to get more involved with determining and removing copyvios - it is quite inefficient to get involved as a non-admin, but it's something I have an interest in. I will also help with open proxies and closing xfDs. Basically, any backlogs and processes I have the ability to help with.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am very pleased with all the little edits. I have created only a handful of articles (egs [1] [2]), but stubbed many. And prodded quite a few too. I often trawl the trashier categories and special pages, sifting the junk, wikifying, and dampening the POV, introducing newbies to the way of the encyclopaedia. My work on vandalism and preserving the integrity of Wikipedia is obviously a key thing - I am pleased with whichever contributions it was that prompted my RickK barnstar[3]. I am especially pleased with every reference I have added (I am a verifiabilist, but they are also great for helping with POV and vandalism), and some of my talk page contributions have been quite helpful too.
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 don't think I get into conflict, or get stressed - but I see most editing as a process of negotiation. If people have a point of view it will usually have to be catered for eventually (subject to NPOV and verifiability etc), so I tend to make corrections and balance POV in small stages and over the longer term, using references and the talk pages. I am of the opinion that the vast majority of disagreements can be overcome with reliable references and that is how I generally approach things.
There was one episode which once caused me to despair a little. This edit was never really going to stick. I tried discussing it on the talk pages (before and after) but no one was convinced. I will leave it to readers to see if they can spot the problem I was addressing. Though I think I had policy, encyclopaedic values, and common sense in my favour, I had consensus against me. If I had pursued it further I would probably have put in a RFC and/or summoned some independent third parties, but after some effort I just gave up on it. I have worked on quite a few religion/statistics articles, and gradually got used to the idea that some of them are just full of unverifiable numbers. I have to admit I am not that bothered by it now - there are worse things, and I usually have better things to do than continually try and convince people that that you can't just make up numbers and make whole populations appear and disappear. Unless it's vandalism or I have support of course. I usually just put the verifiable facts on the talk page [4], safe in the knowledge that encyclopaedic standards will prevail one day.

'

Questions from JoshuaZ As always all additional questions are completely optional.

1 How would you respond to concerns that you have few Wikipedia space edits?
It is to be expected. I'm glad most people have looked a little further. I think it's funny I have more edits to Wikipedia than Jimbo himself :) In general there seems to be two reasons why editors are expected to have a high count of project edits (beyond editcountitis) - it shows familiarity with policy; and it shows willingness to 'do chores'. I probably meet both these expectations. In respect of the policy aspect, you can read my talk page and examine my contributions to see if I have ever gone anywhere near to not understanding a) policy and b) any limits in my understanding of policy. I have a lot of Wikipedia pages on my watchlist (you can tell by my varied interjections) and reading every diff I see a lot of what's going on. As Moreschi said above, if I don't know my way around by now[...]. I prefer to contribute to Wikipedia space where it makes a real difference (eg [5] [6] [7]) even though I could probably contribute more, if it wasn't more efficient for everyone if I was doing other stuff. I would never think of piling another vote onto a 300-vote RfA for example, and half the AfDs are like - there is no credible opposition in arguments, policy, consensus or numbers - just delete (or keep) it already, instead of piling on with 'what other policy can I apply here'. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of people adding their opinions at AfD. In respect of doing sysop chores, notwithstanding this is a false argument, I leave you to judge. I think I show classic wikignome symptoms - a desire to deal with the little things and get things cleared up (like speedy renaming that takes two weeks instead of two days, and easy speedy deletions taking four days instead of minutes). I have applied CSD tags and PROD quite extensively and successfully. I think I also show a need for the tools in dealing with vandals. In summary, you should be asking if I can be trusted to apply the tools correctly.
2 You mention in your answer to question 1 closing xfDs but I don't see much work in that regard in your contribution history. Could you point to specific xfDs where you introduced new points into the discussions?
In respect of your point, it is one of the last things I mentioned. There are a lot of other things I can be doing with the tools, as I have said. I was tempted not to mention closing xfDs at all, which may have been in my favour, but I do intend to close them, and here's how - I intend to close the ones I know I can close. I fully take on Erechtheus' point at #25 above. In respect of introducing new points, I'm not sure if I can. I will leave you with a selection of AfD diffs which were not 'per nom'. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] (that last one I saved from a speedy deletion).

Question from --Mcginnly | Natter 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Could you point me towards either, 1. a Featured article you have written or collaborated on, 2. A featured list you have compiled. 3. A featured portal you have have helped gain featured status? Thanks.
As I have mentioned I prefer to deal with the lower end of the encyclopaedia, filtering the trash, and hanging on to what we have already got. Although I commend the work that editors do to meet FA requirements, they are a low priority for me. It is more important, for me, that the breadth of the notable verifiable facts (on perhaps the more obscure topics) is expanded while adhering to encylopaedic standards. For example this edit, which could hardly be described as brilliant prose, is worth a hundred minor changes to a featured article candidate which already contains the important information but just needs balancing a bit. This information is now free, and that is what is important, for me. I will probably never write a featured article and I really hope no one holds that against me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Question from SCZenz

Clearly your focus is on vandal-fighting rather than article-writing; I do believe to some degree that we need all kinds of admins, and there's no question that you can be trusted to use the tools well in your area of expertise. However, admins are called to help the encyclopedia in a variety of ways, so extensive past experience in core areas is important. For example, if called to deal with an ugly edit war, an admin needs to be able to tell the difference between unnaceptable behavior and a heated argument over content—a distinction that is not always easy. I'm worried that your lack of emphasis on article-writing means you might not be well-prepared to deal with such a situation. Do you feel you are, in fact, well prepared for this? Or if not, do you intend to learn or to pass such issues to other admins? (There's no right answer here. Please discuss.)
Comments
  • See Zzuuzz's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • See User:Zzuuzz's edit summary usage with mathbot tool.
  • Edit summary usage for Zzuuzz: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
  • Administrators need far more experience in other administrative tasks than they need in fighting vandalism. Having a high edit count to the User talk namespace consisting of vandalism warnings, and a high edit count to the Wikipedia namespace consisting of reverting vandalism there and appending empty votes to landslide AfDs is not evidence of experience doing, or normal views regarding, common administrative activities. Reverting blatant vandalism and blocking for it is both the easiest administrative work and the administrative work that is in need of the least additional assistance. —Centrx→talk • 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Inaugural support for a Wikipedian I only see doing good things around the place. I am sure he won't abuse the tools. --Guinnog 10:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Merovingian - Talk 11:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Great vandal fighter, will be a lot easier not having to use WP:AIV, I'm sure. haz (talk) e
  4. Support. — FireFox (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2006
  5. Support. Reading of talk page archive convinces me of Zzuuzz's readiness. :) Dlohcierekim 13:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment May I respectfully submit that someone who has been here as long as Zzuuzz, and who has thousands of edits more than most people's minimum requirements, has not "just waltzed in?" My only concern was with knowledge of XfD, and his answers have allayed that for me. Since his prime reason for seeking the tools is to block vandals, being able to recognize vandalism and distinguish it from honest mistakes is paramount. I do not see that multiple content adds gives one the knowledge/judgment needed to deal with vandalism and determine consensus at XfD. Unless someone can show me where there is evidence Zzuuzz will abuse the tools, I find the oppose arguments unconvincing and perhaps a bit strained. The benefits of him working on the backlogs outweigh the hypothetical detriments of his deficiencies. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support although a little thrown by relatively low project space edits at first, closer inspection shows a lot of AIV and AfD contribs. Combined with a heap of anti-vandal stuff in mainspace, and promises to dig into some of our bigger sysop backlogs, I'm convinced that giving him the tools will only better the encyclopedia. james(talk) 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per Robdurbar. Rama's arrow 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per Nom. Jcam 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - good AIV and AfD participation. Michael 17:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Regulation Support. This guy's got a ludicrously high edit count. If he doesn't know his way about by now, he ought to. Moreschi 19:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per nom. Good contributor Anger22 19:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support A great user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support as nom. A decent user whose editing pattern proves that admin tools would be of real benefit. --Robdurbar 20:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per Robdurbar and James. No issues, will use the tools effectively. Will be second-last admin in alphabetical order. Newyorkbrad 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support -- Tawker 22:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Good enough for me.-- danntm T C 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, no major issues. BryanG(talk) 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  19. Weak Support, seems like they could really use the mop, but the lack of encyclopedia writing is noted, TewfikTalk 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, I don't find the reasons to oppose given below to be compelling at all. Personally, I can see no limit to Wikipedia's need for high quality vandal-fighters, so I'd be happy to see Zzuuzz receive the mop. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 03:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support I've seen him around, good vandal fighter. Will do well with a squeeze-type mop. BaseballBaby 03:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, good user. --Terence Ong (T | C)
  23. Support Per above. Good name. Just H 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support I am always seeing users run for admin before getting involved in anything related to the position. (My own RfA comes to mind.) However, this user is very involved in such things as reverting of vandalism, and is well-deserving of my support, as well as that of other voters. Steveo2 19:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Zzuuzz's vandal fighting is admirable, and it is clear from both the support above and my review of his contributions that he would responsibly use the tools. I trust that he will not jump into XfD or other areas he has limited experience in before he is ready to contribute. Erechtheus 20:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support per above. Nothing wrong with specialist admins. --Rory096 21:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support a dedicated vandal-fighter who will contribute a lot to the project. Borisblue 23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Unlikely to abuse tools⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Shows a clear need for the tools, and no real compelling reason to suspect they would be misused. Agent 86 17:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Clear need for the tools, experience, and no reason to suspect misuse. Themindset 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Doctor BrunoTalk 18:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Hello32020 19:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Balanced, corteous editor. Efficient vandalism fighter. Performs a vast array of essential maintenance work.--Húsönd 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support extremely good and dedicated vandal fighter --Ageo020 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support per TheMindset, who succinctly states that which I, in my RfA guidelines, assert to be the only relevant question here, viz., whether a user's becoming an admin is likely to have a propitious effect on the project writ large, most prominently with respect to whether a user is unlikely to abuse the tools or to misuse them, even avolitionally, by acting in areas with which he/she is insufficiently familiar; here, the candidate's judgment and knowledge of policy seem quite fine. Joe 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support--Absar 12:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support--Don't worry about the lack of substantive contributions. WP needs more help on, well, administration. Makes sense to make you an administrator. Trnj2000 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. I've seen Zzuuzz around Wikipedia a good number of times, and there is nothing I can say negative about him. Seems like a great user. --Nishkid64 19:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support per nom. John254 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. Will not abuse tools. Case closed. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support per above, especially RyanG. —Jared Hunt September 14, 2006, 01:14 (UTC)
  42. Support vandal fighter needs tools, we need vandal fighters. Try to contribute more to the article space and do not forget that the main purpose of the project is creating content all the other activity are only useful if they facilitate content creation abakharev 03:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Convincing answers to new questions. ~ trialsanderrors 08:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Oppose per above and the 30-ish AfD contributions I checked were all me-too's (including various nominations). Happy to reconsider if JoshuaZ's questions above are answered. ~ trialsanderrors 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support fits my rules! Jeffklib 09:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. AIV edits good, AFD edits are not all "me to's", and seemed apropriate. Good responses on talk page. Come on let's give somone the tools who can help out with things without messing up. We can't all do everything on a site this size. Petros471 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Sure. Centurion 5 00:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Appears trustworthy and has proven ready to handle the tools Markovich292 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  49. Weak Support—You have some very valuable experience and are a good contributor. You meet most of my criteria. However, if you’re going to delete articles, you need to understand how to create articles. Folks who’ve actually edited a bit are best—serious (encyclopedic) articles are good—the more serious contributions completed the better. Suggest you work on contributions before you adjudicate article deletion. Taht said, you'll not abuse the tools & can be entrusted with them. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 02:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  50. Weak Support - changed from oppose, my concern over the images still stands, but answer to optional question 3 shows that this user clearly "gets it" --T-rex 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. Seems unlikely to misuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 04:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  52. Weak Support I can't see the candidate misusing the tools, he/she is relatively experienced, and would certainly benefit from having the extra buttons in his vandalism reversions, so sure, why not? The weak support is for the fact that "per nom" contributions demonstrate a lack of understanding of Wikipedia beliefs in regards to discussion and consensus hoopydinkConas tá tú? 14:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support: A perusal of this editor's work has not shown up any problems. Experiences around Wikipedia show this user seems to be a force for good, even if a mild one. Non-political approach should not cause problems in future. Stephen B Streater 09:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support Lots of vandal reverts. Can definitely benefit from the rollback feature. 9,000 edits is very impressive too. - Mike 16:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  55. support keep up the good work Mjal 19:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Fails my criteria for project edits. – Chacor 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - lack of experience with images [16][17] --T-rex 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to support --T-rex 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Lack of WP edits along with little contribution to actual encyclopedia writing. Good vandal fighter though. T REXspeak 01:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Theres more to Wikipedia than rolling back vandalism. Lack of WP namespace edits and encyclopedia writing. — Moe Epsilon 22:53 September 11 '06
  4. Oppose I am unhappy with the level of meaningful contributions as well. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. General lack of experience in the Wikipedia namespace. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Too few contributions to building the encyclopedia, which I feel is a key underpinning to the deletion policy. Espresso Addict 14:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I strongly suspect him of aspiring to run wikipedia like some kind of madman. --NEMT 14:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment While one should implacably assume good faith etc etc, this user is, shall we say, somewhat playful, see for example [18]. --Guinnog 15:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment You've got it all wrong. I had two pages open, Food and Space warfare. Simple mistake. --NEMT 01:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I've just blocked NEMT for his latest vandalism (not to mention ongoing trolling). Tyrenius 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    And how does such aspiring distinguish him from the rest of us?? LOL. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 13:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Not enough quality encyclopedic content edits. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Certainly a good faith user and vandal fighter, but not enough actual writing experience according to my standards. — mark ✎ 11:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. I have to oppose as well. I'm strongly against the idea that people can waltz in, revert vandalism for a bit, then become the official face of Wikipedia and be able to explain and adhere to all its policies. You simply don't get the experience necessary by endlessly RC patrolling. -- Steel 11:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Rune.Welsh. Significant experience outside of vandal-reverting is an administrative "must have." Xoloz 15:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Xoloz. Jonathunder 18:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - Vandal-fighting is fantastic, we could use more of it. But while preventing others from detracting from the project is great, I would like to see more experience actually building it up as well. Would happily support with more meaningful WP edits. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per 1FA concerns. -- Миборовский 03:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose All users have suffrage. EFG 17:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    They may, but this user's first edit was 3 days prior to this. Syrthiss 18:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Wider experience needed. Singopo 00:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, under 400 WP edits I feel is far too few if the user intends to get involved in many deletion-related chors. Many of which are just reverts, couldn't find any nominations either. Maybe best as an editor, for now.--Andeh 11:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'm not usually one for fussing over low editcount, but Andeh's point about lack of initiations is well taken. However, he's a good enough contributor that I cannot flatly oppose, and would willingly support next time around if he can make up for that particular lack. (Lots of listing articles for speedy would be good too, but that'll be difficult to ascertain without the toolserver working.) .... oh yes, neutral. DS 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    For information [19], when I had 4269 edits back in May, I had an additional 216 deleted edits. I believe it has more than doubled since - a combination of speedies and prods. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Vandal fighter-only. Perhaps more project involvement is needed. I'd like all admins to have fairly well-rounded policy knowledge, and that and heavy article contributing is a good way to get it. I don't see enough of that yet.Voice-of-All 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. You have a high mainspace edit count, which is good but alot of your edits seem to be reversions, what i like to see in an editor is one that contributes equally as well as RC watch et cetera. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral pending answer of my question. -- SCZenz 20:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Nuetral. This is by far one of the hardest decisions I've had to come to because one one hand you have a great vandal fighter who has proven his worth to the community. On the other hand, however, you have *very* little article writing experience. Is that important? It is difficult for me to support a candidate that doesn't participate in writing articles, as that shows a certain lack of valuable experience. There is no way I could oppose because this is a great candidate, but there is no way I could support either. I'll support any future application only after there is sufficient article namespace editing, as per the concerns listed. -- RM 12:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral per RM. Tough one because the room for all sorts of Admins in WP's broad church, including specialist vandal fighters. However, i still think there must be some demonstration of wider participation and i feel this editor falls a fraction short for my support. Next time, with a little more experience, a cert. Rockpocket 06:56, 15 September 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.