Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kzrulzuall

Kzrulzuall

Voice your opinion (5/2/0); Scheduled to end 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kzrulzuall (talk · contribs) - Kzrulzuall is a keen vandal fighter as well as a user capable of superb copy-editing. He has been around for half a year, clocking up over 400 vandalism reverts as well as close to 6000 edits. Kzrulzuall is also regularly involved with WP:ANI and WP:AIV and is also an kind helper at the Help desk and the Reference Desk. I feel that he deserves to be sysoped for his great work on Wikipedia. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 00:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Comment Note that the 400 vandal reverts are from VPRF only

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?

A: Well first and foremost, the sysop chores I expect to participate in are the ones I am already very comfortable and experienced in: ANI and AIV. I have always been frustrated by vandals, in busy days when AIV is backlogged, being allowed to vandalize. Besides that, I will always be around AFD, deleting articles that have received consensus to be deleted. I am also able to help out in C:CSD to clear the massive backlog that always grows there, enforcing WP:SSP by blocking socks and protecting articles in RFPP.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Besides my anti vandalism work, I am extremely pleased with the way the article I've been working on has been developing. I am also pretty pleased with my work in accordance to the Tennis WikiProject and the Novels WikiProject, although, sadly, I've been neglecting my other ones. I'm also proud of the template I've created, which is being used in 500+ articles.

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 many conflicts with people in the past, with me being impersonated and vandalized many times, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kzrulzuall36 (2nd). I've also been in conflicts, though not particularly severe, at Wikipedia talk:Attack sites, when people criticized me when I tried to stop edit warring. Usually, whenever I am in a conflict with another user or ip, I try to see fault in my own line of argument, to see if I'd made a mistake. If I get too stressed, I usually try to cool down by editing my user page and taking a break from Wikipedia. Sometimes, I admit that I can be particularly harsh, but I always apologize for it.

General comments

• See Kzrulzuall's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

• CheckUser filled against this user. Matthew 09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 01:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support So you're the fellow with that funky sig. Yes, I trust you, and I'm impressed by your answers. YechielMan 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I see nothing that leads me to believe this user would abuse the admin tools. Frise 05:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support nothing concerns me here, good luck. The Rambling Man 07:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support in my experience this editor has been very even tempered, from what I've seen KazakhPol appears to have taken KZ^{Talk• Contribs} good faith attempt at constructive feedback personally. Anynobody 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Terence 09:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose User seriously lacks the temper to be an administrator. KazakhPol 06:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   Yesterday he posted on WP:AN/I this bizarre comment[1] followed shortly by this[2]. After other editors criticize him for his posts he apologizes for being "childish"[3] and refers to his own edits as "disruption."[4] Not exactly administrative material. KazakhPol 06:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   He's also the model of civility. "Wikipedia isn't a blog so if you have no worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia, apart from making theories and stating your views of things, you will be blocked. Consider this your last warning."[5] KazakhPol 06:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   Me and other editors have given you suitable warnings on not making those remarks on the talk page. Since you intended to pursue this issue, I gave you a warning based on your disruptive and hurtful comments in that article talk. As for the other matters, I've apologized for the comments, so you can hardly judge me for an apologetic remark. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   You mean "other editors and I" and apologizing for being disruptive hardly rectifies your actions. KazakhPol 07:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   I never said that it rectifies my actions, but just want to point out that my apology shouldn't be used as evidence of my "disruptive" behavior. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   KazahkPol, your pedantry is a sure sign that you've realized you have no valid points and your argument holds no merit. John Reaves (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   The diffs speak for themselves. I suggest he retracts his nomination. KazakhPol 07:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I have little or no faith in this users ability to be a sysop. I get the feelin he'd abuse the tools for his own desires (such as unilateral blocks).[6] I believe Kzrulzuall has been "playing the game", to put it candidly (or as Sir Nick said: "Passing an RfA is not difficult. Or is it? If you have been a good boy for six months, kept your head down, and have not made a lot of noise. It'll be a cinch. You'll pass and no no one will notice"). No, I certainly feel there's something wrong with this user, having interacted prior. The main space contributions are despicable (We're building a gorram encyclopaedia here.. *not* playing wikipolitics four.point.oh, nor whocansuckupthemost ten.0), the last contribution I can find is dated 6 April[7]. The user page is something to be desired as well. To close: I don't believe this user would make a good sysop, I don't trust him/her nor can I trust them not to unilaterally abuse sysop buttons. Matthew 09:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Edit: Also per this, I find the "calling for backup" thing disruptive, and also arguing with opposers.. I can not support a disruptive user at RfA. Matthew 09:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Edit #2: User also has zero knowledge of fair use policy. I also believe the nominator is a sockpuppet of User:Sp3001 who is a sockpuppet of Kzrulzuall.[8]. Matthew 09:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   Could you please give me some diffs of my behavior so I can improve them further? I just don't understand how you think I've failed Wikipedia so much. Calling for backup? Matthew, this isn't anything that I was trying to do. I was specifically trying to get an admin's attention to see whether I made a mistake in judgement. This oppose !vote is extremely disheartening. . The Sp3001 account was created by me for a friend. Ask Sp3000 for a further explanation. The images were covered with fair use, and was an incident in my first few months at wikipedia --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   I believe this speaks for itself. User believes RfA is a "vote", [9], [10], for example. Matthew 09:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   I have neglected to add ! to my comments, but is that a important criteria for RFA? The second one was me trying to fix the sigs to avoid people being distracted. Ive already explained the KazahkPol incident above. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   I do not know what you mean by you neglected to add a "!".. secondly I find your sig. distracting.. you won't hear me complaining. Addendum: CheckUser filed. Matthew 09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   I already asked Sp3000 to explain it to you, so there's no need. I also meant !vote instead of vote. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   Also fixed the sig so it will appear less distracting. I just don't see why you are opposing me for lack of good article contributions. I never was one of those guys who add a lot to articles, but I am more interested in the technical side of Wikipedia. And the image part is one that I don't get. Aren't you suppose to tag fair use book covers with the fair use tag? --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   I fidn the users who only come to Wikipedia for the "technical side" are generally the people who care more for being "powerful" and having a high-status. Also the fairuse tag states: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. Please include in your fair use rationale details of the particular edition (publisher, market & year of publication) of the edition you have used, and also acknowledge any cover artist if such artist is acknowledged in that edition's frontmatter. If the book cover is in the public domain (see Wikipedia:Public domain), then use the appropriate public domain tag rather than this one". Matthew 10:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

   To clear things up, Sp3001 is me - it's just that I was unable to log in as Sp3000 in a public place due to its proxies and my account's JavaScripts. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral