Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zpb52: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:19, 13 May 2006

Zpb52

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zpb52|action=edit}} Vote here] (15/6/3) ending 02:33, May 19th 2006 (UTC)

Zpb52 (talk · contribs) – also known as Zack, has been a member of the Wikipedia community for over a year and among his constantly proves himself be a quick and strong force against what seems to be the constant Vandalism of Wikipedia. As I (and quite possibly many members of WP:CVU) have come to find, Combatting vandalism is a race between the Wikipedians to build bigger and better vandalism clean articles, and the universe to build bigger and better vandalizing idiots; and there has been more than one day where it feels that the Universe is winning. While this statement may be a slight digression (I'm not a very good speech writer), my point is that I feel that granting Zack administrator status would greatly help us Wikipedians win this battle, through his honorable use of the tools and privileges granted to one with such a status. Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 02:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept and welcome the nomination. Thanks, Charlie! --Zpb52 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} - Original Nomination
Support, very strong vandal fighter (saw him in action), good editor, seems to be a good admin material abakharev 05:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Always good to see another Vandal Proof user. Edit count and time w/ project are OK. You say you want to fight vandals, and that’s what you’ve been doing. I would have preferred some involvement with AfD, RfA, or WP:AN. The critical thinking skills needed in those areas are different from fighting vandals, and are needed by an admin. Also, I could find no page edits or creations in your last 500 edits beyond Vandal Proof and some page moves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
Support I think you have the qualities, and you will work through the concerns raised here soon enough. Please keep a learning attitude at all times and diversify your work. Rama's Arrow 07:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Adminship is no big deal and this user seems trustworthy. DarthVad e r 13:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good user. --Knucmo2 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Let him be given the admin-tools, and let his learn adminship by way of "on-the-job" training as an administrator. I am sure this shall not expose us to any risk, as wikipedia is perhaps facing greater risk from several others. --Bhadani 14:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the_ed17^{(talk)Use these!} 14:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (I'll leave a comment later, I have to go!)[reply]
Support. I'm assuming on good faith that you will make an effort to read any policies you may have so far missed. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Friday, 12 May 2006 @ 15:08 UTC
Weak support (changed from Neutral). Deserves the chance. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 15:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems a good editor. --Ton e 16:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent vandal fighter. Rjm656s 16:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good user. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support sheerly on the basis of his amazing counter-vandalism work. I'm assuming the toolservers are still having problems, as in looking through his contribution tree it's not registering hardly any of his edits that have so impressed me. I've seen this user add more users to AIV in the last week than anyone else I know, and all of the alerts he's posted (that I've seen) I totally supported blocking. Low participation in *fD's bother me a bit, but not all admins are involved in those aspects of Wikipedia--if he intends to continue doing what he's currently doing, I think he could stand to benefit quite a bit from administrator tools (especially blocking), and I don't see any evidence that he would abuse them. My only real concern would be that he seems a bit of a shoot-first, ask questions later kinda' guy (as are many, many admins), but I don't necessarily see decisiveness as much of a flaw when it comes to dealing with vandalism. Also, he seems to do a lot of obvious CSD tagging, and I would trust him to know how to use the delete button. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely wouldn't abuse it. S t e v e o 2 23:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Admin tools will help in RC patrol. Concerning your response to the fifth (follow-up) question below, however, I'd encourage you to consider a friendlier response... perhaps the anon just doesn't understand the process, and a warm note would go much further than another warning template. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose, great editor, though low amount of project edits (currently under 250) shows that Zpb52 doesn't have enough involvement with the Wikipedian community. Also, I would like to see a greater use of edit summaries.--☆TBC☆ 04:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just by editing here you show participation with the community in trying to create a better encyclopedia. We're trying to build an encyclopaedia, not evaluate the encyclopaedia's policies. Discussion on talk pages is just as part of the community as Wikipedian project edits are. --Knucmo2 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Edit summary use and project talk edits too low...but keep up the good work. I'll support next time.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 04:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Voice of All, participate more in *fD and I'll support in a few months. Also does not really seem to need admin tools; user uses VandalProof, which has rollback built in (and doesn't support admin rollback, AFAIK), and answer to question 1 doesn't really see any real need for the mop. Wikification and grammar corrections, while vital to Wikipedia, don't require admin tools. --Rory096 07:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, low amount of Wikipedia space edits suggests low knowledge of policy; recommend higher participation in AFD. More edit summaries, please. Reverting vandalism, RC patrol, and cleanup don't require adminship. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Voice of All. Kimchi.sg 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Kimchi.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral—another tough one. Editor is strong on articles and user talk, where a quick perusal suggests a cool head; is a good vandal-fighter and most likely would not abuse the keys intentionally. Edit summary use is a serious concern; nothing in the first answer requires admin tools; and, grammar is fine while spelling needs work (okay, I'm half-kidding there). User should be a great admin someday, but I'm not convinced that day is here. Keep up the good work! Radio Kirk talk to me 04:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Changed, see Support.[reply]

I must have been thinking about Kelsey Grammer. Sorry!--Zpb52 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Better use edit summaries more often for minor edits.--Jusjih 08:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Looks like a very committed vandal fighter, but possibly a little too quick to give warnings with VandalProof. I'll see if I can make up my mind later. --Elkman - ^(talk) 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, edit summary usage. Computerjoe 's talk 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

--Viewing contribution data for user Zpb52 (over the 4278 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 428 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 12, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 10, February, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 39.55% Minor edits: 79.51%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 39.82% Minor article edits: 78.95%
Average edits per day (current): 10
Recognized significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 9.42%
Unique pages edited: 1393 | Average edits per page: 3.07 | Edits on top: 12.18%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 18.72%
Minor edits (non reverts): 38.52%
Marked reverts: 6.03%
Unmarked edits: 36.72%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 69.42% (2970) | Article talk: 2.71% (116)
User: 4.3% (184) | User talk: 13.18% (564)
Wikipedia: 5.8% (248) | Wikipedia talk: 0.02% (1)
Image: 2.78% (119)
Template: 1.22% (52)
Category: 0.26% (11)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.3% (13)

See Zpb52's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool and his up-to-date editcount with Interiot's tool.
- Part of the reason my edit summary count is so low is because I was using a bugged version of VandalProof and made hundreds of edits without it filling in edit summaries. --Zpb52 04:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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: First and foremost, I would continue my stringent fight against vandalism. Vandalism in any form is Wikipedia's number one threat, whether it be juvenile or organized. In the process of fighting vandalism, I would seek to wikify every page I come across. I am a stickler for proper grammar and I also believe in putting articles into their proper contexts. --Zpb52 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Two articles that I worked hard to create and maintain are Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center and Nashville Star. I have done extensive research on these articles, and continue to do so. I pay close attention to detail, including the placement of paragraphs and the placement of information within paragraphs. Though I need to utilize the preview button more (I'm trying!), I believe these articles show that I know how to write and maintain a Wikipedia article. --Zpb52 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 was involved, for a very short while, in the ongoing childish dispute between User:Chadbryant and the suspected sockpuppets of User:DickWitham. The dispute was mostly content-related, and I attempted to remain neutral and invoke the 3RR rule for users who continued to revert articles to support their POV statements. This resulted in my getting attacked from both sides of the dispute. I also had a content dispute with User:Mtstroud over the sign-on date of a television station (WZTV). I found a site elsewhere on the web that confirmed my edit, and I showed that site to User:Mtstroud and the third party involved, ending the dispute.--Zpb52 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from User:dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional)

You are RcPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entry was by TawkerBot reverting a page blank by the same anon. The current version has a note from the anon saying the article needs to be removed as a “cut and paste job from another site.” What do you do? :) Dlohcierekim 05:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would restore the page and add a copyvio template to it. --Zpb52 05:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, so good. Follow up question from User:Dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional) When you hit save, you get an “Edit Conflict’” message. In comparing the two versions , you find the anon has again blanked the page. On the talk page you find a note again asserting that the decision to delete was the correct one. Anon goes on to express anger and perplexity over being reverted, “by a ROBOT!” The note closes with the statement, “IF THIS IS WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT, I’M OUTTA HERE.!” (sic) How do you respond? Thanks, :) Dlohcierekim 15:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restore the page and put a blank3 warning on the anon's user talk page. --Zpb52 16:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 19:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 #'''Support''' sheerly on the basis of his amazing counter-vandalism work. I'm assuming the toolservers are still having problems, as in looking through his contribution tree it's not registering hardly any of his edits that have so impressed me. I've seen this user add more users to AIV in the last week than anyone else I know, and all of the alerts he's posted (that I've seen) I totally supported blocking. Low participation in *fD's bother me a bit, but not all admins are involved in those aspects of Wikipedia--if he intends to continue doing what he's currently doing, I think he could stand to benefit quite a bit from administrator tools (especially blocking), and I don't see any evidence that he would abuse them. My only real concern would be that he seems a bit of a shoot-first, ask questions later kinda' guy (as are many, many admins), but I don't necessarily see decisiveness as much of a flaw when it comes to dealing with vandalism. Also, he seems to do a lot of obvious CSD tagging, and I would trust him to know how to use the delete button. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 #<b>Support</b> Definitely wouldn't abuse it. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Stuff People Gave Me|<font color="violet">2</font>]] 23:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
+#'''Support''' - Admin tools will help in RC patrol. Concerning your response to the fifth (follow-up) question below, however, I'd encourage you to consider a friendlier response... perhaps the anon just doesn't understand the process, and a warm note would go much further than another warning template. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-[[User:Tijuana Brass/EA|<span style="color: #228B22;">E@</span>]]</sup></b> 01:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 '''Oppose'''