Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr.Z-man


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

Mr.Z-man
Final: (43/2/0); ended 19:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

- I've had a Wikipedia account since December 2005 but have only been editing regularly since the beginning of January 2007, so I have just a few days short of 5 months experience. I've amassed over 5800 edits, including over 2000 mainspace edits. I also have an account on commons for uploading free images. I do much work in the template and article namespaces. I do a significant amount of vandalism reversion, I participate in XfD's, and also close them occasionally, if they have an obvious keep consensus, the nomination was withdrawn with no objections, or it was deleted by an admin but not closed. I am familar with Wikipedia's policies and many guidelines and try to involve myself in discussions, though I have been trying to do more mainspace work lately. I also try to keep BLP articles in good condition. I requested the link to BLP recent changes be added to the Recent changes header (though its not as prominent as I would have liked) and I keep any BLP article I revert things on in my watchlist. I'm also a member of many projects including WP:ADOPT, WikiProject Classroom coordination, WikiProject Michigan, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, and others. I also run an AWB bot, Mr.Z-bot to remove the article categories from WP:AFC archive pages. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 19:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would focus mainly on extensions of what I do now. I do quite a bit of new page patrol and XfD work, and as an admin, I could close all XfDs and help clear CAT:CSD. I'm also fairly good at finding copyvios in CAT:WIKIFY and in new pages, so being able to delete these on sight could help. I also would be able to block users reported to AIV and could block vandals that I find instead of having to report them. I would also like to help at WP:RPP and could provide help in editing protected templates (only if there is good reason to do so, of course)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: In article namespace, that would be Mackinac Island. I brought it (with help from a few other editors) from a fairly short, unsourced article to its current version, completely sourced and much longer. It is now a GA and has been a featured article candidate since May 13, with no objections. This is also how I became involved in the National Register of Historic Places project. I also like the Template:Infobox Non-profit I created. While it started as a copy of the company infobox with a few things changed, it is now much different and is used on over 100 pages. I list all of my major contributions on my user page, including my favorite image upload.


 * 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 generally try to avoid topics that become conflict magnets, and editing conflicts that I have been a party in are usually minor and are quickly resolved. I try not to take things too seriously, as I've found that acting too seriously often leads to problems getting out of hand. If another editor gives a really good reason for why his position is better than mine (Reliable sources for instance), I will accept that. I keep most AfD's I participate in on my watchlist, in case someone turns up evidence that refutes my position. I have done minimal work with the mediation cabal, some of which has led to stress. See the archive of Talk:Autoroute for the only case to date that I really "resolved"

Optional question from User:William Henry Harrison


 * 4. If you were given the power to have complete control over wikipedia what would you do, what would you change, and why?
 * A: From my experience, with a couple of exceptions, Wikipedia actually runs fairly smoothly for its size. The larger it gets, the more we have to explain, clarify, and create rules/guidelines/processes, to keep a sense of standardization and to keep things orderly. I mean, compare Wikipedia to say, the US government. If we ran Wikipedia like that we would probably have only about 50,000 articles, all the rest would be stuck in committee somewhere but if we remove rules, we create loopholes for undesirable content/actions to creep in. As for what I would change though, I would make Reliable sources (or something similar) a policy for new articles. Basically, for a new article to stay, it would need to be at least partially sourced from its creation. We already don't accept unsourced suggestions at WP:AFC. While applying this to all articles would be impractical (Category Tracker is showing 73960 articles lacking sources), applying it to new articles could stem the influx of unsourced articles, and let people get to work reducing the unsourced article backlog, perhaps some of the articles from December 2005. This could be used in conjunction with the "Wikipedia Attic" idea suggested on the discussion page for the soft deletion proposal in which under some conditions, articles are not immediately deleted but are moved to a subpage of a projectspace page or a new namespace for a certain amount of time. A template could be placed on the mainspace page, explaining why it was removed, where it is moved to, and when it will be deleted. After that time has passed, if the articles are not improved up to standards, they are deleted. Obviously some new unsourced articles would not be kept in any form: copyvios, anything that fails a criteria for speedy deletion, or new articles that violate other policies as well such as WP:NPOV or WP:BLP.

Optional question from User:Vassyana
 * 5. You mentioned that some of your experience with MedCab was stressful. Could you please elaborate? What did you take away from the stressful experiences? How do you plan on dealing with stress as a sysop?
 * A: It was mainly one stressful situation. As I said above, I have only minimal MedCab experience. I've resolved one situation, 2 other disputes settled themselves with minimal input from me, and I'm working with another editor as co-mediatior on one now, but progress there is slow. One dispute however went really wrong really fast. Part of it was my fault, I assumed that what was asked for on the MedCab request page was what everybody wanted. The editor(s) who filled out the page seemed to be asking for more of a third opinion to break their stalled, deadlocked discussion. However, I quickly learned (after I had provided a 3rd opinion) that that was not what everybody wanted. An extremely heated discussion soon followed, I had to defend myself while still remaining civil, and I ultimately failed (at resolving the dispute, I was able to stay civil). The case is with MedCom now, though after my experiences with it, I am doubtful that they will be able to resolve much. The first comment in opposition to me below is from one of the disputers (one who I disagreed with, obviously). I've learned how to better avoid stressful situations in the first place, as the best way to deal with stress is to not get stressed out. I am better at recognizing situations that may have a tendency to become a powderkeg, and I've learned to keep my distance from disputes of certain subjects that tend to turn in to "conflict magnets" (anything that can attract a lot of emotion and personal feelings). Often in those situations, remaining impersonal and objective can backfire, making you appear heartless and cruel (what I'm pretty sure happened in the dispute that went wrong). Also, I try to remember, we are here to build an encyclpedia, not have debate clubs. I will do what is best for the encyclopedia. As a sysop, I can't imagine myself getting into too many stressful situations. People will get mad of course when they are blocked, when their page is deleted, or when I protect "the wrong version" in a dispute, but I've found the best way to resove minor disputes (more complaints than disputes) such as those is to explain everything: context, reasoning, policy, remedies. If someone complains about a page I deleted (assuming they have not done anything that would be reason not to assume good faith), I'll point them in the direction of the relevant policy (or XfD discussion), tell them what was really wrong and how to fix it, and direct them to DRV if the page wasn't a total disaster. I can't see myself diving right into every sysop chore right away. Mainly long-term abuse and sockpuppet issues. While I can eventually see myself working in these areas, these seem to be some of the more stressful situations. I see myself doing much more of the mop-and-keys janitorial work (along with regular editing) than anything else however.

General comments

 * See Mr.Z-man's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Mr.Z-man:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mr.Z-man before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Strong support Z-man is a versatile contributor at AFD and elsewhere. He would make the ideal admin based on my observations of him. Yechiel Man  19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No reason not to. Also, on a side note, nice work on Mackinac Island. --Whsitchy 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support all good to me. Khu kri  20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - the user is well experienced and is an ideal candidate .. -- Cometstyles 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Y not? 21:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I have seen this user around XfD multiple times. He is a fine user. Acalamari 23:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Good user, no problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info 23:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Great answer to question number 4--William Henry Harrison 03:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User blocked as a sockpuppet.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, go slaughter some vandals...but not in a WP:INSULT kind of way... -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support He is literally everywhere. PeaceNT 05:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 06:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Dfrg.msc 07:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support good answers, excellent article work, level-headed. Sure. — An as  talk? 10:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Although another 2 or 3 months would be great, I like this user's work. · AndonicO Talk 14:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7)  Majorly  (talk | meet) 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support-I constantly see him at AIV and xFD, and he does great work. Normally, I would never support somebody this new. Mr. Z-man is the exception. --R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 14:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Good user. He is new, but he is very experienced. -- M s  c  h  e  l  18:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support WooyiTalk to me? 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Does meaningful cleanup work? Writes FAs? Acts politely even under criticism? Textbook signs that someone will be fine as an admin. --W.marsh 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, No real concerns with this editor. --  Random  Say it here! 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Another user that can tell which end is up. older ≠ wiser 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support non-controversial and helpful editor ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Nothing wrong that I can see... Good contributor, will make a great admin. --Dark Falls  talk 06:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support As per nom and all of above. Pedro |  Chat 08:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Terence 09:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Although you said you've only been editing regularly for a few months, I don't think that time has to do with experience. It's what you've done in that time, which is become a great editor. Cheers! You will make great use of the tools.  hmwith  talk  11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. No indication of problems, helpful, cooperative, good contributions; should be even better with the official mop and bucket.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - I would definitely trust Mr.Z-man with the mop. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support I think he will be trustworthy.  Jody B talk 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. You will do well.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Particularly per answers to question 4. — CharlotteWebb 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Good contributions. Captain panda  18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. I am unconvinced of the merits of the "soft deletion" proposal but won't let a minor disagreement in opinions get in the way of supporting someone who I'm confident would be a great admin. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Excellent candidate; will make a fine addition to the admincorps. Xoloz 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools, even if I disagree with answer to question 4. Davewild 17:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Good answers, good edits. I think you'll do fine. --132 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. I've seen you around and valued your contributions. I would have probably taken a somewhat different approach (always easier to say with hindsight) to the emotionally charged Phi Kappa Psi dispute, but I'm satisfied that you learned from the experience and impressed that you didn't lose your cool.-- Kubigula (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support I don't really see any reason to opposed. Time editing in earnest is slightly less than I normally like to see, but the answers are good (though I'm not a big fan of "soft delete").--Isotope23 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Solid editor, will do well as an admin. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ</b> 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. The nominee seems to have a good grasp of his strengths and limitations. I have no reason not to trust this user with the mop & bucket. Vassyana 09:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support by the dawn's early light. --Infrangible 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) A very good candidate.  Daniel  03:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support: his contributions are almost an example of admin conduct already. Unlikely to abuse sysop tools. Ukrained 09:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) The Bureaucrats are wasting so much time discussing Gracenotes' RfA I can still support: I thought he was one! ~ Μ ΛG иυs ΛΠ ιмυМ   &#8776; &#8730;&#8734;  00:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Exhibited grotesque notion of notability, arguing that a class of rapes were not notable because they were common. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps living near Detroit has somewhat insensitized me to most violent crime that does not directly affect me; there is usually one or more reports of a murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, burglary, etc. on the news every night, plus many filling the local sections of the newspapers. (The second headline on the Detroit Free Press Website right now: "Cop faces more sex assault charges, $1-million cash bond") There is a significant difference between newsworthiness and notability. Just because some incident gets a TV story and a newspaper article (some even get more than that if they solve the crime within a few weeks and maybe an op-ed piece) does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia article. The only thing that that rape had to do with the fraternity it was being mentioned with is the fact that it happened on property owned by the fraternity and the rapist may have been a member. Notice that Detroit, Michigan and even Crime in Detroit, Michigan are not filled with accounts of individual crimes, nor are the articles for other large cities, colleges, and fraternities. There are 3 local TV stations in Detroit and 2 newspapers (3 if it happens in a suberb south of the city). That is more than enough for reliable sources, WP:V, and an extremely strict interpretation of WP:N, but the editors in those otehr articles have realized the difference between newsworthiness and notability. Also please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, number 10, News reports. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to debate whether these other, newly offered reasons (ostensible reliability, &amp;c) could justify your earlier conclusion. Here, I drew specific attention to the notion of notability that underlies your claim that a rape in a fraternity house would not be notable because such rapes are common.  It doesn't much matter just how your sense of notability has been “insensitized” (by living near Detroit or otherwise); the point is that it does not function well, and indeed malfunctions in a manner that could bring active disgrace to Wikipedia if you were granted a position of authority. (As it was, your actions when wearing the self-donned hat of Mediator could have brought some very ugly attention from the press on a slow news day.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, SlamDiego refes to a veiled threat about taking off-wiki actions in a content dispute. (this being the first). I'm saying that rape in general and on college campuses is common. I'm saying that there is a difference between newsworthiness and notability. I'm saying it was not relevant in terms of the national organization Wikipedia does not report the news.  I notice that you made no mention of how you harassed me and any other user who disagreed with you in that dispute. You accused one editor of being a sockpuppet even though you admitted that there was little evidence and rejected any attempts by the two other users at explaining they were not sockpuppets. I actually was suprised by my and other editors' ability to stay civil and assume good faith in that dispute. I wish I could say the same for you. You also made a comment early on (I must have overlooked it, if I noticed it before I would never have commented) that indicated you belived removal was an attempt at censorship and that you had no intention of accepting any decision that was not in line your stance. This whole dispute was my mistake. I should have realzed that any informal resolution attempt (with the exception of full agreement with SlamDiego) was futile. Also, you ignored the main point of my comments on the talk page about relevancy, focusing only on specifics that I gave as examples. (In all fairness to you though, I did not even think about WP:NOT duing my comments then.) Finally, your comment above "malfunctions in a manner that could bring active disgrace to Wikipedia if you were granted a position of authority." — What?! I was discussing the removal of one instance of rape in one article. You make it sould like I suggested I would go around with AWB and remove any paragraph that mentioned a rape as an attempt at censorship. Absolutely not. I do not make judgements on Wikipedia using any sort of precedent or preconceived notions. I make judgements, including my decisions on that article, based on the content within the article and the relevant policies and guidelines. Were that an article about a specific chapter house, inclusion would have been warranted, but in an article about the national organiztion?  Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No one made any threats, veiled or otherwise; your pretense otherwise, and the rest of your response to the core of my objection raises further basis for concern about your suitability to hold administrator privileges. The issue of whether I am a or am not a good editor isn't relevant here; I am not here (or elsewhere) nominated for administration.  I linked to your exact words, and people can see what you actually wrote, as opposed to however things might now be spun here.  What you actually wrote repelled not only me, but Rjproie and Jmlk17, who are the opposing parties in the dispute in question. (We are presently waiting on the assignment of a Mediator from the Mediation Committee.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the AfD comment in question, I don't think SlamDiego's assessment above is entirely fair. The comment seemed perfectly reasonable to me - not all rapes are notable, they're only notable if they receive sufficient coverage in independent sources to write a detailed article. So the diff does not detract from my trust in Mr.Z-man's understanding of policy. Walton <sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!  18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr.Z-man did not make the point that not all rapes were notable, nor has he availed himself of the defense that he misspoke when attempting to make such a point. Instead, he has tried to vindicate his actual remark, and attempted to sidetrack the argument here into one about my actions and character; that response shows all the more clearly why giving him powers of adminsitration would be ill-considered. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. He has demonstrated a disregard for the truth. Miss Minerva 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you care to explain what you mean here? Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an inflammatory and unsupported comment to place on a user's RfA. It needs to be supported or can be taken as nothing more than a grain of salt.  Of note, this user has 7 edits total! &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 18:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has insisted on support for the comments in favor of the nominee, nor am I aware of any attempt to count how many edits each has made. As to support, anyone who followed the links above would find support (for example, Mr.Z-man plainly and willfully misrepresented what I'd actually said and done), and if people are not following those links or not seeing the support therein, then I'm not sure why more links that will be ignored or misunderstood would be helpful. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has insisted on support for the comments in favor of the nominee, nor am I aware of any attempt to count how many edits each has made. As to support, anyone who followed the links above would find support (for example, Mr.Z-man plainly and willfully misrepresented what I'd actually said and done), and if people are not following those links or not seeing the support therein, then I'm not sure why more links that will be ignored or misunderstood would be helpful. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 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.
 * 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.