Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ZooPro 3


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

ZooPro
Final (0/10/3); Ended 18:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC) (closed per WP:NOTNOW by User:Ktr101.)

Nomination
– Kind, ready for such the responsibility. Belugaboy Talk to Me! 13:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I Accept this nomination. Zoo  Pro  13:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Non controvesial stuff to begin with for around 6-8 months get a feel for everything, Non controversial deletes and moves. I would spend alot of time protecting pages and warning/blocking vandals, To be honest alot of these would be animal related as this is the area i work on in wikipedia. The ability to delete pages would be extremely usefull in my work as a coordinator for Wikiproject Animals and Zoos. I would also like/need to gain more experience with speedy deletes something i have had a small issue with in the past and one i hope to correct in the near future. I would like to help out on ANI and AIV.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best work and the work i am proud of is my WikiProjects related editing, I am proud to be a part of a number of Animal related wikiprojects and i currently hold the coordinators position on some of them. I re-activated WikiProject Zoo and myself and another fantastic editor re-activated WikiProject Animals. I work both to keep the projects maintained, the articles assessed and the Portals updated. Whilst i do not edit as much as i would like, i spend way to much time fighting vandalism and fixing errors, i am trying my hardest to improve alot of articles at the same time, As i have said my area of expertise is animals and this is the major part of all my contributions. I am proud to be trusted with rollback (though it was revoked once for a stupid error in judgement). I am currently developing the Zoo and Aquarium portal with ZooFari and it will be a great achievment when its up and running. I am also a member of the ACI and try to get over there as much as i can.


 * 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 sure have, infact one edit conflict resulted in me leaving for a short period of time, i did make an error of judgment and paid the price. I of course came to my senses and returned and havnt looked back since. Im sure Tan or another editor will be able to point that error out. I do have disagreements with editors over certian things and all in all i handle them very well, i believe in discussing things and compromising as i know my opinion is not always the best. I like to think i assume good faith and i hope others think the same. I encourage other editors to discuss issues with me on my talk page rather then in article space as it detracts from the purpose of article talk pages.

General comments

 * Links for ZooPro:
 * Edit summary usage for ZooPro can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ZooPro before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA in that I really hate to see anyone who is not say a ban evading sock getting a unanimous oppose. On the positive side of things, the candidate has rollback and has never been blocked.  Please take the suggestions of those who oppose into consideration as to how to improve as an editor and do not let this ruin your week.  There are many ways to enjoy contributing here without being an admin, so please do not lose sleep over this.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose per this, which I believe is the dispute mentioned in Q3. While this isn't terribly recent, it indicates ZooPro may move to settle grudges once s/he gets the bit.  Şłџğģő  14:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What would indicate i have any grudge towards the editor? I do not hold any issues with the editor and you are correct it is the dispute i refer to in Q3. Zoo  Pro  14:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * YellowFives appears to be gone, but let's say s/he comes back and butts heads with you again, only this time you're an admin. Q3 is meant, in part, to suss out candidates who might desire adminship for inappropriate, immature reasons. I'm not saying you're going to do that, but your answer doesn't indicate your conflict with YellowFives taught you anything. Şłџğģő  15:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not your fault, as you were only following advice, but I can't support you coming here only five months after your last RfA with little evidence to suggest you won't behave in the near future as you have in the recent past. I'm also not confident in a candidate who promises to work only in "non-controversial" areas as you have stated in your response to Question 1, as it suggests you are not confident in your own judgment abilities either.  I have nothing against you personally, but I cannot support putting you into a position of power at this time.   —  Soap  —  14:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually said i would only work in non controvesial areas for a short period of time not forever. What behavior are you refering to above? Zoo  Pro  14:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Very little experience in admin areas and only 403 article edits is too low for me. Polargeo (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also this is just over a month ago where ZooPro recognised a seriously poor record in CSD tagging by removing evidence of such from their talkpage. Along with the comment "more speedy delete declines, i must be bad at csd." Polargeo (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I debated even participating here for awhile; it's my opinion that this RfA is gonna tank hard. But the answer to Q3 is so disingenuous that I decided to go on record to say so. With my one interaction with this editor - and I realize it's typically hard to draw accurate conclusions from one interaction - he behaved the opposite of the image portrayed in the answer to Q3. Bad faith was assumed. Nothing was "discussed", and certainly no compromises were made as he retired in a huff and stormed away from the project. I feel a bit bad; I recently tried to subtly discourage him from running on his talk page, but this was apparently interpreted as support by the nominator. If the editor had a good track record and the requisite experience, I might be able to overlook this one transgression. As it is, I cannot. Tan   &#124;   39  15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose (and from Tan) per Polargeo. In general, just more experience, but I'd like to see better CSD work (less than 150 deleted edits right now), certainly more mainspace edits, and more project space edits, something I always want to see out of a potential admin. Also noted by Soap, I don't feel confident if you don't feel confident in yourself.  fetch  comms  ☛  15:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - ZooPro mentioned that bad speedy link, and in the edit summary it sounds like you had a lot of declined speedies. Not to mention, on your userpage until just ten days ago, you said "TOUCH THIS PAGE AND I WILL ENSURE YOU REGRET IT FOR THE REST OR YOUR WIKIPEDIA LIFE, I WILL NOT TOLERATE VANDALISM." And Fetchcomms mentioned the low deleted edit count. Work on getting those better. Sorry.  smithers  - talk  16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose because of the concerns already raised, and also because the answers to the questions have a number of minor typos and simple grammatical errors - nothing serious, but this is stuff that shouldn't appear in article, so it appears a little sloppy in a RfA. I applaud ZooPro's enthusiasm, especially in getting involved in the portal and the projects, though statements like this are off-putting, and Intelligentsium was quite right in removing it. I feel that ZooPro is keen to get involved in Wikipedia, and that should be encouraged. I hope that ZooPro will spend the next 12 months working in various areas on Wikipedia - dispute resolution, maintenance, AfD, and content building - and show evidence of building consensus on talkpages, and handling hot incidents with a calm manner, and then come back and try again.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Tanthalas and SilkTork. Glass  Cobra  18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Per Polargeo, and per this. That's a deal-killer for me, someone who wants to work with page deletion per the answer to Q1, but with such a poor grasp of our deletion criteria there's no way I could trust this person with the tools. --  At am a  頭 18:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per SilkTork's diff above. Asserting ownership over articles (or portals) is not good behaviour for prospective admins. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral Not to pile on, neutral. I cannot support what was on the user page of yours (As smithers pointed out). To me its feeding the trolls and admins shouldnt do that. Im aware its been removed recently but its still to soon afterwards. Sorry.Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I've interacted with this editor at various animal-related pages, and our interactions have always been quite pleasant, so I don't want to pile on. However, I feel that the opposers have raised some valid points, and I do not see a compelling reason to justify giving the tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral Although we do need more admins in WP:AIV, I see very little activity in admin areas - 7 edits to WP:AN/I and 6 to WP:AIV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:34, 22 February 2010 (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.