Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zxcvbnm 2


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

'''I've delisted this nomination due to the strong opposition. I encourage Zxcvbnm to run again in the future once the issues brought up are addressed.''' Acetic  ' Acid  17:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm
Final (1/13/3) ending 10:29 8 September 2005 (UTC)'''

-Self nomination, I have done more than 3300 edits in the English Wikipedia since November 2004 and I am a major contributor, I have cleaned up many game and technology articles and have participated in Spanish Translations such as Geology of Venus. I am a man living in New York, USA. Like others, I forget to preview sometimes, but I have good faith. I have started putting summaries on all of my edits. I participate fairly well on VFD (but I don't participate more because it is annoying to see a vandal make a page and all I can do is tag it) and if i am elected I will use edit summaries on every edit. I save a lot because sometimes my data cannot be added when the edit fails. Although I may not have as many full edits as the edit count says, even half of all my edits exceeds the standards. I can still be a good admin, and I am not biased or deletionist. I assure you that I will interact well with others if need be. anytime.--Zxcvbnm 15:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.--Zxcvbnm 15:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Merovingian (t) (c) 18:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) I still think that more experience is required. Zxcvbnm seems to be a very good contributor but needs to take more time to learn procedures. For example, even with some advice, it took 13 edits to add this RfA. Also, the last RfA ended only a few weeks ago. Will likely support in the future. Carbonite | Talk 15:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) His handling of the previous nomination was not impressive, and is still quite recent. Seems overeager for adminship, which suggests a misunderstanding of what it means; it's a few additional technical/housekeeping functions, not a trophy. I'm happy to assume good faith, but that's not the same as having earned my trust, which is the standard for adminship. --Michael Snow 15:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Has not yet addressed issues raised in his last adminship, such as consistently using edit summaries and he still seems to take an inordinate amount of edits to make minor changes to an article. I will reconsider in the future, but his last nomination is still too recent.--Scimitar parley 16:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) His last nomination is indeed to recent. Phoenix2 17:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, at the time of his last nomination he had a problem with civility. That was only a month ago and I haven't seen evidence of improvement yet. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 18:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Hasn't made that much improvement since last time. Too early to submit a re-nom. Thunderbrand 18:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Oppose You've shown no improvement since your last nomination. You still blank your talk page. And this line is extremely shady: "and if i am elected I will use edit summaries on every edit." If elected? Elections are for arbitrators, not admins. Plus, you shouldn't wait until you have sysop rights to start using edit summaries. Acetic  ' Acid  19:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what a small grammatical error and a few missed edit summaries have to do with becoming an admin...? I use edit summaries almost all the time and a small grammar error shouldn't make a difference. As for the "problems" with adding the nomination I did not know that you had to make a seperate page for a re-nom, nothing more. As for being eager to become an admin, I remember a few people saying they'd support me if I ran again next month.--Zxcvbnm 22:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Problems from previous nom do not seem to have been addressed. siafu 00:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Not so soon after last time. Andre ( talk ) 01:25, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose – No email ID too. =Nichalp «Talk»=  14:23, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose: Unspellable, unpronounceable username makes it hard to remember his identity. Promises to change after getting sysop rights is ridiculous: should build up a track record first. Uncle Ed 15:02, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose as per Uncle Ed Poor. Let me know when you're on RFA again and I'll seriously reconsider, if you use edit summaries. -- Phroziac (talk) 16:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops. I don't have a problem with the username, though it does look less professional. I'd support with the current username though. -- Phroziac (talk) 16:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Support, you look like you've improved since your previous nomination. However, seeing the problems you had with adding this nomination here, I have small reservations about it, but nothing serious. (Yay, I get to be the first one to vote!) :) - ulayiti  (talk)  15:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC) I've changed my vote to neutral as per the objections above. Will support at some point in the future if the user acquires more experience. - ulayiti  (talk)  16:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Pretty good article contributions, does good work, but the edit history of Zxcvbnm's former RfA page shows some recent edit war problems. The former RfA also shows that Zxcvbnm wasn't always too patient, though he never got "really" mad. However, his contributions list displays a lot of excellent work that he did on Wikipedia. Anyways, I'm neutral for now, because I don't think his negative side outweighs his positive side. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, on the old RfA, it was inexperience rather than edit warring. Zxcvbnm blanked the old RfA rather than creating a new page. I'm sure this was due to him being unfamiliar with the procedure rather than some other intent. Carbonite | Talk 03:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)  Journalist  C./ Holla @ me! 

Comments
 * First RfA ended on 8 August 2005. Carbonite | Talk 15:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Edit counts Carbonite | Talk 15:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, "If I'm elected"? This was either misspoken, or shows not a great idea of consensus. Dmcdevit·t 17:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * He promises to use edit summaries if he's elected... that's no good, he should be using edit summaries regardless. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 18:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you pronounce your username? --Carnildo 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd go with 'zuk-cuv-'bin-num myself. It's either that or call him Fred. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I supported him rather strongly last time, but it seems the nominator did not take much of the advice to heart, unfortunately. Merovingian is supporting though, and I trust his judgement. Ryan Norton T 07:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just some advice... you only really have to do four things to turn most of those oppose votes into support votes -
 * Use edit summeries
 * Archive your talk page
 * Keep calm under criticism
 * Remember to preview so there arn't so many over-edits
 * Other than that you're qualifications are very good :) Ryan Norton T 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have archived my talk page as well.--Zxcvbnm 15:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I would help delete vandalism and articles marked for deletion, I would also fix errors in areas that are locked from editing. I don't believe you should be nitpicky about choosing an admin, especially if they have pledged to help. I mean, what does "not having experience" do to your admin abilities??
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I have made major contributions to the Fire Emblem and Halo series pages and Geology of Venus as well as other science fiction articles.
 * 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 have not had many conflicts in editing and if I have one in the future I would not overreact and listen to both points of view.
 * 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.