Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zzyzx11


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

Zzyzx11
final (15/8/2) ended 08:54 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I was actually going to self-nominate myself for admin in a month from now, but I decided to do it today for the following reasons:
 * I am frequently doing RC and new pages patrol, tagging articles for speedy, cleanup, copyvio, etc. I have also been welcoming newcomers as I see them (it seems to be so many that I stopped counting). Even MacGyverMagic thanked me once for tagging a bunch of articles for speedy. (Although I felt sort of bad that I dumped all that work on him and couldn't help actually deleting them...).
 * I am frequently posting articles on VFD, especially putting (literally dumping) those that have had, , and tags on for more than a couple of weeks. (But since I don't have the ability to delete yet, I sort of feel guilty piling all of this on the ever increasing VFD load for the other admins to clean up...)
 * Speaking of doing RC patrol, I sort of feel helpless watching vandals strike and not having the ability to block them. A few hours before I wrote this RFA, a sock of long term vandal User:Wikipedia is Communism attacked, and the only thing I felt I could really do to stop him was to report on WP:VIP.
 * I have over 4000 edits (in case you are interested in that sort of thing).
 * I also have a habit of reminding other users of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (Of course, it is a little awkward reminding other admins about them.   )
 * Above all else, I am putting this RFA up now so you guys can tell me what my weaknesses are now, should I not get promoted after this voting period ends (and yes, I do know that I currently fail jguk's single admin criterion).

Therefore, what should happen: do you think I should be promoted to admin now or wait next month to try again?

Thanks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 08:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support -The above and your talk pages are convincing. Hope you don't abuse admin powers.--Jondel 09:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope so too. I wouldn't want more critics to come out of the woodwork. Zzyzx11 | Talk 09:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, with pleasure.  Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 10:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. But for the record let me state my disagreement for self-nomination. That aside, I see nothing but good things coming from Zzyzx11. &mdash; oo64eva (AJ) (U @  13:04, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify what I meant: I do not feel that contributors should be able to self-nominate. I did not mean it in any personal way towards Zzyzx11 in specific, I meant it as a general case. My reasoning is simply that if nobody has nominated a contributor, then in my opinion they haven't done enough to be recognized by the community. That's all. &mdash; oo64eva (AJ) (U @  18:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - lot of admin work and that's what matters now most. The  tags were on really bad pages. (I can be convinced otherwise seeing such tag on fully developed and reasonable page.) Preview button should be tried from time to time, there's nothing wrong with it. Bit longer time on Wikipedia would be better for self-nominee. (I see 2005/February/02, did you use anonymous IP before?) Pavel Vozenilek 23:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I thought he was already an admin. I've seen him a lot doing helpful things.Howabout1 00:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I thought you were one! -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 00:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Zzyzx has taken it upon himself to do the dirty, seamy work of reverting vandals, warning them of their behavior and voting on VfD on a regular basis.  He has more than earned the right to revert the tide of booshwah in a direct fashion. - Lucky 6.9 04:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. utcursch | talk 05:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I've been impressed with Zzyzx's work, as an editor and as a janitor.Carbonite | Talk 02:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. --khaosworks 03:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. A good janitor. jni 07:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. ugen 64 22:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Although I am concerned with Zzyzx11's sometimes over-zealousness in regards to deletions, I think that Zzyzx11 would make a useful admin. I hope that Zzyzx11 takes seriously the reasons people oppose this nomination, and I hope that Zzyzx11 can change his/her behavior accordingly. Kingturtle 17:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Good janitorial work, and although I usually oppose deletionism, Zzyzx11 is level headed and sensible in discussions. Sjakkalle 09:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I thought Zzyzx11 was already an admin, to be honest.  Good janitor, has helped to rescue a number of pages that were borderline on VfD.  Kelly Martin 19:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) I note Tony's concerns. They worry me enough to oppose this user. I don't think it's a good idea to give the ability to delete to an editor who is so keen to rid the encyclopaedia of protista. I very much oppose the notion of "notability" as something we should subjectively decide, particularly when it is doubtless true for each of us that our ignorance far exceeds our knowledge (a reason we do this together and don't each write our own ;-)).Grace Note 03:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Needs more time. NoPuzzleStranger 23:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I may support on a later occasion, but I'd feel worried about having admins who make a habit of popping a and whatnot on articles about world famous viola players, great entomologists and the like, and then list them for deletion if nobody complies within a couple of weeks.  Putting  tags on an article about a whole phylum of protista also betrays a basic ignorance that worries me.  This user should acquire and demonstrate more discrimination and a greater willingness to do basic research for himself, rather than sticking "not known at this address" labels on everything he doesn't happen to recognise in this, our vast Library of Babel. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC).
 * Later I've now seen a bit more of what this user is doing on VfD. Some quite reasonable article stubs are being lost through inattention, lack of basic research, sheer ignorance and generally appallingly bad janitor work, and this editor is not the only person to blame (I should have been doing my share there but neglected it for a long while).  We're supposed to wield a mop and bucket, not a hand grenade. Switch to oppose for this application, looking to see him improve with experience. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) PedanticallySpeaking
 * 2) Oppose &mdash; Maybe next time.--Chammy Koala 19:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I have the same worries about his attitudes to deletion as those above. As with other voters, I might well vote 'support' in a month or so if there's improvement on this. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Andre ( talk ) 18:29, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Slac speak up!  13:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Mgm|(talk) 12:59, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC). Neutral. I'll give him some more time to show himself reforming on VFD. Will support if he keeps that up for a month.
 * 2) I am moving my vote to neutral after carefully considering Tony Sidaway's point about this. Please come back in a one month or so and I'll support. This is really not personal. JuntungWu 14:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments Thanks for the feedback. Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Based on Tony Sidaway and Grace Note opposition above, I will immediately start to do more research before I tag articles as VFD, etc. And I will try to improve those that are already on VFD like I did for the following:
 * Braingle
 * CreateBlog
 * On Photography
 * Pearson distribution


 * Even MacGyverMagic thanked me once for tagging a bunch of articles for speedy. I don't see how me thanking you is special. You were just doing a good job. A lot of others would've done the same. Mgm|(talk) 12:59, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess its not significant after all. Zzyzx11 | Talk 15:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely a good editor, but he's still on the learning curve. I think he probably has the makings of a good administrator but I'd like the opportunity to watch him learn from his mistakes.  His reaction to my comments are very encouraging but I'd still like to see how he progresses. If he doesn't make it this time, I look forward to supporting a nomination (perhaps even nominating, if someone doesn't beat me to it!) in late May. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Zzyzx11 currently has 4398 total edits: 2247/67 to articles/talk, 1234/6 to Wikipedia/talk, 176/499 to User/talk, 111/2 to Image/talk, 31/6 to Template/talk, and 18/1 to Category/talk. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 10:41, Apr 26, 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. Since you have read my statements above, you can probably guess that I would like to help out clearing out articles on VFD and those tagged as speedy. I would like to also work on the ever increasing load on CFD, TFD, and those on copyvio. And, I would like to also battle the increasing number of vandals with the Block tool, and quickly repair their damage with the Rollback tool.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I sort of feel like the unofficial caretaker of the articles pertaining to the National Football League. I have contributed to many of those articles, I am the main contributor to the articles in Category:National Football League playoffs, and I created Template:Infobox SuperBowl and Template:NFL team. (Carbonite even told me he was impressed by my work there.)
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. I do not get stressed out very easily, nor have I been in any conflicts over editing, mostly because I avoid working on controversial topics. I know that I was a little vocal in my opposition to Biekko's RFA, but since I was in the minority, it really didn't bother me. The only time I really ever got sort of stressed was interacting with SamuraiClinton/SuperDude115 and his actions that led to him being put on RFC. But once his true story was revealed, I didn't have the stress anymore. But the main thing that I always remind myself is that people have different opinions and you cannot please everybody. Therefore, I let go of the stress and primarily rely on either Wikipedia's policies or the community's consensus.
 * 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.