Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zzyzx11 2

Zzyzx11
final (37/1/0) ended 23:32 6 June 2005 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 put himself up as a self-nomination in late April. Concern at his immaturity as an editor, particularly his activities on WP:VFD at the time, caused me to oppose his nomination. But I decided to see that he got a second go as soon as possible, possibly in late May. Well here we are. Zzyzx11 tells me he took a WikiBreak, but one could be excused for missing that, because he's kept busily editing. He seems to have matured, as expected. I am happy to recommend him for promotion to administrator. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Link to self nomination, 26 April, 2005


 * Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

I accept. For your information, I took a Wikivacation due to Wikistress from 9 May 2005 to 21 May 2005. Details of that, including why I left and why I was seduced to come back are on the top of my user page -- including the self-imposed restrictions I put on myself. Afterwards, editing here on Wikipedia has become fun again. So I hope I can continue improving this site, and if you feel that giving me access to the admin tools would be helpful, please support me. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support. As before, I support. &mdash; oo64eva (Alex) (U @  23:51, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Super Support I was going to nominate him myself in a few days. Howabout1 Talk to me!  00:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Mais certainement. Seems I would have been in a queue to nominate! Grutness...  wha?  00:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) 100% Support, This users dedication and contributions are enough to demonstrate that he is an asset to Wiki and would make a great adminstrator. Tony the Marine (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Friendly, considerate, and diligent; I trust him to have good judgment as an admin. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. El_C 01:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Wikipedia needs more inclusionist admins who abhor information loss. Klonimus 02:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support. I agree completely with every voter here. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 02:17, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Yes! Phil s 05:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Cool. JuntungWu 05:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Glad to see you back, and would be glad to see you an administrator. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) I certainly see no reason not to support a more mature Zzyzx11 when I supported him last time. Very strong candidate. Sjakkalle 06:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support as in his previous RFA. jni 06:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Ambi 07:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. My experience of this user has always been positive. Thryduulf 07:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. As I predicted, a month has moved me from a weak oppose to a straightforward support. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support-gadfium 08:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, ditto. Radiant_* 11:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. &mdash; Xezbeth 15:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. I've worked with him in a limited capacity in regards to The Young and the Restless article and I was pleased, on the whole. Mike H 18:34, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) support. as i said last time, "I hope that Zzyzx11 takes seriously the reasons people oppose this nomination, and I hope that Zzyzx11 can change his/her behavior accordingly." Kingturtle 18:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. JYolkowski // talk 20:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. --Scimitar 21:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Rje 04:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) David Gerard 16:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Hedley 16:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - strong editor. Johntex 23:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support--Duk 16:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Fire Star 16:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support--can't believe it took me this long to notice and jump on the bandwagon. Meelar (talk) 16:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. -- BD2412 talk 04:49, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
 * 33) Happy to Support. --khaosworks 16:50, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support.-JCarriker 06:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. - Darwinek 14:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support.. JuntungWu 15:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Andre ( talk ) 22:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Does not meet my admin criterion. If you disagree and think that you do and would like me to reconsider, please leave a note on my userpage, jguk 19:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments
 * My previous RFA nomination ended with a 15/8/2 no consensus vote, primarily because many people felt I was a little too eager posting articles on VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand the hurry to nominate someone so recently back from a wikistress break.  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:47, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good user; I'd like to know a little bit more about his views of the wiki-politics he condemns on his user page, though. Everyking 12:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Good question and I don't think I elaborated more on that. The wiki-politics was one of the reasons I left on my wiki break. But after coming back I realised that it was foolish of me to get stressed out about it. After all, once you attract a large amount of users as WP has, there will be tons of different views on what should be done to the articles. Thus, since the wiki-politics is really inevitable, I decided to step back and not really get involved in the actually debate. If its clear that something violates or does not violate policy, I'll step in. But for heavily disputed issues or something that is in the grey area, I now would rather abstain and wait until some consensus is reached by others. I hope that explanation helps. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:53, 1 Jun 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 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.
 * Of course, I am having fun using CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter software (which is an absolute 'must for every admin, wannabe admin, and RC patroller) and I think the admin tools would be a big help to me.
 * 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.
 * 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. As mentioned, I left from 9 May 2005 to 21 May 2005 due to stress dealing with highly debated articles and discussions, and vandals. When I was convinced to come back, I put self-imposed restrictions on myself such as:
 * I will not contribute to any article that is under dispute or has an ongoing POV or revert conflict. This includes all articles listed on RFC.
 * I will only vote on or post pages on VFD, TFD, CFD, etc. if it is fairly obvious that they either violate or pass Wikipedia's policies. I will leave the not so obvious ones and the heavily disputed ones to others.
 * If I makes changes to articles that are currently on VFD, I'll still make a note of it on the appropriate discussion page, but I will abstain from actually voting.
 * I will make an effort to be in contact more with the Wikipedians participating in the various WikiProjects, and refer to their expertise instead of users who really have no business whatsoever in making an opinion.
 * In summary, I have stepped back and started to behave more like an impartial judge or referee in heavily disputed issues -- which I think an admin should be during those situations.