Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ZooPro 2

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


ZooPro

edit

Final (2/12/4); closed per WP:NOTNOW by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ at 18:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

edit

ZooPro (talk · contribs) – An experienced editor wanting to make a difference. ZooPro (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ACCEPTED ZooPro (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

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: I intend to mainly work with speedy deletes and uncontroversial delete pages. Protecting pages is also an area i am interested in and would like to participate.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I always like to consider all my contributions as my best, i have expanded a number of articles and enjoy furthering wikipedia
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 have had some minor conflicts however they have been dealt with minimal stress on both parties. I believe discussion is the key to success and compromise is fundamental.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
4. Why do administrators have to do moves on occasion? How is such an action requested?
A:



General comments

edit
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

edit
Support
edit
  1. Conditional support you are not quite ready per opposes below. However, you are off to a good start so keep it up! ZooFari 04:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Admit it, you like the name :)--SPhilbrickT 13:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support. Adminship shouldn't be your goal on Wikipedia, and judging by your edits thus far I'd say it is. Try spending time improving the encyclopedia, by either writing articles (fun!) or working on vandalism patrol (not as fun, but needed), and return full of knowledge in 4-9 months. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Sorry. 179 edits is not enough to inspire confidence in your knowledge of policy, site norms, and general Wikipedia practices. → ROUX ₪ 04:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Roux. Additionally, most of your contributions are to your userspace, so you have very little experience with the project itself. Please contribute to the encyclopedia for six months or so, and barring any major issues, I'll reconsider my position. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mainly for not enough experience, but some minus points for not reading the self-nom directions fully. ArcAngel (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
    For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.
    The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
    As an admin, you will inevitably have to...
    1. Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
    2. Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
    3. Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
    4. Negotiate a compromise.
    Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
    Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
    If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).
    My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Until It Sleeps alternate 04:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ZooPro could have been used here, as it was never closed or even had any votes! Just getting my vote in early because I suspect this will be closed off before you get to answer my question. Any way the reason for my oppose is that you do not seem to have done very much. You should try out a wide range of activities so that you can get an understanding of what can be done, how to relate to people, how to handle a difficult situation. You should nominate some for WP:AIV, nominate article for speedy delete in various different categories, do new page patrol, assist users on one of the many help areas, do more article editing, disambiguation work, wikification and clenaup. I see some positive things such as sandbox, user page, joining a project. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Roux and others with concerns regarding number of edits. Now that I'm over 1000 edits I'm just finding out how much there is to learn here. Best of luck to you in the future, however, should you wish to pursue this. We have had some great candidates come through in the past week, study their qualifications to get an idea of what is being looked for. Jusdafax 06:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per many of the concerns expressed above me. You do have a good mix of different types of edits in the various namespaces, just not anywhere near enough to have the experience required. Keep up the good work, and try again when you are much more seasoned. - Crockspot (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 'Oppose Per Crockspot.Abce2|This isnot a test 13:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Per Roux --SPhilbrickT 13:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Sorry; you have only a small fraction of the experience and knowledge needed to function adequately as an administrator. Try again when you have amassed something around 3,000 edits, distributed over all or most of the encyclopedia. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Roux. -- Deville (Talk) 16:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience first. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
  1. You may wish to close this, you are unlikely to pass. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For all the reasons stated above, I cannot support a RfA at this time. While I understand the desire to help the project as an administrator, we really need proof of your experience and skills. your talk page shows good signs, you are a participant on multiple WikiMedia sites, are a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, but I noticed that you blanked your talk page manually with an edit summary of "archiving" I can see no achive listing in your page. Also you said you were an IP editor here for two years, providing us with the approprite IP, if it was a static IP, would be useful. Good Luck. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page archive found. User talk:ZooPro/Archive. User does show... a desire to assist in area's proposed in RfA, I would like to review your IP edits however. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral To avoid piling on, good luck next time around.--Giants27(c|s) 15:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per Giants27. Airplaneman talk 16:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ZooPro_2&oldid=1144600934"