Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zedla

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Zedla

Final: (38/15/2); ended 21:55,

10 March 2008
(UTC)

talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you, I accept the nomination – Zedla (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially, primarly in those areas I have interacted with so far as an editor and have experience with, generally
admin backlog
.
With
CAT:RECALL
list.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The most writing I've done has been on
Union High School (Washington) from AfD
. I'm of the opinion that improving the quality of an article is the best way to discourage vandals and invite better quality edits from newcomers.
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: Probably the most memorable disagreement was over Filipinos (snack food)#Controversy. Inevitably, there have been other similar but lesser conflicts, my general reaction is to try not to inject personality into the situation and to focus on a positive outcome in the process of encyclopedia building. Space and time are often beneficial in such a situation. Zedla (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from

NSLE
. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

Optional questions from Tiptoety talk

4.What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: Blocks are used to prevent disruption from users or ip's, while a ban is a community action revoking the privileges of a user.
5. When should "cool down" blocks be used?
A: A recent experience with
WP:CDB
and the prohibition on blocking users in any attempt to calm them down.
6.What do you feel is/are the most important policy(s) in regards to administrative functions?
A: In essence that any application of an administrative function should be harmonious, non-disruptive, and in support of the project.

Optional questions from Coren

7. Taking a look at that revision of an article that
WP:SCV
, I'm looking for judgment, not procedure).
A: In that particular instance my instinct as an editor is that since it doesn't appear to be a 100% copyright violation, would be to trim and rewrite the article (otherwise it would be speedied). Within the administrative parameters of
WP:CP
.
8. Take a look at this revision of an editor's talk page, on which there is an unblock request. Would you accept or decline that request and why? (I trust you won't cheat by looking forward to see what happened before answering, that would defeat the point of the exercise).
A: I would continue to defer to
WP:ANI
. One would have to consider the continuing uncertainty and lack of specifics from the blocked user about/during the proposed probation.

Optional, yet fun, question from Useight

9. Did you get your username from Zelda or somewhere else?
A: No, it derives from 'somewhere else' and was a coincidence after the fact although I find it particularly insightful when called "Zelda". – Zedla (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!)

10. What is your opinion on
"snowball clause"
apply to an AFD or a RFA, if at all?
A: Both IAR and SNOW balance common sense against the need for consensus building with the goal of encyclopedia building. IAR helps to encourage experimentation & contribution where it might be difficult, if not impossible, to even start a consensus building discussion. SNOW would apply in the most obvious cases of consensus.
11. Will you add yourself to
WP:AOR
? Why or why not?
A: please refer to my answer for #1. Or, yes, while there are arguments about flaws in the process the principle is sound and it is an important one.
Yeah, just noticed that you already mentioned it. Sorry 'bout that.--TBC!?! 20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. A user creates an article consisting only of a link to his MySpace page. Can this article be speedily deleted, and if so, under what criteria?
A: yes, under A3: no content.

Questions from Majorly

13. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A.Not necessarily

14. Why do you think that?

A.Questions are an important part of any discussion. The bearing of such questions on the end result/goal are more important than any personal subjective assessment.

15. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A. I don't have any particular interest in editing Violin.

Optional questions from GO-PCHS-NJROTC

16. If you caught a user who you had conflicts with in the past vandalizing articles in the present, how would you handle the case?

A. I would consider deferring to another administrator or taking up the matter on the relevant talk pages/noticeboards. If the vandalism progressed into high disruption, I would consider intervening in a limited manner.

17. If a new user vandalized your favorite article or an article about one of your favorite subjects, how would you handle the case?

A.Dispassionately with an eye on encouraging the user to become a productive contributor. I've certainly had my moments of zealousness as an editor which could be perceived as a
WP:BITE
but realize being an admin requires a neutral approach.

18. Suppose your worst enemy was blocked and was practically begging you to unblock him/her. The person was blocked indef and it appears that the block was unjustified. What would you do? —Preceding

talk • contribs) 01:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

A.Regardless of the scenario, a discussion with the original blocking admin or bringing the matter up at
WP:ANI would have to follow. I would be open to discussing concrete steps that might lead to a progressive easing of a block but a unblock would occur only in the rarest of cases involving clear simple errors. Zedla (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Good vandal fighter, seen this user also make some mainspace edits as well.
    2010NHRHS2010 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Support - I like the answers to the candidate's questions - obviously a knowledgeable and well rounded editor. I would have liked to see more Wikipedia namespace contributions, but the break down/versatility is just fine. I believe this user deserves the tools. Nothing makes me think he/she would have difficulty wielding them. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - trustworthy editor.
    talk) 23:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Per Q2 answer.
    H20) 00:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Support, this is a good vandal fighter who has made many contributions to school articles as well as other articles. The tools would improve this user's ability to fight vandalism.
    talk) 01:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Support per above Dlohcierekim 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Although self noms will usually make oppose, your answers make up for that. RC-0722 communicator/kills 01:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support No problems here. --
    Siva1979Talk to me 02:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Support Well use the mop well. SpencerT♦C 02:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Support. An excellent mainspace contributor and great vandal fighter. Nearly 6000 edits. Good enough for me. The lack of Wikipedia Talk edits is disappointing. Useight (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Users edits indicate maturity. MrPrada (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, seems fine.
    ☎ 09:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. Support; editor seems ready for the mop. — Coren (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I can find no reason not to trust this user — 
    t|c) 14:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. Weak support - generally good, but 1 edit on a Wikipedia-talk page is disappointing. I'm sure this user will be OK though. Lradrama 15:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - After looking this user over, he gets my support. ArcAngel (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak Support. Very low projectspace edit count, but I still think that this user won't delete the main page, and so will be fine with the tools.
    talk) 18:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No one can delete it, I think. :) Rudget. 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Good wikipedian so far will be even better with the admin tools! Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. W.T.H.N? ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - This user meets my standards, and edits articles for which I have little expertise. I have no concerns. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support. Great editor, will be an even better admin.--TBC!?! 20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak support per Rudget. EJF (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak Support Also per Rudget. While I do not know the full extent of the January events, this user does appear to be qualified for the mop. Besides, the mop isn't that big of a deal. --Sharkface217 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No glaring concerns. I would advise Zedla to take things slow at the beginning, and ask other admins for advice often. :) GlassCobra 05:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - contributions show 'pedia building and a trust that can be generated therefrom. WRT Rudget below, I can sit happier with too slow to block rather than too hasty. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Casliber puts it nicely. Slow-to-block is a good attribute in an admin. Seems like an excellent user. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support good editor with no warning signs. Seems willing to learn. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support and good luck! —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - After thinking this one through I have decided to support. My interactions with you have been positive, and I think you have the right attitude to be an admin. The concerns of the opposition are not unreasonable, and I suggest you take them on-board, but they do not concern me enough not to support, and I think you have learnt from the issues mentioned.
    (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  30. Support good edits on school articles and per above Antonio Lopez (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Experienced enough. Able to learn quickly. Kingturtle (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Ka pai. Good. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Opposes are woolly, enough said. Majorly (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, I believe you have the best interests of the project at heart, you seem to learn quickly, and communicate appropriately and when necessary. Looking forward to seeing you around more. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Looks like a good user. Acalamari 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Weak support I am, in the end, largely convinced that the candidate will not act in areas whereof the policy and practice surrounding which he/she does not know and that he/she is capable generally of appreciating what those areas are, such that it is rather unlikely that he/she should misuse—even avolitionally—the tools; in view of other recommending qualities, then, I am relatively comfortable concluding that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Has all the 'tools' needed to be an admin. Shows upmost professionalism and does not overreact. Something that sometimes lacks around here. Will be an excellent admin.Thright (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright[reply]
Oppose
  1. I don't usually oppose RFAs, unless they are on the subject of relatively new users which have moreorless 1000 contributions, whether it be dedicated to mainspace revisions, userpage edits etcetera. Unfortunately, I believe I have to oppose this RFA on quite a few bases, which will hopefully serve more as a learning curve rather than an outright unendorsement.
    UAA ([4]), with few edits elsewhere in the Wikipedia namespace. This combined with the relatively infrequent and discontinued discussions with others users, make me unhappy with this user becoming an administrator at this time. Rudget. 17:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thank you for your comments.
    I would strongly disagree with your characterization of events regarding schoolip User_talk:66.94.89.148#January_2008; the last level 4 user warning was from November 2007, and my level 4 warning via Twinkle was preceded by a bot level 1 warning over the same strongly inappropriate edit, and a uw-blatantvandal for another edit immediately preceeding.
    To expand on my answer to Q2,
    Floyd Kvamme
    and various other school articles.
    Could you elaborate on your confusion over the noticeboard posts? – Zedla (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll address these comments in structure:
    • The last final warning was not dated from November, in fact it was posted 2 minutes before yours was.
    • Furthermore, the SSP cases are clearly mistaken, as noted in the all three closings by Rlevse (talk · contribs). I feel that you have not yet grasped the key part of what is needed in SSP cases, or the rationale for creating them. See the closing statements by Rlevse there (on those linked).
    • Yes, I now realise that the school page has undergone a transformation since you began editing and I accept to strike that out.
    • I have however, re-read over the answers above: 5 and 4 are concering (the latter less so) but as a prospective administrator you should know that
      cool-down blocks
      should verr rarely be used, basing this on one user may also be problematic. Generalisation can be a problem when it comes to blocks. In response to 4, could you expand a little?
    • Finally, I don't see much interaction with other members of the community with 96-98% going to templating and warning IPs etc, and as before, this combined with the extremely low WT count, this still remains an oppose. Rudget. 16:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We can argue over the couching language in template:uw-blatantvandal: "may (my emphasis) be blocked ... without further warning" contrasting the finality of a "will be blocked" of a uw-v4 or uw-v4im. My uw-v4 (probably that particular individual's second edit) was my method of vandal-fighting at that moment. Your (blank) first SSP reference was my mistake in applying Twinkle and I accept the consequences for it. – Zedla (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose, sorry. Not only I seem to agree with the concerns presented by Rudget above, as I also think that your participation in the Wikipedia space is a bit below the level I would find satisfactory. Húsönd 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I'm really sorry, because I know how much passing an RfA (or receiving too many opposes) means to admin hopefuls, but I cannot look past this which only happened a month ago. If it was months and months ago I would probably just ignore it and support your nomination but if you were to become an administrator it was implied by your
    edit-countitis) is a great idea. Anyway, I'm sorry and I hope that I can support you in the future. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Oppose At this time I do not feel comfortable supporting you. True; you are constantly reporting vandals - but I feel more at ease supporting admin-hopefuls that are more well-rounded in Wikipedia and what is going on. If I saw more interaction in Wikipedia space - or AFD's - I would gladly support you. --Ozgod (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose While I don't mind vandal fighting admins... I believe that admin candidates should be more well rounded. He doesn't have the breadth of experience needed for my supportBalloonman (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, low-level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per above comments, not well-rounded enough yet on wikipedia for mopship. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per concerns raised by Ozgod and Balloonman. Carom (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose With apologies as this RfA seems close. Your answer to Q1 states you wish to participate across the broad mainstay of admin areas. I'm affraid I see insufficent evidence from your contributions of your knowledge of protection and deletion. Vandal fighting is great, but, per Ozgod, I prefer someone more "well rounded". Kind of "close, but not quite" for me. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Oppose A good editor, but quite lacking in the areas admins inevitably should work in. Jmlk17 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Changed from neutral to oppose. Like pointed out above there seems to be a lack of project space contributions, something that is very important when it comes to administrative functions. I know this is an easy thing to work on, and I will be happy to support next time (though I am sure this will pass). Tiptoety talk 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose various minor niggles add up, particularly the username report, lack of projectspace interaction and tellingly for me, this which to my mind indicates a lack of interaction with others. Admins need to explain our policies and idiosyncracies, especially to newbies, so racking up user talk edits with automated messages is fine, but insufficient on its own. Anyway, I think you'll be fine next time if you pay attention to the comments here and look forward to supporting... please do drop me a line (if this fails) when you run again. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak oppose. Your mainspace contribs are good, but after reading the opposes I'm not quite convinced that you are ready for the tools at this time. Hard oppose for me to make since you seem to be a good user, plus I"m not a fan of opposing RfAs myself. (joke, your contributions in the following are good)Also, I can't support anyone in the school cabal.(/joke) I'll keep an eye on you, people who barely fail have great track records on the second RfA. Wizardman 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak oppose. I like the looks of your CSDs (the one exception being
    neologism. The article was patently unencyclopedic, but in my opinion it's better to delete within policy.) You seem like a great contributor, but I share the concern voiced by several above that it is just too difficult to assess your likely use of the tools since you aren't contributing much to the project spaces that would help me evaluate that. I suppose I fall in with Pedro and Dweller here, and I expect that I will be able to support in the future if you continue as you are but also demonstrate in additional areas. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. Oppose Lack of project space contributions. Cxz111 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Requests for adminship are, at their heart, an open community referendum on a given candidate's judgment and whether or not the community should extend its trust to the candidate. As such, it should not be a decision entered into lightly or without proper thought. In this case, after looking at a few hundred edits by this editor, I have not seen anything that stands out as a trustworthiness issue, but I have not seen (yet) examples of behavior that I look for in potential admin candidates. Thus, I am uncomfortable opining either way. In the past, I would have left such RfA's mute of my over-long, circumlocuitous, pedantic, and otherwise carpal-tunnel-causing comments, but I am in the process of being educated by the community that it prefers a more vocal and obvious presence at RfA's by those of us who wish to undergo ritual vivisection below, so I am learning :). Back to this particular candidacy, I will look at a larger swath of edits, and hopefully will come to some clarity. Regardless, best of luck, Zedla! -- Avi (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more out of curiosity than anything else - after all, it is your prerogative to abstain from giving your vote either way, but may I ask, what with your recent
    WP:RFA epiphany : ), what do you look for in a prospective candidate? Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Would you like me to answer this here, or perhaps it is fairer to Zedla for us to take it elsewhere? -- Avi (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As Rudget touched on some of my issues above, I guess here is fine. One of the most important things I look for in a candidate is their interactions with other users. Once someone becomes a sysop, they inevitably find that their solo editing of wikipedia takes a downturn, and they become much more involved in the janitorial aspects of the process--especially interpersonal ones. I look for civility, calmness, adherence to guideline and polciy, helpfulness, eloquence, clarity of explanation, among other things. This user seems to be an excellent solo editor, but I saw very little to go on how this editor would react in situations where his judgment or decisions would be exercised and then defended if questions were raised. Not having a good feel for how this user would treat other wikipedians, I could not in good faith extend my trust without further investigation. And, I would not call it an epiphany, unless undergoing the death of a thousand cuts is considered a religious experience -- Avi (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After skimming the 1600+ User talk edits of this candidate, the vast majority of which have been templated messages, I am still uncertain as to how he would react in difficult situations, but I do not see anything glaring that would cause me to voice an oppose, although a brief skim does lead me to think that the user may tend to hit a level 3/4 warning a tad quickly, but I haven't actually run any stats on that, so perforce I will remain neutral for now; not that the candidate seems to be in need of any further positive opinions -- Avi (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My accuracy with warning levels was probably poorer in the past but I like to think I've gotten better at sending more appropriate warnings so I took a look at my multi-level warnings (excluding 3rr, copyvio, autobio etc. single level warnings) from all of February 2008. Out of 56 multi-level warnings: 22 (39%) were level "1", 15 (27%) were level "2", 11 (20%) were level "3", and 8 (14%) were level "4". Looking at the edits that got a 3 or 4 warning, these are the ones in retrospect I might have handled differently: level 3 warnings: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. level 4 warnings: warning for [10], [11], [12], [13], and might have handled the sequence of warnings differently for [14] although the edits were clearly bad faith. – Zedla (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, for although at this time you safely do not need my support, you took the time to respond. I appreciate it. -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending answers to questions.--TBC!?! 07:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why bother, why not wait until your questions have been answered ? Nick (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's exactly what I'm doing... waiting for my questions to be answered before supporting or (which looks unlikely in this case) opposing...--TBC!?! 14:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - Per Rudget, while I dont feel it is a reason to oppose, it is a bit bothersome. Tiptoety talk 04:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Too close to call at present, but if this one fails, I expect to be able to support the next one. Mayalld (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2008 (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/Zedla&oldid=1144973049"