Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tzaquiel

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

Final: (1/5/2); Ended 16:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tzaquiel (talk · contribs) – Tzaquiel has been an editor for nearly four years, and has made contributions, large and small, reflecting his variety of meatspace interests. He tries whenever possible to de-escalate conflicts and provide solutions that will help prevent edit wars and make articles' discussion climes more hospitable to reasoned debate. Tzaquiel 15:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination for adminship. Tzaquiel 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn with this edit summary.--Kchase T 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: While I look forward to helping Wikipedia in a variety of ways, I will begin by focusing primarily on speedy deletion candidates, uncontroversial moves, and other subtle, gnomish activity. Given that I edit/patrol various game articles with some frequency, I can also foresee myself blocking vandals.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am particularly pleased to have begun Famicom Disk System, and contributed the writings that became the strong basis for Kowloon Walled City. I also made a number of broad, helpful, lasting contributions to Boards of Canada and Numbers station.

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 as of yet been in any editing conflicts, though I have tried to calm a couple down. My stance on ECs is that if the group is set on having things one way, then in the end I'm outvoted, so tough potatoes. Trolls are a different story. Other users cause me stress by rabidly defending their neologisms and listcruft, but this is never a lasting issue.

General comments

• See Tzaquiel's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• An additional note, more for Tzaquiel's edification than anything else: more edit summaries would help tremendously, and if you're going to archive your talk page (and you should), it's essential that you make a prominent link to said archive in your userspace somewhere. A Train ^{take the} 16:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

1. Moral Support Obviously a good editor. I encourage you to keep up your recent editing practices. Canadian-Bacon 16:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. There isn't enough evidence in your contributions that you understand current Wikipedia policy; with only 18 user-talk messages, you don't seem to have been very active in CSD recently (although the pages themselves would get deleted, the warnings you would have given would still be in your contributions). Likewise, there's no evidence that you've been involved in vandalfighting before (the only project-space pages that you've edited at least 5 times are VfD and AfD). There's too much of a risk that you would misapply policy in administrative actions. (For evidence for these comments, see the data I've added to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tzaquiel; I'd be interested to read a response you might have.) --ais523 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Actually, the contributions get removed from the list when the page is deleted. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     • I mentioned that above; the point is that the user-talk-space warnings don't. --ais523 16:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Useful edits, but only 403 of them. Needs more experience. A Train ^{take the} 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. Your edit count has not yet been supplied, but your list of contributions (although stretching back to 2002) has less than 500 entries, about half of which come from this month. This indicates much less practical experience than I'd expect from an administrator. Your low edit summary usage is also of concern to me, and, more importantly, your general characterisation of unnamed other users as "rabidly defending their neologisms and listcruft" is worrying, as it indicates a certain lack of equanimity. Another detail indicative of your possibly insufficient understanding of Wikipedia procedures is your using the word "outvoted" with respect to editing conflicts: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Sandstein 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (Note: This was an edit-conflicted comment, I see the count has now been supplied. Sandstein 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
4. Oppose Extreme insufficiency of wiki-space participation (48 edits) suggests that the candidate is unfamiliar with wiki-process. Xoloz 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose and suggested withdrawal, Per above concerns only 200ish mainspace edits and your answers to the questions leave me uninspired. Basically you need to show us why you need to be an admin. — Seadog 16:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Not enough experience with policy to make a decision. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral Not enough experienced demonstrated by the number and scope of the edits. A lot more contributions are required in the main WP spaces - new page/recent changes patrolling; vandal reversion and warnings; finding sources and references for articles, etc. Try again in 2000 edits' time, probably three or four months-worth of editing. (aeropagitica) 16:47, 15 December 2006 (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.