Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kzrulzuall

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Kzrulzuall

[edit]

Final (19/19/6); Ended 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kzrulzuall (talk · contribs) - Kzrulzuall is a keen vandal fighter as well as a user capable of superb copy-editing. He has been around for half a year, clocking up over 400 vandalism reverts as well as close to 6000 edits. Kzrulzuall is also regularly involved with WP:ANI and WP:AIV and is also an kind helper at the Help desk and the Reference Desk. I feel that he deserves to be sysoped for his great work on Wikipedia. --The preceding comment was signed by User: (talk•contribs) 00:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --KZTalk• Contribs 00:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Comment Note that the 400 vandal reverts are from VPRF only[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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: Well first and foremost, the sysop chores I expect to participate in are the ones I am already very comfortable and experienced in: ANI and AIV. I have always been frustrated by vandals, in busy days when AIV is backlogged, being allowed to vandalize. Besides that, I will always be around AFD, deleting articles that have received consensus to be deleted. I am also able to help out in C:CSD to clear the massive backlog that always grows there, enforcing WP:SSP by blocking socks and protecting articles in RFPP.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Besides my anti vandalism work, I am extremely pleased with the way the article I've been working on has been developing. I am also pretty pleased with my work in accordance to the Tennis WikiProject and the Novels WikiProject, although, sadly, I've been neglecting my other ones. I'm also proud of the template I've created, which is being used in 500+ articles.
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've been in many conflicts with people in the past, with me being impersonated and vandalized many times, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kzrulzuall36 (2nd). I've also been in conflicts, though not particularly severe, at Wikipedia talk:Attack sites, when people criticized me when I tried to stop edit warring. Usually, whenever I am in a conflict with another user or ip, I try to see fault in my own line of argument, to see if I'd made a mistake. If I get too stressed, I usually try to cool down by editing my user page and taking a break from Wikipedia. Sometimes, I admit that I can be particularly harsh, but I always apologize for it.
4. Your nominator states at your checkuser case "Kzrulzuall stated that he wanted me to nominate him for RfA on April 10", why did you ask him to nominate you? Surely this would just be a selfnom-by-proxy then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew (talk • contribs)
A.Well actually, Sp3000 asked me if I wanted to go for RfA, I said okay, then he specifically asked me when... I asked him the motive of his question and he answered that he wanted to nom. me. See that Sp3000 specifically stated that "Kzrulzuall wanted me to nominate him on April 10". I made the date, and he made the decision. Hope that answers the question. --KZTalk• Contribs 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5 Suppose you came upon a situation where one editor claimed that material unjustly attacked a living person, while another claimed that this material was valid. Would you delete the material and then investigate, or investigate before deciding whether to delete the material?Proabivouac 10:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Following WP:BLP is necessary for this. I would delete the material first, as it could be potentially imflammatory, and could harm the person or Wikipedia. Then I would investigate to see if it is an attack or not. If it isn't I would restore it, if it is I would give the editor a stern warning on defamatory content. This may vary between namespaces, with me deleting it on any userpage or projectspace. I might have second thoughts on the article namespace, but as a principal, deletion of the page comes first.I assume, in the question, you mean recently created pages, otherwise I'll just revert to the last good revision. I would also consider listing it on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --KZ talk 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6 What would you do if you found yourself dealing with a professor who had assigned his students to vandalize Wikipedia?Proabivouac 10:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: An academic professor should know much better than to ask his students to attack Wikipedia. Block of the offenders is necessary, as well as a letter or email to the IPS provider or the professor regarding his behavior. I do not tolerate vandalism, and someone, held in high educational regard, who is recruiting students to vandalize is much worse. --KZ talk 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nom --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 01:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support So you're the fellow with that funky sig. Yes, I trust you, and I'm impressed by your answers. YechielMan 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I see nothing that leads me to believe this user would abuse the admin tools. Switching to oppose.Frise 05:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support nothing concerns me here, good luck. The Rambling Man 07:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support in my experience this editor has been very even tempered, from what I've seen KazakhPol appears to have taken KZTalk• Contribs good faith attempt at constructive feedback personally. Anynobody 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Terence 09:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Leaving all controversies aside, he might just be on of a few good editors on Wikipedia...--Cometstyles 12:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't see a problem with any of the diffs provided, and I certainly can't imagine opposing someone over semantic nonsense like the difference between "comment" and "vote" (particularly when that issue is not clear cut at all). None of the edits pointed out by the opposition are out of line. Kafziel Talk 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per lack of reason to oppose. The oppose reasons are quite weak. Kntrabssi 13:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I implore you to take a deeper look. ALTON .ıl 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. per calm and measured reaction to ridiculous oppose reasons. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support as they meet my criteria (may change pending the result of the checkuser case). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Good editor, strong editcount. I understand there may be civility problems per the posts in the oppose section, but this user deserves the benefit of the doubt. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support The reasons to support are better than the reasons to oppose. Captain panda 21:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. OMG hope I don't get edit conflicted support I trust this user to use the tools properly. We have over 1000 administrators on the project, we have the ability to oversight each other's tool usage. Plus, I believe some of the supports are frivolous, such as KazakhPol's vendetta, so even if I wasn't heavily leaning to support, I'm even more convinced now, to counteract the spurious opposes. (Note: that should not be construed to disparage anyone elses opposition, which may be completely valid.) ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 00:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support The evidence to support this RfA seems to significantly outweigh any evidence to oppose. The oppositions' apparent portrayal of Kzrulzuall as "childish" amd "lacking maturity" seems to be poorly supported, if not completely baseless. A few of the examples provided seem to be borderline perfectly acceptable. After looking this one over , I see no reason not to give my full support. Ninja! 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Per Ninja - the support reasons clearly outweigh the oppose. This user is a very solid vandal-fighter, I've seen their work pop up all over my watchlist, and their comments on debates I've been involved in have been mature and reasoned. I believe this person would make a good administrator and have seen no evidence whatsoever that they would abuse the tools. Orderinchaos 05:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Well experienced, a good vandal fighter and also on the side note has an excellent edit summary usage. Looking at the claims of incivility, I don't think they are major and I am going to give the benefit of the doubt. Camaron1 | Chris 11:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support The question must always be "Would making this candidate an admin improve the project?" The answer is yes.--Runcorn 16:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: Nothing to lead me to oppose (in a more positive tone: This user will use the tools well :-)  ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: A very helpful editor. Work on WP:AIV has been great. I also feel that KazakhPol and Matthew are not acting in good faith and trying to ruin an editors good name for a personal vendetta. Why is a comment about user page of any importance what so ever!? MrMacMan Talk 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. Oppose User seriously lacks the temper to be an administrator. KazakhPol 06:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesterday he posted on WP:AN/I this bizarre comment[1] followed shortly by this[2]. After other editors criticize him for his posts he apologizes for being "childish"[3] and refers to his own edits as "disruption."[4] Not exactly administrative material. KazakhPol 06:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also the model of civility. "Wikipedia isn't a blog so if you have no worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia, apart from making theories and stating your views of things, you will be blocked. Consider this your last warning."[5] KazakhPol 06:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I have little or no faith in this users ability to be a sysop. I get the feelin he'd abuse the tools for his own desires (such as unilateral blocks).[6] I believe Kzrulzuall has been "playing the game", to put it candidly (or as Sir Nick said: "Passing an RfA is not difficult. Or is it? If you have been a good boy for six months, kept your head down, and have not made a lot of noise. It'll be a cinch. You'll pass and no no one will notice"). No, I certainly feel there's something wrong with this user, having interacted prior. The main space contributions are despicable (We're building a gorram encyclopaedia here.. *not* playing wikipolitics four.point.oh, nor whocansuckupthemost ten.0), the last contribution I can find is dated 6 April[7]. The user page is something to be desired as well. To close: I don't believe this user would make a good sysop, I don't trust him/her nor can I trust them not to unilaterally abuse sysop buttons. Matthew 09:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Edit: Also per this, I find the "calling for backup" thing disruptive, and also arguing with opposers.. I can not support a disruptive user at RfA. Matthew 09:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Edit #2: User also has zero knowledge of fair use policy. I also believe the nominator is a sockpuppet of User:Sp3001 who is a sockpuppet of Kzrulzuall.[8]. Matthew 09:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please give me some diffs of my behavior so I can improve them further? I just don't understand how you think I've failed Wikipedia so much. Calling for backup? Matthew, this isn't anything that I was trying to do. I was specifically trying to get an admin's attention to see whether I made a mistake in judgement. This oppose !vote is extremely disheartening. . The Sp3001 account was created by me for a friend. Ask Sp3000 for a further explanation. The images were covered with fair use, and was an incident in my first few months at wikipedia --KZTalk• Contribs 09:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this speaks for itself. User believes RfA is a "vote", [9], [10], for example. Matthew 09:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have neglected to add ! to my comments, but is that a important criteria for RFA? The second one was me trying to fix the sigs to avoid people being distracted. Ive already explained the KazahkPol incident above. --KZTalk• Contribs 09:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know what you mean by you neglected to add a "!".. secondly I find your sig. distracting.. you won't hear me complaining. Addendum: CheckUser filed. Matthew 09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I already asked Sp3000 to explain it to you, so there's no need. I also meant !vote instead of vote. --KZTalk• Contribs 09:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also fixed the sig so it will appear less distracting. I just don't see why you are opposing me for lack of good article contributions. I never was one of those guys who add a lot to articles, but I am more interested in the technical side of Wikipedia. And the image part is one that I don't get. Aren't you suppose to tag fair use book covers with the fair use tag? --KZTalk• Contribs 09:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the users who only come to Wikipedia for the "technical side" are generally the people who care more for being "powerful" and having a high-status. Also the fairuse tag states: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. Please include in your fair use rationale details of the particular edition (publisher, market & year of publication) of the edition you have used, and also acknowledge any cover artist if such artist is acknowledged in that edition's frontmatter. If the book cover is in the public domain (see Wikipedia:Public domain), then use the appropriate public domain tag rather than this one". Matthew 10:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To clear things up, Sp3001 is me - it's just that I was unable to log in as Sp3000 in a public place due to its proxies and my account's JavaScripts. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm still dubious, if that's so why did you not request it at Wikipedia:Request an account? Matthew 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I needed the account ASAP. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 11:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Oh right, but the book cover isn't in public domain. I will change it to include the description. And also, I never wanted to "gain power in Wikipedia", and am fairly doubtful that you even could. I see many WikiGnomes who are concentrated on technicality, but don't want any power... And also, I'm going to ask Sp3000 to claim his legitimacy, and am fairly doubtful that a checkuser check will be necessary. Thanks for your explanation and I'll try to improve on the issues discussed in the future. --KZTalk• Contribs 10:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your nominator states at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kzrulzuall that you wanted to "beat" him at edit count.. there's more to Wikipedia then a large edit count, you know? Matthew 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was actually a bit humorous....I came to Wikipedia on the intent of beating him, but then I got addicted...--KZTalk• Contribs 21:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. All the fair use files listed have been fixed, Matthew. I strongly suggest an admin delete the previous version as it violates fair use criteria. Thanks for the notice. --KZTalk• Contribs 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still fail criterion #10. Matthew 19:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This candidate displays a large number of shortcomings, none of which by itself would convince me to oppose, but all of them put together... Antagonistic comments on the administrator noticeboard, a userpage that is hard to read, no evidence of any real commitment to the goals of the project, copyright problems (see Matthew's oppose), all put together leave me with too much of a bad taste to do anything other than oppose. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well hopefully, I've fixed my copyright issues with this template. As for the others, I plan on writing articles more, and do less on the project namespace, which will probably give me less stress. As for the userpage, I don't really know what you mean? Would you mind clarifying the issue so I can fix it? It might be too decorative... and I seek to waste less time on the user namespace, but I don't know why it is hard to read... --KZ talk 03:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Needs to learn how to resolve disputes without escalating them. —dgiestc 17:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm concerned about the motives for this request, as well as the maturity to handle the stresses involved. --Michael Snow 17:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Well, besides the above reasons for opposing, the nominator doesn't appear to even know how to sign a comment. This presents serious trust/judgment issues. John Reaves (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It took me a few looks to notice this (and its a little annoying) but that's actually his signature. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Kelly Martin. Xoloz 18:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Matthew, and also Kelly Martin. Acalamari 20:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    However, the user page, as Kelly Martin has pointed out, does not bother me one bit. Acalamari 18:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Matthew, Kelly Martin and Dgies. I also agree that "KZ" as signature is a tiny little bit weird. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as clarifications, my initials are K.Z. --KZ talk 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, but the connotation is still there. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 22:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How many people would that connotation actually occur to? I had to follow your link to see what you meant. I have possible issues with KZ for other reasons (see below in the Neutral section) but I don't think we can hold his own name against him. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Roughly 80 million Germans. —AldeBaer 23:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it better now that I put a dot in my initials? --K.Z talk 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, yes. —AldeBaer 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be an issue on de.wikipedia, but not here. I'm sure there are a number of acronyms and initialisms etc. that are perfectly innocent in English but are distasteful in other cultural contexts. It sets a very bad precedent if we start ordering people to change their names/sigs on that basis in general (as opposed to a situation where someone is deliberately attempting to cause offense, which this was not). — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Somewhat agree. Of course Kzrulzuall didn't choose this sig to offend anyone. But I can't help it, whenever I see those two letters it's just there. Since this is the English language Wikipedia, but not limited to native English speakers, I believe this is a valid, if minor concern. —AldeBaer 01:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per question 6. Contacting someone's employer is way out of line. Frise 04:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops...I meant contacting the ISP provider or the person... I got it mixed up. Sorry --KzTalk• Contribs 04:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per most of the questions. SSP cannot simply be "enforced" at will without checkuser (or a very well-set pattern of behavior). User seems to be interested in deleting articles and blocking people more than anything else, and shows no knowledge of dispute resolution policies. His article he is "so proud of" has glaring grammatical errors, and he has nowhere near enough substantial edits, so I'm concerned about his ability to contribute properly; we don't need more people to block and warn other users; we need contributors who can take on admin duties as needed in addition to their other work. MSJapan 05:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I don't feel the candidate is yet ready, and like Michael, I'm slightly concerned about the circumstance of this request.--cj | talk 10:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per others, Wikipedia is not a game, it's an encyclopedia. And change that user page, please! :P Majorly (hot!) 10:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean the annoying bouncy balls, I've removed them. Other than that, don't see much wrong. --KzTalk• Contribs 22:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. To be brutally honest - everything about this applicant is fine for Adminship - except by the examples given above his demeanour - by that I mean, at this stage, he types a little to quickly rather that to stop and consider the lay of the ground. I'm sorry but I oppose at this time.--VS talk 12:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I feel the candidate needs to work on his judgment.-- danntm T C 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. The user's dedication to vandal fighting is commendable but seems to lack some necessary skills in terms of dealing with other contributors in stressful situations. It's hard to support someone who can be so confrontational or potentially heavy-handed with the tools. Suggest learning some better cooperative skills before seeking adminship. Arkyan • (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - sorry, the diffs supplied leave me with concerns about escalation and disruptive effects of future conflicts with admin powers. I am dismayed about canvassing to delete pages. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The user seems to have a combative personality and concerns raised by other editors who've opposed concern me as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose For the reasons given by other editors here, I don't think that this editor has the right personality for adminship.Ivygohnair 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral inclining towards oppose - I have many of the same problems with this user that I have with TeckWiz below. Yes, he has 6000 edits, but only 2000 of them were in mainspace; of those 2000, over 160 are repeated minor edits to Master of the Game (despite which, you've still not added the "spoiler" warning before the plot summary...), and virtually all the remainder are reversions, tagging and minor edits; for the same reasons gone into at tedious length on TeckWiz's RfA, I have a problem giving someone with virtually no writing/editing experience sysop powers as I think it tends towards a "colonial master" mentality - when all is said and done, the only important part of Wikipedia is its content and this user doesn't appear to contribute to it. And while I realise user pages are a virtually rules-free zone, I think keeping this up shows a certain lack of maturity. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look here..[11]I actually did add an spoiler tag but I don't know what happened to it.. --KZTalk• Contribs 22:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - great contributor & good vandal fighter. Regularly appears on AIV for the right reasons. However, I saw a few recent instances of poor judgement and inappropriate use of certain templates which left me concerned. - Alison☺ 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I strongly suggest every participant of this RfA look here for some things Kzrulzuall has said or done before making a decision. Kzrulzuall has consistently made hasty errors and puerile judgements. ALTON .ıl 21:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fall asleep at my desk all the time. What's that one about? Kafziel Talk 21:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So do I, but that's a valid excuse for ignoring a rule? ALTON .ıl 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. If I had a nickel for every time a username was sent to AIV without discussion... I'd have a heck of a lot of nickels. I don't really see much on the list to oppose for, but thanks for clarifying, anyway. Kafziel Talk 21:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been having several issues with WP:U... which led me to reading it once every 2 days... --KZTalk• Contribs 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm inclining towards oppose for other reasons (see above) I don't think there's any smoking gun on that list - everyone makes mistakes, the important thing is whether they learn from them. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced in any way that he has. All of those events upstairs have a well written apology, as included, and he is aware of what he did wrong. But there are too many incidents to have my support in this situation. None of these should have happened in the first place, being a careful editor. I am absolutely not model, but in my short time here I have been User_talk:Alton#Editors_that_don.27t_provide_an_edit_summary_tend_to_look_like_vandals warned for edit summary, and I think edit count sufficiently shows that I have learned. This does not seem to be happening for Kzrulzuall. ALTON .ıl 00:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In his defense, I add that it is reasonable to assume with heightened activity, one will accrue more conflicts in editing. I do, however, expect that since he would be so involved in groundbreaking editing, that he be more careful in the future. ALTON .ıl 00:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the major conflicts happened quite some time ago, but, although it doesn't excuse my wrongdoing in the incidents, I have learned to be more careful recently. I'll take your advice in mind, and hopefully, you will be able to support me next time I go for RfA, if this one fails. --K.Z talk 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I tend to hover around your issues frequently, but the thing that worries me most is because you work so much in such drastic areas, I'd hope that that attitude expressed by previous edits does not transcend into your participation behaviors. I won't rescind anything I've said or will continue to say, but I'm sure this one will pass, trust me. ALTON .ıl 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Per the diffs given. -Mschel 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Seems to have everything together, but I am discouraged by the lack of support by my fellow Wikipedians, including some held in high(er) regard on Wikipedia. Jmlk17 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Agree with most of the opposers, but would add the positive caveat that Kzrulzuall looks honestly committed to working hard on the project. I'd view this RfA as a template for things to work on Kzrulzuall, and if the major issues are addressed, I'd have no hesitation supporting you at your next Rfa -- Samir 04:34, 20 April 2007 (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/Kzrulzuall&oldid=1142504988"