Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zappa.jake

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.

Zappa.jake

[edit]

Final (19/32/5) ended 04:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zappa.jake (talk · contribs) – Hey. I'm zappa, and I'm nominating myself for adminship. I really feel I could benefit from the mop - see my answer to quesiton one below. Anyways, I've been registered since early January, and been active since mid-February, with more than 1500 edits (more than 1400 according to the lagging edit counter). Including deleted edits (again, see answer to question one) I probably have about 1800 edits. I'm a member of Esperanza and Community Justice. I really feel that I have a good grasp of policy around here, and I hope I can be trusted with the toolbox. If this doesn't go well, I plan on running again in a couple months. With any questions, please don't hesistate to ask me on my talk page. zappa.jake (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my own nomination. -zappa.jake (talk)

Support

  1. Support - I'll assume good faith, and recruiting volunteers to Wikipedia is good.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support and good luck. Containment Unit (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous editors (152.163.101.5) do not get to vote. If you are User:Containment Unit, please log in and resign. Naconkantari 04:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Containment Unit does not seem to exist. When I went to the page, there is not contributions link.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    His IP, 152.163.101.5, seems to have a fair amount of edits - Special:Contributions/152.163.101.5. -zappa.jake (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an AOL ip. It also has a fair amount of blocks as well. Naconkantari 04:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Moriori. 04:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's second edit. Naconkantari 04:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The said user's account links to User:Moriori, who is a long-standing admin. Is it a name change or an impostor??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be, the talk page is exactly the same. Royboycrashfan 04:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Logged in at the same time? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubtful; I've seen an imposter actually transclude a talk page onto their own; copying and pasting a talk is even easier (I lied; it's actually slightly harder, but requires less knowledge of Wikipedia). --Rory096 04:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef as an imposter of User:Moriori Naconkantari 04:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tks for that. I went to edit a page, and discovered I had edited it a couple of minutes earlier!!!! I think I know who the vandal is so I'll be watching, and will give him an indefinite if he shows his hand. Cheers. Moriori 05:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Shultz IV 06:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Good, experienced user. Did a good job with the community justice elections. DarthVader 07:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Wouldn't usually support such an inexperienced user, but has lots of experience in new articles, where he plans to use new admin powers. I expect experience to come in other areas before he needs it. Stephen B Streater 08:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment : Didn't realise quite what a fanatic you were at first. I suggest you get an Admin to nominate you next time - you may get a better response. Stephen B Streater 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. The user is still pretty new but he has shown devotion and is prepared to work. I think he deserves a chance. --Tone 12:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Has shown commitment towards the project. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support you need to have more edits and experience. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support I feel on the fence, however, I believe that this user will not abuse admin powers and use them in a respectful and necessary fashion. I am slightly worried about age, but I believe a solid job can be done. I'm being bold and going for the gold. Yanksox 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support new pages patrol is a better version of RC patrolling that really needs human interaction. I'd like to see higher quality (e.g., featured article) contributions, but he has what it takes to be a good admin. ShortJason 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I am impressed by his contributions, and I have no doubt he would respect the tools. Aguerriero (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I see no problems. Master of Puppets That's hot. 13:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. People oppose on the ground of edits – as a 1,900-er (according to the toolserver), I think that it takes less time than you think to get acquainted with WP policy. Having said that, if you do get adminship, ease into it slowly. (I hope I get paid by the word!) haz (user talk) 18:46, 26 May 2006
  13. Support per Haza, MoP, Siva, and Stephen, inter alii. Joe 19:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. SupportAs I always like to see more knowledged admins who can help delete new pages which shouldn't belong Ciraric 22:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Support Certainly enough edits, and I don't see you abusing your powers. I would still like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits. But do to the good argument below, I will have my support limited. This is unlikely to succed, so get involved in some more Wikiprojects, and better luck next time! The Gerg 15:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Enough edits for me, and lack of project edits does not constitute lack of knowledge of policy. SushiGeek 17:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 06:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I feel that he would do good with the mop Mahogany
  19. Support While new, he's an active contributor, seems to handle consensus building well and shows every sign of being trustworthy. Let's give 'em a mop. --CTSWyneken 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry, just barely fails my criteria, again in project-total edits ratio (my criteria is 15%), by the below count it's around 11%. NSLE (T+C) at 04:37 UTC (2006-05-25)
    In a probably-futile attempt to sway your vote, I would like to let you know that, according to some people's opinion, I should probably have more Wikipedia edits and less User edits. I started playing games of chess on the WIkipedia-namespace Esperanza Coffee Lounge, and I enjoyed it. Meeting new people was nice, and it was a fun distraction. Anyways, I didn't want to take up room there, so I started some games at my own personal chess lounge, which is located in user space. Again, thanks for the constructive criticism anyways! -zappa.jake (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that these are the sort of Wikipedia edits that NSLE would be looking for in any event. JoshuaZ 04:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Very few edits; sockpuppetry in this RfA concerns me. --Rory096 04:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral. Rory096 05:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, not enough experience. Rory makes an interesting point. Royboycrashfan 04:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A great editor whom I've met a couple of times, though I reluctantly oppose for the following reasons:
    • Very few project edits (currently under 200) suggests low knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. Would like to see him more active in such projects like AfD
    • Low article (not user) talk page edits (currently under 100) suggests a need for a bit more communication with other editors.
    • As of now, around 18% (which is nearly 1/5) of the nominated user's edits have been on his user page. good explanation from zappa
    • Only 5 months of experience (I usually prefer 6 or more).
    • Claims of sockpuppetry noticed above on his RfA. Issue seems to have been resolved
    A "servant of the community"? Interesting wording. Anyhow, overall, this editor has done a great job, though I would like to see some more
    experience. I am also concerned about claims of possible sockpuppets. Even so, please note that I may change my vote (for better or for worse) depending on his replies to additional questions and comments.--☆TBC☆ 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your criticism - I hope I can win you over! Regarding my high user space edits, although I probably do have >100 edits to my user page, a lot of those are from my chess lounge, which is in my own userspage, used to build sense of community. I'm pretty vain about my user page, but not that badly! Although I do have a low edit count regarding policies, I don't believe that it necessarily reflects my lack of their knowledge. I have read the entire admin's reading list. I just like to stay out of policy changes, AfDs, RfAs, and such, because that can lead to making enemies, not friends. I really don't have a reply to your comment about my low article talk edit count - I will try to work on that more often. Although this might seem like a RfA cliche, I had been browsing around Wikipedia and using it for research since really the beginning of the school year when a friend alerted me to it's presence, although I didn't register until January and become active until February. I also admit that the sockpuppetry seems fishy, and do not blame anyone here for being skeptical. However, (the real) Moriori believes he knows who the imposter is (not me). I hope that some of you all will think about chaing your votes after the checkuser results come back, indicating that the socks are not me. Anyways, thank you very much, zappa.jake (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading your response, I highly believe that you did not create any sock puppets, as evidenced by your outstanding civility throughout the whole incident. Unfortunetly, your statement on staying "out of policy changes, AfDs, RfAs, and such, because that can lead to making enemies, not friends" discourages me from changing my vote to support, since one of an admin's major duties is to handle and deal with Wikipedia's policies. --☆TBC☆ 06:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per NSLE and experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Wasn't concerned about sockpuppetry even before he was cleared, and he handled it with emotional maturity. I just don't think this user has enough editing experience generally. Also, I'd like to see him participating more in discussions of policy, AfD, RfA, etc. His stated aversion to them (in response to JoshuaZ's question below) seems bizarre. Contributing to the discussion is how we establish consensus (before it becomes a debate).
    -This makes me question intellectual maturity. (see note below)
    -Two of first three "beliefs" userboxes on user page (anarchocommunism, 9-11 conspiracy theories) concern me slightly (let's not bring up joturner, please).
    -Most mainspace edits are minor.
    He makes good contributions and shows tremendous potential; in a few months, perhaps. --Kchase02 (T) 06:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but could you please explain how my edit about Iran's (possible) WMD program shows emotional maturity? I'm a bit confused there. Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. Let me begin by saying that, in retrospect, my oppose was too agressive and nitpicky. That partially motivated my note on your talk page (which I've now moved to the top, per your request). As to your question, I think you failed to grasp the issue that the debate was not about foreign policy stances toward Iran, nor whether they actually have WMD, but whether the title implied or led the reader to believe that they do. I'd like admins to be able to understand such nuances of meaning (intellectual maturity). That being said, I regret making such a big deal out of this. You're a great editor and I think you'd have a good chance with RfA in several months.--Kchase02 (T) 23:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose.' Needs to show more breadth in editing; bulk of edits consist of tagging articles. --Madchester 06:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Madchester --Deville (Talk) 09:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Madchester. Need more editing and experience with Wikipedia I'm afraid.--|«Andeh?»|Talk? 11:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - stick around a few more months and I'd support you then, but for now you seem to lack a broad range of involvement (kinda like me :)). The random page is always a lot of fun! Again, not now; but more than likely in a few months. Cheers, --james °o 11:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Per all above. :) Dlohcierekim 12:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Sorry, you are doing good work here, but you just don't seem ready yet. While adminship is no big deal, it does require a fair amount of experience before you'll do a good job. I think you'll make a great candidate in another few months if you continue on the path you're on, and I look forward to being able to support you then. Best, Gwernol 12:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Needs more experience, but do not be discouraged.--Jusjih 12:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where doesn't he have enough experience? Let me guess, vandal fighting? Well we don't even need vandal fighters! ShortJason 22:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, we do need more vandal fighters. Remember, as Wikipedia continually grows larger and more popular, the number of vandals rapidly increases, thus a need for vandal fighters increases as well. Please note that I know you were most likely being sarcastic, but I tend to act seriously towards most comments on Wikipedia, no matter how sarcastic or not-so-sarcastic they may be. :) --☆TBC☆ 21:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Thanks for putting yourself forward, but I feel you need more experience. Also because you have an aversion to activities where you might make enemies, you would either be a very limited admin or an unhappy person. Tyrenius 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose but would probably support in a few months. I was neutral until I saw that the user likes "to stay out of policy changes, AfDs, RfAs, and such, because that can lead to making enemies, not friends" (see response to Oppose #3 above). You have no choice as an admin; the way to making friends is through equitable decisions, and make decisions you must. Otherwise, stay on course. :) RadioKirk talk to me 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose from someone who doesn't suffer from editcountitis. You've been on the project scarcely three months. Very short time to gain experience.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Fad (ix) 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Needs more experience. --TantalumTelluride 20:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose due to lack of experience. Cynical 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose due to lack of experience. :) Dlohcierekim 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)sorry already voted. :) Dlohcierekim 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Amicably resolved differences over the terminus of Minnesota State Highway 3, and shows good interest, but I usually put the threshold at 2000-2500 edits. I think more experience is needed before doing speedy deletes, especially since it could be contentious in certain cases. I also do newpage patrol and flag stuff for speedy deletes, but I'm not sure I have everything completely down yet. Also, the emphasis on building community through WP:CJ and WP:ESP, as well as chess, is nice, but all that is secondary to building an encyclopedia. I'm not seeing a lot of major contributions outside of Trinity School at River Ridge and related articles. I'd encourage some more meatier contributions to the encyclopedia space first. --Elkman 03:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Not enough edits, and editor's own admission is many of these edits are on Esperanza's coffee lounge.--Firsfron 06:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Not enough expreience; try again in the future. PJM 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per above (experience, nothing personal). --kingboyk 15:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, I've known you to be hasty, rash, and forgetful, both here and in other wikipedias, eg Vicipaedia. I certainly take at good faith that this is mostly due to your youth, and relative inexperience with structured collaborative productive engagement, and not due to any malintent, or permanent inability. Give it a little time, keep learning about procedure, and increase the breadth of your editing, like Elkman said, and I will certainly reconsider. Also, I have to say, it's been your move for quite some time.--Josh Rocchio 16:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, could you give me an example of when I've been hasty, rash, or forgetful, here or on the Vicipaedia? I haven't had more than 100 edits there - I don't see how I could have mad that bad an impression on you there. I believe that we resolved the whole 1984 thing pretty well, and I haven't had much contact with you here on Wikipedia... Please explain. Also, thanks for the chess heads-up. It's on my watchlist now. Later, zappa.jake (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - per above - I believe you need more experience - nothing personal, though :) --GeorgeMoney T·C 16:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. I have rarely opposed editors on RfA. Zap is unquestionably an intelligent young person, but experience is required too. Not just threading through the intricacies within Wiki, but experience to see the wider overall picture. I commented to Zap that he lacked the experience to see that he lacked experience, and I have the feeling he doesn't know what I meant. Hey, yes, sure, he's only 14, give him a break I know -- but it's not a life sentence and not intended to be. Moriori 08:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose – not quite experienced enough yet, nothing personal – Gurch 10:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose word for word per Gurch ^^ - Glen TC (Stollery) 06:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per all of above. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 06:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. --Bhadani 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who is primarily trying to win, but secondly trying to use this as a way to improve themselves through criticism, could you please explain your opposition? Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose, lack of experience with the project. Nothing personal. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Needs more experience. Mr. Turcottetalk 22:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral, not decided yet. Amicably resolved differences over the terminus of Minnesota State Highway 3, and shows good interest, but I usually put the threshold at 2000-2500 edits. I think more experience is needed before doing speedy deletes, especially since it could be contentious in certain cases. I also do newpage patrol and flag stuff for speedy deletes, but I'm not sure I have everything completely down yet. --Elkman 04:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose, see above.[reply]
  1. Neutral, very few edits, still rather new. I'd support in a few months if you become a bit more active. --Rory096 05:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, I trust this user though I find his lack of experience slightly worrying. Computerjoe's talk 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, per Computerjoe and Rory096. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Netural, give it at least 5 months then try again, unless you do something too horrible you should succeed, but only 5 months of Wikipedia is generally not enough for adminship. And I suggest becoming active in vandal-whacking, adminiship is basically advanced vandal-whacking powers which wouldn't be that useful to a normal editor. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral leaning to oppose You have enough edits, just not enough experience.

Comments 

Username Zappa.jake
Total edits 1673
Distinct pages edited 750
Average edits/page 2.231
First edit 12:34, 10 January 2006
 
(main) 833
Talk 90
User 296
User talk 214
Image 3
Image talk 1
Template 9
Template talk 4
Category 17
Category talk 7
Wikipedia 186
Wikipedia talk 13

-- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:33, 25 May 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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: A great majority of my time spend on Wikipedia is patrolling the new pages. A lot of time, people, with good faith I'm sure, are experimenting with Wikipeida, creating vanity pages, attack pages, band pages, and such that really don't belong here. I spend a lot of time tagging those articles for speedy deletion. This, honestly, takes up a bit more of my time than it could, and I'm sure takes up some admin's time to delete the pages. (This is the reason why I have a relatively large number of deleted edits.) Therefore, I would mainly like the toolbox to delete pages that obviously don't have a place here. On a couple of occasions, I have seen "repeat offenders" - people who kept creating bad pages. I guess I could also use the powers to block them, but that would be more rare. I also would be a servant of the community, watching the noticeboard, and helping people out with whatever else they needed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My favorite contribution has probably been the article on my school, Trinity School at River Ridge. Yes, I now know that it's usually not the best idea to create a page regarding something personal, but it is a big school, and deserves a page here. I created it in late February, as I recall. Anyways, the reason for this being a "prized" contribution is because a lot of people from my school have learned about Wikipedia through it. When I've told people that there is an editable free page about their school online, they check it out, and become introduced to Wikipedia. The page has also recieved a bit of a vandal attack one day, but that was taken care of with semi-protection. Anyways, I like it because it has been a portal to Wikipedia for a lot of my friends, and also some of my teachers. I also just think its cool that I created the iWeb page. There is a list of my created pages on my user page. I have also rewritten a couple of articles, and cleaned up a lot. Although it is sometimes tedious work, new page patrol is usually fun, and I guess I am also proud of my work there, because a lot of bad articles were deleted there, and a lot of badly-written but worthy articles were tagged there, and, if I had time, cleaned up a bit.
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: No really major conflicts. A very long time ago, I tagged someone's vanity page for deletion, and they replied with a personal attack attempting to give away my information on my user talk page. This was easily resolved by blocking with the help of a very nice admin, Peruvianllama. I have also, a long time ago, got into a small debate with a friend of mine regarding expression of POV on my user page, but that was resolved, with concession from both sides. A stressful situation for me was running Community Justice elections a while ago, because it took a lot of work and devotion, but I got through it alright. Anyways, I think I'm pretty good at dealing with situations like that.

Question from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are completely optional.

4. How would you respond to concerns that you lack Wikipedia space edits and that many of your Wikipedia space edits are to Esperanza's Coffe Lounge or to the CJ elections?
I realize that I may not have the number of WP space edits as is criteria for admin candidates. Granted, many of them are to ESP's lounge and were involved in the CJ elections. I prefer to stay out of policy decisions - I enforce, not decide. I also don't vote in RfAs unless I know the candidate previously. My reason for this is to avoid conflicts. Policy changes and RfAs can become heated debates sometimes, and therefore I don't want to get involved in the middle. I like making friends here, not making enemies. Also, I don't see why edits to the lounge and elections don't count as much. While they may not be related to policy and such, they are all involved in building Wikipeida's sense of community, which is a necessary part of our work here. If there was no community, if everyone was an impersonal unanimated machine with no contact with other users, the Wikipedia would fall apart, because people wouldn't be able to get along. Also, the elections greatly helped my "training" for adminship. They taught me how to work voting, verify votes, follow rules, and deal with conflicts. I also run a chess lounge in my personal userspace where I play chess with people, building the community, so if I kept my games in WP namespace, the edit count would probably be higher. Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gwernol These additional questions are completely optional.

5. Good to see a New Pages patroller here. Can you point me to an instance of a new page that you came across that you tagged to be speedied deleted, but then you changed your mind about? Why did you change your mind? What did you do about the article?
One day, while on patrol, I saw a page for the "Super Freaky Crazy Sex Machine" or something like that, and tagged it under {{db-band}} for deletion. The user put a {{hangon}} template on there, and later added a large published discography and a tour schedule. It was then that I realized the band was more notable than it first seemed to be. I can't find the article anymore - I suspect it may have been deleted by someone else. Regardless, I helped the creator with some POV issues, introduced him to some WP policy, and helped him out. -zappa.jake (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. In your answer to Question 1. you don't mention much that you can't already do without admin tools. Can you expand a little on your answer. Specifically, when does tagging new articles for speedy deletion not work? What other areas would you be interested in contributing to?
While I don't think admin tools are completely necessary for me (hey, I'm living without them), I believe that they would be a great asset to both me and the community. It would be faster for me to just delete a page then mark it for speedy deletion. And then, after I mark it, another user, an admin, has to come along and then delete it. The whole process, while I don't have the delete tool, takes up two user's time and a larger amount of mine. The whole process, if I had admin tools, would work a lot faster and require only one user's time (mine). Also, I have come across times when a user was repeatedly creating new pages without a place here. It would be nice to be able to place a couple-hour block on them. Another reason is for protection - I once came across a page that repeatedly in one day was vandalized by three different people, and it was really relentless. A response from the admin noteboard took about 20 minutes, and, during that time, it was me and a couple other editors defending the page from the repeated vandal attacks. The issue was later solved by a semi-protection - just what it needed. The list goes on. I would also watch the admin noteboard and such. -zappa.jake (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Have you ever used the {{db-reason}} template for speedy deletion? When do you nominate articles for speedy deletion that do not fall into one of the WP:CSD categories?
Actually, I just used it today a couple times. Someone was creating new pages entitled "Large Main Line Store" with page content of "this is official internal nordstroms lingo for a large store in a mall" and "Distribution General Vice Manager" with content of "this is the position that does this" and so on for a repeated time. There really wasnt any existing template for such pages, so I used the reason template to just say that it doesn't have a place here - that it was unimportant information that would not be likely ever to be researched upon. (This would have been a nice time to have blocking power!) Also, sometimes companies will create blatant ads for "Jim's Bike Shop" which basically tell all about Jim who is lonely and lives in apartment by himself and fixes his friends bikes for $5. Sometimes this happens with larger companies, but those articles are sometimes just unrepairable, which is when I will use the reason template. -zappa.jake (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8 This is just a minor question and probably a softball one at that. According to your userpage you are 14, and your edits and edit summaries are impressive for that. Do you believe that the daily work needed from you on the outside with conflict with duties necessary on Wikipedia? Yanksox 20:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I consider myself to be pretty active, and I've been in school since I started here. I began considering an RfA about a month ago, but I decided to wait until now to nominate myself (although I would've accepted someone else's nomination). Anyways, tomorrow is my last day of school, and I can't find a true job, so I see myself being much more active in the coming months. Although going on a few camps/retreatas/whatever, I will be a lot more active, as I am going to be stuck at home all day. When the next school year comes, I don't see the slight decrease in activity being a problem (admin or not). While I'll admit to being up too late sometimes because of not doing homework til the last minute because I spent too much time on WP, that's not really a problem that WP has to worry about - just my sleep schedule. Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a whole ton of mandatory work on the outside. There is a fair amount during the school year, but that is over for me. But I can guarantee you that it would not conflict with WP - if anything, (and it probably is so), WP conflicts with outside life (too addicted to it)! But I don't see any problems regarding your question. Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. From user:ShortJason Do you think it's unfair that people don't think you have enough experience?
Good question. It's their opinion that I don't have enough experience, and I respect their right to hold that. I believe I am ready for adminship (else I would not have nominated myself), but maybe people get a WikiVision from the WikiGods once they reach 2000 edits or 6 months here? I don't know. It seems like sort of a snowball pile-on with the "not enough experience" reason for opposing, but I always have another chance later. I can deal with it, but I really believe I do have enough experience. Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have enough experience to recognise that you don't have enough experience. Ahhh, oh to be 14 again! Don't panic Zap, Rome wasn't built in a day. Moriori 00:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong - I realize that I'm not as experienced as many people here. But I do believe that I'm experienced enough within Wikipedia to be granted admin powers - else I wouldn't have nominated myself. Yes, people have more experience than me, both in the real world and in Wikipedia, but I believe I have enough for the toolbox. Sorry about the misunderstanding, zappa.jake (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no misunderstanding Zap. I thought I got it about right when I said "You don't have enough experience to recognise that you don't have enough experience". Moriori 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a big problem with the current protection scheme. It has its small quirks, but overall, it's not broken, so I don't think it needs to be fixed. While I can understand it, I believe that is is too "complicated" - too hard to remember, too hard to enforce. Basically, if it were implemented, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I don't think it's necessary. -zappa.jake (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. You've mentioned Concordia/CJ, and you say you have a good grasp of policy. How in your view does Concordia's activity fit in with existing wikipedia policy? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept criticism and say that I don't believe CCD/CJ does much. Its principles, however, are in the right place. It's aim is to promote civility - WP:CIVIL - a necessary policy that Wikipedia couldn't live without. So although it doesn't do much, I believe that it is generally a good place, promoting civility. Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above 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/Zappa.jake&oldid=1142506898"