Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:51, 11 September 2006

Zzuuzz

Voice your opinion. (21/3/4) Ending 09:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Zzuuzz (talk · contribs) – A solid vandalism reverting user who has been serving the wiki community in an exemplary manner for over a year now. I must admit when I saw that he wasn't an admin I had (a first for me) the cliched 'oh, he's not one?' thought. The user has already been entrustd with Vandal Proof and Zzuuzz's regular speedy-article tagging, 3RR and vandlaism reports indicate a thorough familiarity with policy.

Put simply, a perfect example of a dedicated user who would serve the community as a civil, intelligent vandal-busting admin. Robdurbar 09:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do, thanks. -- zzuuzz 09:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I will mainly continue the battle against vandals by helping with AIV, which I already monitor - I like to have all the vandalism reverted by the time the user is blocked :) I will also help with the speedy deletion backlogs, PRODs, page move/merges, and category renaming. I would like to get more involved with determining and removing copyvios - it is quite inefficient to get involved as a non-admin, but it's something I have an interest in. I will also help with open proxies and closing xfDs. Basically, any backlogs and processes I have the ability to help with.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am very pleased with all the little edits. I have created only a handful of articles (egs ), but stubbed many. And prodded quite a few too. I often trawl the trashier categories and special pages, sifting the junk, wikifying, and dampening the POV, introducing newbies to the way of the encyclopaedia. My work on vandalism and preserving the integrity of Misplaced Pages is obviously a key thing - I am pleased with whichever contributions it was that prompted my RickK barnstar. I am especially pleased with every reference I have added (I am a verifiabilist, but they are also great for helping with POV and vandalism), and some of my talk page contributions have been quite helpful too.

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 don't think I get into conflict, or get stressed - but I see most editing as a process of negotiation. If people have a point of view it will usually have to be catered for eventually (subject to NPOV and verifiability etc), so I tend to make corrections and balance POV in small stages and over the longer term, using references and the talk pages. I am of the opinion that the vast majority of disagreements can be overcome with reliable references and that is how I generally approach things.

There was one episode which once caused me to despair a little. This edit was never really going to stick. I tried discussing it on the talk pages (before and after) but no one was convinced. I will leave it to readers to see if they can spot the problem I was addressing. Though I think I had policy, encyclopaedic values, and common sense in my favour, I had consensus against me. If I had pursued it further I would probably have put in a RFC and/or summoned some independent third parties, but after some effort I just gave up on it. I have worked on quite a few religion/statistics articles, and gradually got used to the idea that some of them are just full of unverifiable numbers. I have to admit I am not that bothered by it now - there are worse things, and I usually have better things to do than continually try and convince people that that you can't just make up numbers and make whole populations appear and disappear. Unless it's vandalism or I have support of course. I usually just put the verifiable facts on the talk page , safe in the knowledge that encyclopaedic standards will prevail one day.

'

Comments

• See Zzuuzz's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See User:Zzuuzz's edit summary usage with mathbot tool.
• Edit summary usage for Zzuuzz: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Support

1. Inaugural support for a Wikipedian I only see doing good things around the place. I am sure he won't abuse the tools. --Guinnog 10:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Merovingian - Talk 11:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Great vandal fighter, will be a lot easier not having to use WP:AIV, I'm sure. haz (talk) e
4. Support. — FireFox  _{11:34, 10 September 2006}
5. Support. Reading of talk page archive convinces me of Zzuuzz's readiness. :) Dlohcierekim 13:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support although a little thrown by relatively low project space edits at first, closer inspection shows a lot of AIV and AfD contribs. Combined with a heap of anti-vandal stuff in mainspace, and promises to dig into some of our bigger sysop backlogs, I'm convinced that giving him the tools will only better the encyclopedia. james 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per Robdurbar. Rama's arrow 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per Nom. Jcam 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support - good AIV and AfD participation. Michael 17:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Regulation Support. This guy's got a ludicrously high edit count. If he doesn't know his way about by now, he ought to. Moreschi 19:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per nom. Good contributor Anger22 19:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong Support A great user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979 19:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support as nom. A decent user whose editing pattern proves that admin tools would be of real benefit. --Robdurbar 20:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per Robdurbar and James. No issues, will use the tools effectively. Will be second-last admin in alphabetical order. Newyorkbrad 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support -- Tawker 22:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Good enough for me.-- danntm _C 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, no major issues. BryanG 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Weak Support, seems like they could really use the mop, but the lack of encyclopedia writing is noted, Tewfik 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, I don't find the reasons to oppose given below to be compelling at all. Personally, I can see no limit to Misplaced Pages's need for high quality vandal-fighters, so I'd be happy to see Zzuuzz receive the mop. Daveydweeb (/_patch) 03:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I've seen him around, good vandal fighter. Will do well with a squeeze-type mop. BaseballBaby 03:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, good user. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)}
23. Support Per above. Good name. Just H 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Fails my criteria for project edits. – Chacor 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose - lack of experience with images --T-rex 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Lack of WP edits along with little contribution to actual encyclopedia writing. Good vandal fighter though. T REX_speak 01:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, under 400 WP edits I feel is far too few if the user intends to get involved in many deletion-related chors. Many of which are just reverts, couldn't find any nominations either. Maybe best as an editor, for now.--Andeh 11:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
2. I'm not usually one for fussing over low editcount, but Andeh's point about lack of initiations is well taken. However, he's a good enough contributor that I cannot flatly oppose, and would willingly support next time around if he can make up for that particular lack. (Lots of listing articles for speedy would be good too, but that'll be difficult to ascertain without the toolserver working.) .... oh yes, neutral. DS 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

   For information , when I had 4269 edits back in May, I had an additional 216 deleted edits. I believe it has more than doubled since - a combination of speedies and prods. -- zzuuzz 15:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Vandal fighter-only. Perhaps more project involvement is needed. I'd like all admins to have fairly well-rounded policy knowledge, and that and heavy article contributing is a good way to get it. I don't see enough of that yet.Voice-of-All 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. You have a high mainspace edit count, which is good but alot of your edits seem to be reversions, what i like to see in an editor is one that contributes equally as well as RC watch et cetera. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)