Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ZooFari 3

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.

ZooFari[edit]

Final: (17/19/7) - withdrawn by candidate, closed at 21:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

ZooFari (talk · contribs) – Howdy! I was on the IRC channel the other day and my adoptee encouraged me to run an RFA. So here I am! I've been here at Wikipedia for some quite time preceding 2 unsuccessful RFAs. The first one was what I like to call the "Newbie RFA", which ran late last year. You've all seen them around :-). The second one was basically clarification for me. At the time I had already started vandal-fighting and all those good stuff, thus I used the RFA for feedback. I think I've improved significantly, acting more mature and gained more experience. I work with SVGs at the Graphic Lab, stub-sort, and do some huggling here and then. More about my contribs in question 2. I have a few adoptees, but only three are active: User:Srinivas, User:Zink Dawg, and recently adopted User:Ontoyinsimon. Srinivas has reached a high level in Wikipedia and we've know each other for months now. He is running an inspection so you may view the progress I've been doing to help teach editors to keep a good behavior.

Additionally I could use some more buttons when I work in new page patrolling using AWB (which I believe has a delete button disabled to non-admins). I usually just skip those pages but with the aid of AWB, I would easily delete those pages immediately. More in question 1. ZooFari 20:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Withdraw as expected. Cheers, ZooFari 17:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As I mentioned above, I intent to CSD work with the aid of AWB, which has integrated tools for history, what links here, and a wide edit box for improvements as opposed to deleting straight forward. The delete button is disabled for me, obviously, thus I'm asking for the extra buttons. Additionally, I do huggling late at night where hardly anyone is around to keep a clear backlog at AIV. Hence I could use the block button on those certain occasions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The tool server sums it up well so you may take a look. I work in image-related areas and occasionally help out at the Graphic Lab. I recently became interested in stub sorting (taxonomic stubs to be specific) in which I've made many mistakes in template creation (that's where the tools could come in handy). For admin-related contributions, I do huggling, CSD and CSD "sorting" (some CSDers can be careless sometimes), with the exception of reporting.
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: As with many Wikipedians, I've handled several arguments. They don't turn severe and fortunately I've never been on the noticeboard, but some have been a hassle and admittedly lose my temperament slightly. Such discussions can be resolved safety if you know the five pillars of Wikipedia. I don't feel comfortable mentioning any discussions but you can browse my contributions and dig out what you can find.
Additional question from Malinaccier (talk)
4. Are you a native speaker of English?
A. Absolutely, and speak advanced Spanish as well.
Question from Ched
5. Have you ever edited under another account? If so, would you be willing to disclose that information? (Note: I have not researched any previous RfAs or contribs yet) — Ched :  ?  21:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: No, I've never edited under an alternative account or IP.


Questions from ArcAngel

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A:A block refers to the removal of privileges in editing articles and is decided by an administrator. Bans are decided by the ArbCom which involves a part of the community. A ban focuses on a scope of Wikipedia rather than any random article, unlike blocks. There's also a site ban, which prohibits the editing privileges of any page including his/her own talk page. Bans may last longer than blocks depending on the situation.
7. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: I don't think using cool-down blocks would resolve a situation. I think it would make editors angry for such punishments thus I would say not to use that alternative, but if you are looking for a more elaborate answer, I would say in very very rare cases.
8. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?
A: Reports made to the AIV should only be users contributing blatant vandalism that fall under this. Users whom you disagree with (or hate) should be assumed good faith and take an alternative venue in resolving the conflict. For example, a user who is edit warring but not necessarily vandalizing, those type of reports belong on the Administrator's noticeboard under edit warring. Additionally, a vandal reporting an experienced user would also be rejected or reverted in some cases.


Questions from FASTILY
9. What, in your opinion, are the several most important non-free content criteria? Please explain why you think these criteria are the most important and give a detailed explanation of each.
A:
10. A user uses their digital camera and takes a picture of a copyrighted Disney character, for instance, Ariel from The Little Mermaid and WALL-E from WALL-E as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Wikipedia with the license tag {{PD-self}} (public domain). Specifically, what is the problem with the situation and why is that an issue?
A:
11. Photos from press agencies (like that of the AP) are predominantly prohibited on Wikipedia. Is there ever an instance in which usage of these images is permitted? Explain.
A:
12. Would you ever consider blocking a registered user without any prior notice or warning? If so, why?
A:

Optional question from Graeme Bartlett

13. Why should some kinds of files should be moved to commons?
A:

Optional question from Katerenka

14. How do you feel you have addressed the concerns that were brought up in the oppose section of your last RfA?
A:

Question from Leaky Caldron

15. Have you read the discussion at [1]? How, as an administrator, would you avoid a conflict of interest between your sysop duties and any personal loyality you might have to your "friends" on Wikipedia?
A:
Optional question from Kingpin13 (talk)
Hi there ZooFari, and sorry to pile on more questions :). But I noticed you said you plan to do CSD work, and unfortunately I haven't often experience your work first-hand, so I took a look through your talk-page CSD warnings to see if the warnings matched what ever CSD the deleting admin used, and you seem to be doing all right, with a few mistakes. I just wanted to ask a few questions related to CSD to try and get your knowledge of this area. Thanks for your time :)
16a A new page is created with the content "hi im nichoals jameson, i ws walkin down the stret tday, and I wlkd int a lampst LOL! i <3 cake. later!", does this page meet (a) CSD G1 (b) CSD G2 (c) CSD A7 ? What would you delete it as (if anything), and why?
A:
16b A new user is creating a number of pages with "#REDIRECT [[Good Automobiles.com]]". The user has no edits except these page creations. What actions would you take? Why?
A:
16c Pretend I'm a new user doing a number of good CSD tags, but not warning the creators of the articles, or marking the article as patrolled. You decide to tell me how to do this on my talkpage, write the message you would leave me as your answer:
A:
Optional question from Keepscases
17. Would you be willing to lend some of your efforts towards publishing Wikipedia in Braille?
A:

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

  • I'm confused, above where it asks whether or not ZooFari accepts the nomination, it is written "Withdraw as expected". Does that mean that ZooFari has withdrawn from the RfA? -- Atama頭 21:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user has withdrawn [2] I won't close it as I've participated, but could someone else do the honours please. (handy guide here if you haven't before). Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. I've seen you around - excellent image work. I think you'll do fine. ceranthor 21:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seeing you around leaves me with a good impression. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 21:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support - I haven't done a look-through of your contribs, but I get a generally positive impression of your work from prior interactions and what I've seen of you. Nice image work, you seem to be a good and pretty reasonable editor - you might be light on experience in certain deletion areas (see neutral #1), but nothing is a negative at this point. Will revisit this soon (I haven't done much research, tbh), but since you seem good, I'm starting off in the support column. Good luck, JamieS93 21:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support not every admin, or admin candidate has to be involved in AfD. The mop has many uses. Candidate seems entirely suitable.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seen him around. I actually thought about nominating him once but didn't have the time. Good luck! Timmeh 21:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. clean block log, civil editor, and takes nice photos commons:Category:Images_by_ZooFari ϢereSpielChequers 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I am not convinced by either Pedro or Majoreditor; IRC isn't necessarily bad (though I don't use it), so long as it isn't used to discuss things that should have transparency (i.e. admin actions). I guess I can understand the argument IRC user - immature admin, but I don't buy it; for me to be convinced that somebody's not mature enough to be an admin, I'd have to see examples of immaturity and poor judgment. I see his comment about RfA candidates as a good thing, because it shows he's cautious of biting newbies - which is a huge plus when considering that he's going to work at CSD, where a trigger happy admin can turn away many potentially valuable editors. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on how Zoofari is overly cautious about biting newbies? The majority of Zoofari's talk page edits to 'newbies' are automated Huggle edits – See this. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say he's overly cautious. I wouldn't expect anybody to type out a full message to somebody in warning of their edits being disruptive - templated messages make things easier, and are only bitey if the person in question didn't actually vandalize. Occasionally biting somebody by mistake is bound to happen at some point or another, especially if you're an admin. But unless I see specific examples of ZooFari reverting edits that aren't vandalism (and those examples had to have happened between his most recent RfA and now in order for me to take them into consideration), I'll assume that he's not a mindless patroller. What I saw in that comment at RfA talk was ZooFari considering things from the POV of a good-faith n00b who doesn't know how RfA works yet - of course I disagree with what he said, but at least he can see things through the viewpoint of others. That's my $0.02 though, I'm sure my comment's not particularly persuasive considering I (admittedly) don't pour tons of time into investigating a candidate myself - I believe adminship isn't that big of a deal (in the sense that I would trust most people with it provided they wouldn't f*ck up royally). Master&Expert (Talk) 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support: seems like a good editor despite immaturities.. South Bay (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Seems okay to me. Encouraging more civility and sensitity at RfAs shouldn't be punished, even if the phrasing wasn't perfect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. No reason to believe they would abuse the tools. -- Ϫ 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I agree with those above and I to those naysayers, whoever doesn't make a few mistakes on this site shouldn't even be an administrator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I thought hard about this one. The bottom line is that the user seems to be a nice person, is reasonably experienced, and appears to be willing to accept and adopt to criticism (at least based on my superficial research of their contributions). The SVG work is fantastic. Like ChildofMidnight, I also liked the RfA talk comment even if it was worded poorly. The big niggle I have is the paucity of substantive articlespace contributions. If this RfA is successful, my suggestion would be to stick to areas of expertise (images/files for deletion, etc.) initially -- Samir 05:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Seems a good candidate. Manning (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Very good interactions; I've always thought him to be a nice candidate. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support! Looked over contribs and I see no reason to be alarmed. Pretty impressed actually, I think you'll do fine with the tools. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 17:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Bwrs (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Moral Support I think your on your way, but not quite there. However, I don't want to pile-on below, so Moral Support. America69 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. "I was on the IRC channel the other day ..". Nope. Bad thing. Rational arguments against my oppose only please. Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I know there are issues with IRC, isn't it a little harsh to hold mere participation against the candidate with no proof of him taking part in any controversy there? Not everything that happens on IRC is "omgz you called Cyclonenim a gayboy, no RfA for yous". There is (believe it or not) some constructive activity there. If you could elaborate on your oppose, it'd be much appreciated. I should note that I have not yet made my mind up on this candidate, and haven't looked over them at all, so please don't consider this badgering. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Active participation is not the issue. The headlining of it at RFA, whilst honest, is a deep concern. 'Crats are welcome to disregard my opinion of course. As to general IRC stuff, frankly after this weeks dramaz the more we can keep on wiki the better. IRC heavy and tool dependent candidates are not, in my view, where we want to be. That was also the "red flag to the bull". On even more review the candidates Q1 reliance on automated tools is very concerning (his lack of actual article related CSD nominations being a major consideration in asking for an AWB delete interface). Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are of course entitled to that opinion. Thanks for elaborating :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So if he had said his adoptee had suggested he run for RfA but not mentioned IRC you wouldn't have a problem? Come on P. The problem with IRC is lack of disclosure and transparency. Being up front about using IRC for a discussion and guidance by disclosing it is the least of our worries. I'm no fan of IRC because the discussion are not open to the community, aren't tranparent, and those engaging in them aren't held accountable for what they saw, but until there is a policy against them punishing someone for acknlowledging their presence there seems to me to be poor sportsmanship and punishing instead of rewarding the good deed of being open about. It's those who work out decisions, canvas, lobby, and exclude those affected by their discussions there that are the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IRC is outside of Wikipedia and it is taken place at freenode. I don't see why it is a problem in relation to Wikipedia. If somebody at Wikipedia says that editors talking on the phone should be prohibited, then that would be ridiculous right? I think of IRC that way but let's not create a debate about it here. ZooFari 02:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That IRC is outside of Wikipedia and not subject to transparency or accountability is very problematic, just as using e-mail or phone calls to coordinate activities would be problematic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Your recent comment at RFA talk disturbs me: "I would like to ask RFA to moral support or don't vote at all." Suggesting that editors shouldn't provide an honest assessment just doesn't feel right. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I admit that I screwed. ZooFari 21:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I am concerned that this editor sees adminship as a goal in and of itself. Wanting to be an administrator for the sake of it does not a good administrator make. Crafty (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Agree with above, it seems the "adminship" is just the next level up in his work. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    EDIT: Given the fact that this is now the users 3rd adminship attempt, whats new? KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 22:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I immediately had a bad feeling when I saw this RfA for an initially unknown reason, until Majoreditor posted his oppose. That thead struck me as slightly clueless in regards to this users knowledge of this process, and I'm concerned that his involvement in RfA only began recently, far too close to opening this request. It almost feels to me like ZooFari is trying to jump through hoops to get the mop. To top it off, I don't see any creation work. Feel free to point some out, but I don't think it'll convince me to switch from this oppose. Best of luck, anyway. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You said to feel free to point out creation work: 149 articles, according to X!'s tool. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 22:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose With 56% of this candidates edits being automated, I have concerns that this candidate is too dependant on AWB, and I see little interaction with others (approximately 5% of his edits), plus I see very little CSD work, or deletion work in general. ArcAngel (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the thing is that the proportion of automated:non-automated to my overall edit count is not the same as one who has an edit count with 10,000 edits. If an average user has 10,000 edits and you apply the proportions, the user would have around 5,000 non-automated edits which is reasonable at RFA. If you apply the concept with a 20,000 user, then the non-automated count would be about 10,000. That's generally not fair as you can see. I wonder if RFA ever thought about this... ZooFari 02:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Comments like this demonstrate a problem, and it generally feels like the editor at hand sees adminship as a goal. Sorry. — neuro 00:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Very unhappy with BF's "coaching" diffs, too. — neuro 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I am totally and utterly with Pedro on this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, agree with concerns raised above by Neurolysis (talk · contribs), Pedro (talk · contribs), and Craftyminion (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, your userpage seems myspace-y, you have mainly automated edits and I haven't seen anything to tell me that you don't hold the "'us vs them (vandals)' is 'good vs bad'" mentality that often happens to some vandal fighters. I don't know what this is intended to do but your somewhat suspect coaching makes me more skeptical of whether you have that level of clue. Sorry. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong oppose. This shows you're coming from the wrong end of the ballpark. People's feelings are important, but they should not trump practical concerns. I don't find it especially productive to gingerly hop through a figurative minefield just so someone won't have an emotional boo-hoo, and especially dislike those who are all too ready and willing to use their emotions as a bludgeon. Candidate definitely needs a good amount of time to substantially evaluate his guiding philosophy - whatever that guiding philosophy may be - and determine whether or not there may be a more appropriate, perhaps more nuanced, position to adopt. Badger Drink (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Peoples feelings are practical concerns, aside from resource competition human conflict is caused by little else. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To a certain extent, yes. But, as the saying goes, it takes two to tango, and it reeks of ego-centrism to demand that Joesph Bookworm drag his opinions through the wringer of Hyper Tolerance, hemming and hawwing until Joey Newbie's ego is placated enough that he won't treat us all to a public, nausea-inducing guilt trip over just how ruffled his sensitive little bits became. If Joey Newbie doesn't think, believe, or feel (choose your favorite) that he can withstand direct, blunt, and perhaps unpolished opposition, then it is Joey's responsibility to either (as the time-honored, oft-overused, but appropriate here, saying goes) harden the fuck up, or not interject himself into a venue where he is likely to be the center of criticism, such as RfA. Likely, if Joey Newbie is likely to feel upset over somebody disagreeing with his opinion - perhaps even harshly disagreeing - then it is his responsibility to become a big boy before bringing his opinions to the Grown Ups' Table. Badger Drink (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very Strong Oppose. per all the above. I'm interrupting my Wikibreak to oppose. The diffs and points brought up by Neuro, /\, Pedro, and Crafty are all very concerning. Apart from having a high proportion of automated edits to manual edits and a low interaction level with other users, I found this highly disturbing diff and banter between Zoofari and User:Srinivas. In these conversations, Zoofari openly admits to socking while acting like a "faux" admin coach. Clearly, Zoofari is completley, if not totally oblivious to many of our core policies. I don't mean to be "bitey" in any way whatsoever but I strongly feel that promoting this user to sysop would be highly detrimental to the project. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is any actual socking going on. I believe ZooFari is referring to User:ZooFari/Inspection/Srinivas#Part 2, in which he acts as a vandal to create a "training scenario" for his coachee. decltype (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. oppose the "coaching" diffs provided by backslash forwardslash and Fastily show that the candidate is not ready. (indeed, that's something that probably needs some admin action.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Mainly per Pedro. Your initial comment suggests this rfa was done "per IRC", when it really needs thought first. I also think you have unclear interpretations of policy. I'm afraid I have an uneasy feeling about handing you a mop, sorry. As someone who recently went through rfa, I know how stressful this can be. Don't be discouraged. You do good work, some more time is just needed. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose: Your writing style is unclear enough that I find some of your comments ambiguous or hard to understand. I believe that admins should be clear, precise communicators: perhaps you could work on this area and then try for adminship again. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per most of the above, sorry. I suggest waiting at least 6 months, maybe a year from this RFA to try again, and demonstrate improvement in all of the areas brough up above. Also, approach the next RFA (if there is one) from the position that being an administrator would enable you to improve Wikipedia more effectively, not that being an admin is a goal in and of itself. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per Majoreditor. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose – Too many valid concerns raised by other editors. Alan16 (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I feel strongly enough about this one that I'm logging in to oppose. "I was on the IRC channel the other day and my adoptee encouraged me to run an RFA" would do it anyway, but given that it's only a few days since your "everyone should support everything so we don't hurt peoples' feelings" posturing, I have not the slightest confidence in your judgement. – iridescent 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - Hard to get a feel for your knowledge of deletion policy, as there are very few AfD !votes in your contributions.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been active in Mfd if it makes you comfortable. ZooFari 21:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Scratch that, it has nothing to do with articles :-/ ZooFari 21:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Honestly, AfD is a bit more important then MfD. I saw that, but, I'm just not sure. I'll come back later, since I'm not very good at coming up with questions...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently undecided on this candidate. My instinct is to oppose, but I have no reason yet. It may merely be my memory of the event Majoreditor notes above. I'll switch soon. Switching to oppose. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am interested in neither supporting nor opposing. @harej 22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per my own communication concerns. Tan | 39 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If User:Malinaccier hadn't asked Q4, I would probably have done it myself, and I am a bit surprised by your answer. More often than not, I find that your sentences are awkwardly structured, making it difficult to understand what you're trying to say. As an administrator, you will often have to communicate with users who speak English as a second language, such as myself. To avoid misunderstandings, it is very important that you express yourself with clarity. Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I think this is something you should try to work on. If you're interested, I'll gladly highlight a few examples of what I mean and provide a few suggestions on how you could improve. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC) And yes, I am very aware of my own shortcomings in this regard.[reply]
  5. The opposers raise valid concerns, to the point where I don't feel comfortable supporting; however, I'm not entirely convinced that you'd be a net-negative if promoted. Thus, I remain neutral for now. Pedro's oppose, while blunt, does have merit; I've got nothing against IRC (in fact I use it regularly), but it should never dictate on-wiki actions. We all screw up occasionally, but I think you need a bit more experience in terms of becoming more familiar with WP's policies/guidelines/norms. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, the points raised by the oppose camp are valid, however I am unable to oppose currently. Neutral for now. --Taelus (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral (moved from support), the points raised in the oppose section are concerning, and I am leaning toward that direction. You're also somewhat light on experience in other areas, i.e., CSD (there weren't very many speedy tags when I looked through your deleted contribs, and they were generally "simpler" cases like R3). I also see a lack of WP:CLUE/knowledge about how things work. To me, most of the oppose reasons are valid, with the exception of "IRC". Many candidates, who decide to run for RfA partially after conversing with other Wikipedians on IRC, could easily have mentioned that in their answers/nom statement. It's only the savvy ones (who know enough wiki-politics) who known to refrain from mentioning "IRC". Sorry, but this looks like chastising the ones who are less aware of "unspoken" things. Off-wiki communication shouldn't truly influence actions/decisions on-wiki, sure. Although there's nothing wrong with communicating with others (via chat), giving suggestions, helping each other, and chatting about Wikipedia. There are some interesting conversations, but mostly nothing of substance, so the lack of transparency usually is not a big deal. ZooFari's off-wiki conversation with another, influencing his decision to re-run for RFA, is nothing to be alarmed over - it happens all the time, like I said. This seems like a very weak basis to oppose over - persuade me if I'm missing something. :) JamieS93 19:34, 5 October 2009 (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/ZooFari_3&oldid=1136070705"