Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MegamanZero 2

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.

[edit] Zero

final (18/25/7) ended 20:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

MegamanZero (talk · contribs) – A good, keen, quick-learning chap who nominated me as his mentor in December. Zero has shown keenness to improve the encyclopedia and work well with others. I think he's about ready for the mop and broom. Tony Sidaway 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Previous nomination

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. -Zero^Talk 20:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Tony Sidaway 19:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Good chap.
2. Support; good edit history, seems reasonably well versed in other namespaces. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
3. I note that the quote is only being half read by Karmafist. It reads "Fuck process. Block time-wasting trolls." I read the two together; it says that process should be ignored when it involves not blocking time-wasting trolls. MegamanZero has my full support. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

   I have moved the resulting discusson to the talkpage. If anyone objects, please feel free to move it back. -Zero^Talk 04:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Support; i think the guy has enough edits and a long enough history, if he wanted to be bad he would have done it by now, so sure i guess i'll put my vote in support. Mrmattkatt 21:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. The Wookieepedian 21:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, seen him around a bit, appears to have his head on straight. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support probably a better candidate than some current admins.--MONGO 03:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Zero has shown no evidence of abusing WP:IAR, so I trust him not to use his admin tools to maliciously circumvent policies. He has also satisfactorily addressed my concerns about copyright violations. Give him a mega-mop. --TantalumTelluride 05:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Has been here for some time. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Need more admins. Haukur 13:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
11. LordViD 20:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Support: Zero's has helped me delete unused images. -- Psi edit 20:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Mjal 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I see no reason to oppose. Those who can't get over the use of the word "fuck" are too prudish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juppiter (talk • contribs) 02:52, 12 February 2006
15. Support I've seen a lot of maturity from this user over the past few months, as well as the adoption of a much more diplomatic tone in the midst of heated debates. I think he'd be a good, moderating influence as an admin. InkSplotch^(talk) 16:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. I agree with some of the comments that Zero still needs to grow into the role but I see nothing that makes me think he will be a problem admin while he grows. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support I see no major problems, but hopefully he will become better trusted.--Jusjih 03:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Has the right attitude. Would be a good admin. -- JJay 18:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose. Give me a few minutes and I'll bring you some diffs. Well, I just find this user a bit immature and uncivil. Too quick to act and speak. A few other things I don't care for: The way handled himself here :1 2 3. Just not Admin material at this time. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose per the quote at the top of his user page. We don't need another admin who IARs at will. Karmafist 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose I asked the question below because I intended to reserve judgment, but Karmafist above drew my attention to that quotation on Zero's page. Irrespective of one's view on the matter, "Fuck process" (like a bad userbox) is an inflammatory and unwise maxim for an admin or admin candidate to advocate. Xoloz 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose per quote on user page. "Fuck process" is not an appropriate philosophy to guide oneself by for an administrator. I don't think that cutting corners is a more effective way of doing things and neither is it time-saving in the long run. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Oppose vote withdrawn as the quote in question has been removed and MegamanZero explained his reasoning. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. No. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

   I have placed an comment on the quote's relvancy on the discussion page. -Zero^Talk 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

   I have seen this comment. Thanks. I keep my vote. --Adrian Buehlmann 12:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose Sorry, no. --Doc ^ask? 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose General incivility and process is very important and ignoring rules is what causes most problems. Dr Debug (Talk) 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Oppose Lack of maturity, I can't recall a positive interaction with this user. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. My current, non-immutable impression of this editor is that he quick to reach an opinion, reluctant to accept persuasion and slow to amend a point-of-view. His userpage until recently said so in terms. On AN and AN/I he seems to tend to quickly pronounce upon an issue, where a slower pronouncement backed with more careful historical reading would be much more beneficial. My most recent interaction was where he quite specifically and explicitly set aside WP:V for his own purposes to re-insert deleted material which was very plainly OR and non-V, repeatedly. Into two articles, no less (see Talk:SNK Boss Syndrome, article now re-deleted and Talk:List of fighting game terms along with the article's history). I think some rounding-off of the corners, and a deeper appreciation of how to do things in general is needed along with frequent demonstration of better judgement before handing out a mop or a bucket here. I also share some of the other concerns expressed above, including the silliness over impersonating others' signatures and a simmering incivility that rumbles away beneath the surface a little too often. -Splash^talk 01:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Per all above, weak oppose. NSLE _(T+C) 10:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - My impression, based on his talk page interactions, is that Zero is not yet ready for adminship. If he can sustain a mature tone and demonstrate an ability to persuade others, to listen to discussion and be persuaded, and to defuse conflicts rather than inflame them, I'd be willing to change my vote for his next RfA. But for now, I think he needs to brew some more. Nandesuka 13:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose - agree with Splash's observations on AN & AN/I, and Nandesuka's observations on maturity. FreplySpang (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose doesn't understand Wikipedia policies.  Grue  15:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose per NSLE per all above. --Aaron 18:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Sorry, but I don't think now is the time; some of the people above have reflected some of my feelings. Please continue with your good work, and I will gladly reconsider. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose, per FreplySpang.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose: last RfA a little too recent, and not enough time for changing the verdict, which is that this editor is not ready now, but may be down the road. Jonathunder 00:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose Splash makes some good points. Nandesuka has also. Hamster Sandwich 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose I don't like being called a prude simply because I don't like seeing the f-word thrown around where it doesn't need to be. Thumbelina 17:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

    That comment was by Juppiter, not by MegamanZero. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose, process is not a bitch to be fucked. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:09, Feb. 12, 2006

    Uhhh.... --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

    < *SWD316 looks at Freakofnurture puzzled* Uhh... — Moe ε 04:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

    Hey, I admit it... it made me laugh. :) Xoloz 07:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

19. Oppose General incivility is what got me. — Moe ε 04:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Weak Oppose per Splash. Need more time to build a reputation for civility, etc. Savidan 05:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Strongly oppose. "Fuck process" all too often means "fuck the community". Grace Note 02:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Civilty should be of upmost importance regarding other users. Proto||type 10:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    That Sounds familiar.... -Zero^Talk 11:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    And it did so deliberately. Proto||type 09:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

23. Oppose. I like MegamanZero, but he has a lot of maturation to do before I'd feel he's ready to take on the responsibility of being an administrator on an Internet website. Danny Lilithborne 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose as per Danny, Thumbelina, and Nandesuka. Eluchil 09:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    I will not deny it. Whilst I did not intentionally intend to offend anyone in any previous situations whilst I was under mentorship, I am truly sorry. I am no longer inclined to speak in such a foolish manner, and looking at the rfa, I see that it was something that some have taken to heart. What I can say is proceeding the end of my mentorship, I became an different editor, both in writing and discussion style regarding others. In conclusion, I appreciate the thoughts of others bringing this to my attention, and I will be much more conciensus of it in the future; I am truly apologetic to all I have caused offense to, and I think I will consider closing this rfa lest I cause anymore harm to other's feelings. If anyone has other concerns, I implore you to bring it to my talkpage. Once again, I deeply aplogize for my past demeanor. -Zero^Talk 14:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

25. Oppose, too volatile and quick-tempered to be handed the keys to the mop closet at this time. I believe he has the encyclopedia's best interests at heart however, and might support sometime in the future. -- nae'blis _(talk) 05:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe it polite nor truthful to suggest I am quick tempered or volatile in any such capacity. I was perhaps overzealous in my replies and did not handle the situations perfectly in th past, but your statement is untrue and I find it somewhat hurtful. -Zero^Talk 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. In MegamanZero's defense, the quote from Tony Sidaway is contradicted by him at this diff, where he states that such a stance he "would never expect from an admin". I am concerned about this user's handling of images. In particular, he has uploaded a large quantity of images that apparently come from http://www.kawaiidream.net/. On that page, it says "Images belong to their owners...Personal use only. Pictures publishing on other websites is forbidden without consentement". In each case that I saw ([1], [2], [3], among many others), the link to the source goes to a page that does not contain the image (links to the page have session IDs in them). Thus, we can't verify the source. I question that these images qualify as promotional, and doubt the tag properly applies given the copyright notice on the bottom of that site's page. Further, images such as [4], [5], and [6] uploaded by this user have no source identified with them. That said, I've yet to find anything else that warrants concern on this user's ability to be an effective admin. I disagree with some of his views, but viva la difference. Given the image tagging problems, I'm voting neutral on this one. I would strongly encourage him to go back and review his image contributions ([7]) and fix the licensing and source attributions. --Durin 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
   • Addendum: MegamanZero has cleared up the no source images to my satisfaction. I'm still concerned about the status of the other images. He left me a helpful message on my talk page regarding this [8]. However, I'm still a bit concerned about the application of "personal use" in this context, and that there is no apparent way to verify their status as promotional images without being a member of the site they were retrieved from. --Durin 22:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral. Zero is a helpful editor, very involved in community discussions. He has no history of abusing WP:IAR, so I trust that he would continue to use good judgement as an admin. But I am concerned about his questionable image uploads. Admins need to be familiar with our copyright policies. --TantalumTelluride 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

   I've posted an ademendeum regarding the image uploading qualms on Durin's talkpage. -Zero^Talk 22:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for "evicerating all qualms" (whatever that means). I'm changing my vote to support. --TantalumTelluride 05:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Weak Neutral Removing that quote was incredibly mature, we definately do need more users, not just admins, who listen and compromise on Wikipedia as a whole. However, I don't know if it was just bending to try and dissuade those who disagree, or a sincerity. It's unfortunate since I remember having a discussion with Zero awhile back, and he's a good guy, but I still don't think he's ready. Karmafist 03:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

   My removal was indeed sincere. I really think that comprismising and listenig to other's thoughts and opinions is important to the encyclopedia. If someone brings an situation to my attention, I will listen and attempt do the best thing for both parties. Please consider me on my own merit and not as a result of who has mentored me.-Zero^Talk 15:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral for now as well. A little more seasoning with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and I think you'll be fine. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, I've seen the user around and he seems to be a good user but Splash makes good points against, and on that basis I will be neutral. Hiding talk 21:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
5. MegamanZero probably wouldn't be a bad admin, but I'm not sure he'd make a good one either at this stage. We need admins who will consistently be mature and humble. Show more of this, and try again after a while, and I'll vote for you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Rob Church (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral Not to pile on. On various occassions I have seen him take actions which show lack of familiarity with process and policy. --pgk^(talk) 07:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• See MegamanZero's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• New question posted. Xoloz 20:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Prior RfA ended 23:15 13, December 2005 (UTC) with a result of: 0/8/4

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. Quite a bit. I'm on wikipedia on a fairly constanst basis, and I have encassed myself in various aspects of the site. I would like to prefer assisting with the more laborous of tasks such as cleaning out backlogs, closing afd and ifd discussions, blocking vandals, WP:RM, and helping new users and experienced alike within the community.

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

A. In general, I consider making entirely new articles and upholding a high conformity to wikipedian standards favorable. I've recently completed the daunting task of overhalling the King of Fighters characters articles. My current project is an similar goal for the Samurai Shodown articles. I always attempt to do a complete job and never begin a project without extensive research.

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 cannot honestly say I have ever been "stressed" over conflicts on editting. The only notable conflict I can say I've engaged in would be with the TheOrgy, and I became somewhat irritated at his actions. I'd since engaged in an mentorship with Tony and I believe I've improved in this regard. I am not hesitant to admit if I have a serious failing in a matter and will act accordingly.

4. Do you support, and would you undertake, administrative action whose sole justification rested with IAR and/or "common sense"? If so, under what circumstances would you do this? If opposed by other good-faith editors in such an action, how would you respond?

I ussually don't support it. I follow policy to the letter whenever possible. I am certainly not quite bold enough to delete items out of process, though I'll not hesitate to engage in discussion pertaining to the matter.

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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.