The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Tznkai

final (54/1/0) ending 07:22 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai (talk · contribs) - Tznkai is a level-headed and thoughtful editor. His interests have mostly been in controversial and disputed subjects, and despite that he's largely managed to keep his head and avoid inflaming conflict. He's shown a strong interest in using discussion pages to work out issues and strive for neutral, accurate articles, as well as in identifying and mediating conflict; I believe he would use careful judgment with the toolbox. In the interest of full disclosure, here is his first (withdrawn) RfA, where he was nominated after after less than 3 months on the wiki. Also in the interest of full disclosure, Kim Bruning wanted to do this nomination, but he's on academic wikibreak, so consider this a dual nom. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, and many thanks.--Tznkai 07:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Let me be the first to say: Have a mop! Tznkai seems mature, thoughtful, and level-headed. I think he'll make a fine admin. Nandesuka 07:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. I like your answer to Q2. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 07:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Everyking 08:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Fthepostingquota
6. Support. Phaedriel 09:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support, RFA cliche # 1. Ral315 (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Seems to be a good user. BD2412 T 13:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - No second thoughts. I'd be worried if you'd find a hottie gurl and forget about your duties! Cheers -- Szvest 16:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]
10. Support --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Trustworthy editor, will use tools wisely. Xoloz 16:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support has seemed stable enough from what I've seen of him (on AN and IRC) and I trust the nominator's judgement (sometimes). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - I've see this user mediate/help on #wikipedia, and he/she showed remarkable compassion, level headedness, and patience when dealing with a very anxious person. Based on that interaction, I suspect this user to be stable enough to use the admin tools without flipping out and killing people like a ninja (who are totally awesome, btw) - CHAIRBOY (TEL) 17:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn ninja!--Tznkai 17:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15. Support great guy. --Phroziac _. o -o ^{O (cH-cH-cH-cH- chocolate!)} 17:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Mild Support - After his response to my question I am prepared to give mild support. Especially considering the "no big deal" point. --Chazz88 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. King of All the Franks 18:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Aye. —Nightstallion (?) 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support no problem and no big deal!Gator (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Fad (ix) 19:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing the point in voting neutral with no reason...in my opinion, you've basically put your name in here, without voting, or commenting. --Phroziac _. o -o ^{O (cH-cH-cH-cH- chocolate!)} 17:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    "people thinking I was to haughty, arrogant". Granted, I can be that way myself sometimes (or always depending on who you ask, I guess)... that, what Radiant said (basically I havn't seen anything in administrator-related tasks, but looking at edits reveals minor afd participation), plus I think the candidate could work on more comprimising then just reverting (even with mild POV, and this is just my very limited experience so I'm not even sure this applies). It's difficult to even "vote" neutral on this one though due to several people I know who are supporting. I'm nitpicking, of course. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 18:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I admit to slight confusion as to what you're saying, so let me ask you this: What can/should I do to allay your concerns?--Tznkai 18:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    For "process tasks" (grunt work :)) you can basically just rack up edits on several of the Wikipedia namespace things such as WP:MoS discussions, stub sorting, and the million of other ways (just try not to do too much of that stuff :)). Otherwise, as I see it's basically a continuation of the stuff from your last RfA, although from what I can see drastically improved... so It's probably just a matter of time. Also, I'd be a little pickier where you stick the Template:sofixit thing in conversations :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 20:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess that was a little overly clever of me. Consider me chastistised and thanks for your thought approach to this.--Tznkai 20:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

23. Support . F.a.y.^{t+b+a+d+l+h+ x+y+a+l+ /c} 21:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support A look at his contributions and talk page reveals a rock 'em sock 'em editor who cares about Wikipedia's success Babajobu 22:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support per Babajobu. Partisans, please note that Baba and I are on EXACTLY the same page here. Someone we each feel this positively about has to have something going. :) Great candidate -- straight shooter. BYT 23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Nominator-checking-in-and-seeing-that-she-didn't-support-her-own-candidate-not-that-it-really-ought-to-matter-in-determining-consensus support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support; been impressed with this one for a while. Antandrus (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support FreplySpang (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, good work on NPOV, seems balanced enough to make a good admin.--nixie 04:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support --Terence Ong ^Talk 04:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support In spades. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
32. I had to use links (the browser) to vote. Alphax ^τεχ 05:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support A fine mediator of disputes. --Wgfinley 05:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support -- MicahMN | μ 08:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support: steady contributor, NBD. +sj + 09:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. El_C 12:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Contributions look good, and my interactions with the user have shown a level head. --Syrthiss 13:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Good editor --rogerd 14:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support: --Bhadani 16:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Strengths are a fairness and integrity, and a commitment to NPOV — so much that I don't even know what his personal POV is in the extremely controversial article where I met him. Weakness is a tendency to act as if he's in a position of authority. I'm confident that his strengths compensate for this, and that he will be a responsible administrator. AnnH ^(talk) 23:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support, doesn't seem to be quick to judge, and if this RFA is any indicator, seems fair and reasonable to boot. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. About time. Tomer^talk 09:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Steady contributor of quality edits... -- Jbamb 17:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - Sango123 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. --Doc ^ask? 00:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Cool. JuntungWu 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support per sensible answer below. And sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion earlier. Radiant_>|< 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Guettarda 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support DaGizza ^Chat 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - We tend to hang out on the same kinds of articles together and despite minor agreements we're always able to work things out. He's willing to talk over issues in pursuit of NPOV. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. the wub "?!" 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Everything is in order. --Jay (Reply) 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. --Kefalonia 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... why?

Neutral

• Tzn seems competent, but I would prefer some more experience with process tasks before admining anyone. Neutral for now. Radiant_>|< 11:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • [1] Tznkai supports people "using up their three reverts for the day" because the letter of the WP:3RR allows it. A potential admin should have a better grasp of policy than that; three reverts is not an entitlement but a strict limit. Radiant_>|< 21:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome to oppose, but I think you misinterpreted me. 3RR is a strict limit created to avoid edit wars. Someone holding themselves to that, I think, is avoiding edit wars. Theres no reason to assume that they feel entilted to 3 reverts. In this case, as I recall, Locke was trying to control an incident reported on WP:AN, something he should be commended for (the trying, I havn't seen what he actually did yet), not sneered at for a policy misunderstanding. I respectfully disagree that someone following 3RR to the letter is a bad thing, even if following 1RR, or WP:IAR and never coming up against it is a better thing.--Tznkai 21:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then please give me your opinion on WP:ANI#Nixer? Radiant_>|< 21:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming WP:AN is accurate, (I have not slogged through the salient details yet myself, and I gather you want me to answer on principle anyway) He has not breached WP:3RR, a preventive measure, but has still managed to revert war (this is candidate for WP:LAME too!) This is a breach of a number of other applicable policies, WP:Civility coming to mind first. But ignoring the lawyerly way of pulling policy, its obviously determental to the project, he has been warned not to revert war, has continued to do so, and the block was justified. We don't need WP:3RR to tell us revert wars are bad.--Tznkai 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 27% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 30 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters: I will get on this with 24 hours, but its 220 here, and I have something important to take care of--Tznkai 07:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC) I've been chastised about not answering so I figured I'd atleast give a breif set of answers[reply]

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.I don't do nearly enough RC patrol, but I assume I will be doing much more of that. Protecting pages, and more importantly, unprotecting pages. Of course this requires dealing with dispute resolution, as well as paying attention to WP:AN. Oh. Monitoring WP:AN/3RR, page deletion, answering "I NEED AN ADMIN!" calls and otherwise trying to keep wikipedia clean and tidy.

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

A. I think a better question is: "Of your contributions to Wikipedia, which best show what kind of editor you are?" and my answer to that is Abortion. I will let my record speak for itself as it will do a better job.

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. Yes. I make my wikihome on one of the more contraversial articles on the wiki. My personal policy is to follow policy, and avoid personality discussions at all costs. However, I have not been able to completly avoid that, but when I do feel someone's personal behavior is problematic, I take it up with them on their talk page, in as calm and civil a manner as possible, grounding everything in policy. I try to avoid as much as possibles accusations about someone's POV as this is unproductive at best. I am certainly not claming to be perfecting.

4. How do you think you have improved since your last nomination, especially in relation to the concerns about you that were brought then? --Chazz88 13:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. There were three concerns raised (as I recall), and I'll address them quickly. The first and most common was time. The did not feel as if I have spent enough time, edit wise and uh. temporally, involved with the project. I disagree this is a good reason, but I agree to disagree, and obviously it has changed. The second most prevelant was attitude and tone, people thinking I was to haughty, arrogant, or what have you. While being a part time teacher certainly doesn't help that (as I tend to sound like I'm lecturing even when I'm just chatting), I recognize that its a significant problem, since lots of people keep telling me it is. So, I've tried to strike the middle path in disputes, and I'm more willing now to bow out if its clear I'm not helping the situation. In general, I like to think I've improved as I'm less willing to bother getting into people's faces about things, and simply focus on their contribs, make them as useful as possible, or let cooler heads handle it. The third concern was a private matter involving a strange conflux of coincidence, where through Wikipedia and a very late night someone needed my help. I reacted in a panic, and people felt this was pandering. I'm not going to go into more detail, as I stand by what I said last time, that it is a personal matter involving the privacy of someone else.--Tznkai 17:51, 30 December 2005 (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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.