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

ZooPro[edit]

Final (2/20/2); ended 14:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC) per WP:SNOW - Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 14:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

ZooPro (talk · contribs) – This will be my fourth admin request (my last being over 12 months ago), I have been here for a while now and in my time here I have participated in most aspects of Wikipedia, I am the current Co-ordinator of WikiProject Animals and WikiProject Zoo. I helped develop the zoo portal and I help maintain the Animals, Amphibians and Reptiles, Mammals and Zoo Portals. I currently hold the Rollback, Reviewer and File Mover flags. I wish to note RfA is in my opinion the most pathetic and disgraceful horrible part of Wikipedia, it really has become a joke, some editors that participate on here are sadistic cruel and deserve to be banned cautioned. I am willing to go through this "bloodbath" for the sake of working towards a better Wikipedia. If you wish to be harsh expect me to be harsh honest back, if you attack my edits be sure that if you have ever done the same I will find it and point it out. I have seen far too many great editors led to the slaughter at RfA and not survived. Don’t bother to oppose my nomination and then state "per above" how about instead you grow some and tell me what you think and why you don’t trust me? I will be blatant and honest, I will act here as I act everywhere on Wikipedia, a duck is a duck. I make mistakes, as do we all. I have been blocked once, get over it. If I fail I will not retire or disappear for a few weeks/months because I enjoy working on Wikipedia and an extra user right won’t change that, I don’t edit to please others. My request for the mop is not an attempt at praise or recognition, I don’t need other users to tell me I am doing a good job because I know I am, I perform hundreds of edits that no one has ever or likely will ever notice, most of them are related to the WikiProjects. If you hate me or even dislike me that’s fine with me but don’t use that as an excuse to oppose my RfA, there is plenty of users who annoy the crap out of me yet I trust them with the tool. If you are a user who has participated in every (or near enough) RfA in the last 6 months and have done nothing but opposed, get a life and go edit some articles; you make up the main toxic core editors who make RfA what it is and YOU are responsible for this horrible process. RfA voting is pretty easy, if you trust my edits then Support me, If you dont then Oppose me simple. If you ask me an "Optional" question remember it is just that, For users who decided to change their votes because of the answers I provide that’s a piss weak act, grow a spine look at my edits and actions for my entire edit history then give your vote. I know this opening seems negative but it is in fact the view of the community in general regarding RfA I am just putting it all in one place. I will not stand around my computer for hours ready to answer any questions or criticisms in 30 seconds or less because I have a real life, I will check in nightly though. Cheers ZooPro 08:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I think people have very much mis-understood my above statement, It is not intended as an aggressive statement. I suppose you could call it a shock and awe attempt. I am not aggressive and in my editing I happily accept criticism. The above statement is only specific to RfA, I am sure many would agree I am a very open and honest editor and believe that people should be told how it is. Clearly this has been mis-conveyed in the above. ZooPro 12:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept my own nomination

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Article protection, moves requests, issuing blocks as required per blocking policy, ANI, Article deletions (csd and xfd), backlogs requiring admin attention and general project maintenance. Most of my current work revolves around animal and zoo related articles so I would be more likely found performing admin tasks within those scopes. That does not mean I will limit myself to only that area. I don’t claim to be perfect and in saying that I have no intention of involving myself in every area of admin work, If I don’t feel confident in an action I will seek the opinions of other users. This does not mean I doubt myself but rather I air on the side of caution given the fact that admin tools have the ability to cause massive amounts of damage if misused. I will stick clear of anything related to admin work in BLP's I have no intention of ever becoming involved with that work as an admin so I am not going to beat around the bush and claim I will, there are plenty of other sysops and the like who are far more familiar with that area of admin work, Do not get me wrong though, I am well aware of the policy and adhere to it. Not every admin on Wikipedia works in every area that admins are required and I am no exception to this. I know my strengths in my editing ability and will only use the mop to further assist in those areas I have experience in. I may get a few opposes because of my views and statements but so be it, if I am to be granted the tools then you have the right to know how and where I will use them.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
'A: 'I value most of my edits, all of which I have made in my attempt to help improve this encyclopedia. Revamping and expanding WikiProject Animals and WikiProject Zoo has exposed me to most areas of Wikipedia and helped gather a better appreciation for the hard work that other editors put into writing articles. I consider anytime I revert vandalism to be a great contribution, I spend hours at a time on Wikipedia, however I edit maybe only an hour or so a day, Not only am I an editor here but I use Wikipedia almost daily as an encyclopedia. If I need to know something about an animal I am unfamiliar with or when I am curious about why the marines in the NCIS tv show saluted the American Medal of honour I look it up on Wikipedia. It’s all good and well to be an editor here but it’s useless if you don’t use Wikipedia for its true purpose. I know that my contributions are going to be seen around the world and people may act on the information I write so I attempt with every edit to ensure that I am giving truthful and reliable information because I expect the same in return. I also take great pride in the 700+ articles I have assessed for a number of WikiProjects I am involved in, I take great strength in the fact that other users ask for my input on how to go about assessing articles, that shows me that people do notice the little things I do.
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: Yes, I have even been blocked once for it, I had a major disagreement with User:Snowleopard100 on the cheetah talk page, I am the first to admit I lost my cool and took the matter way to personally, I suppose I was having a bad week in real life also (no excuse mind you). I owe an explanation in regards to that edit; the user originally stated that Cheetahs have a 100% successful kill rate in regards to gazelle fawns. Common sense would tell you nothing has a 100% kill rate of anything, I took exception to the user posting their own website in an attempt to "prove" they were correct. I was angered even more by the amount of contradictory statements given by Snowleopard100. I also had a bit of a conflict with User:Michael Johnson whom I know and knows me in the real world, we are both zoo professionals who have differing opinions on ZAA policies and breeding programs, however this has been resolved in the real world and he no longer edits on Wikipedia. As a rule I tend to avoid clashing with others, I prefer talking it out and if someone provides me with a valid and decent argument I will often change my opinions based on that. I don’t claim to know everything and hence I am on Wikipedia to learn as much as I can. I do not have absolute views on things and do change per community views and values.
Additional optional question from Reaper Eternal (talk)
A:

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. I was amused and vaguely impressed by the frankness of your opening statement, given how easy it would have been to lie, kiss our arses and avoid those opposes. RfA is broken and, if meant as an attack on the process rather than on individuals, then your view is pretty fair. I went to look through your contribs and found some good edits and nothing I object to. So now this has reopened you have my support.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support - It looks like you do good work around the wiki, and I hope you continue to do good work. Like some other users, I appreciate the honesty in your self-nom statement, but the tone of the statement is quite aggressive and defiant, and only serves to give you a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding here. Continue doing good work, and come back in 3 months or so with a rational, polite nomination statement. You can be honest without being harsh. —SW— squeal 14:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. You state that RFA is a pathetic and disgraceful part of Wikipedia and that it is a bloodbath. You then go on to state if you attack my edits be sure that if you have ever done the same I will find it and point it out and you make up the main toxic core editors who make RfA what it is and YOU are responsible for this horrible process. The toxicity I see underlying you request is the very toxicity you hate at RFA. No I can't support someone with the mind set I see displayed in your opening remarks. Pedro :  Chat  09:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Point proven, nothing about my edits or actions on wikipedia. ZooPro 09:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've proven my point too. Pedro :  Chat  09:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume then you used your own standards in your assessment of me? ZooPro 09:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. In particular "If I find something troublesome in the contribution history, I consider it my duty to bring this to the attention of the community, even if I still support or go neutral.". I did find something troubling. It was this edit. Pedro :  Chat  09:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The tone of that opening paragraph of this RfA is not what I want to see in an admin. The sentence "if you attack my edits be sure that if you have ever done the same I will find it and point it out" is particularly worrying. BigDom 09:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't need to look at your edits-- I simply can't support a candidate with such a combative, hostile temperament that you've made so completely evident in your opening statement. "If you wish to be harsh expect me to be harsh back"? Hell, I'd give you a break if you reacted poorly to harsh comments in the heat of the moment, but the fact that you plan to be harsh (which I take as "uncivil") before any comments are even made is an example of this bad attitude. We want to see that you can accept criticism, even if it's unnecessarily harsh and still behave reasonably. It's quite clear you don't even intend to do that. Swarm X 09:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly what my opening statement is aimed at, editors who do no research and judge at face value. ZooPro 09:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In this instance, 'face value' is an editor with a complete and utter disregard for civility. If you expect the community to let that slide out of principle, you're sadly mistaken. Swarm X 09:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose The incredibly high level of hostility in the nomination statement makes it clear that this user is wholly unsuitable for administrative work. I don't believe you will ever be a viable admin candidate and strongly suggest you withdraw this ill-considered RFA. That you thought it had any chance of succeeding speaks volumes. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose To be honest, I quit reading at "If you wish to be harsh expect me to be harsh back" because that's just not the way I personally want to see it work here. No offense Zoo, but that doesn't go over well with other editors from what I've seen in my past experience. — Ched :  ?  10:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Firstly, I'd like to say, you've done a fantastic job with the zoological articles. RfA voting is pretty easy, if you trust my edits then Support me, If you dont then Oppose me simple. Not exactly. I look for temperment in a candidate, how they handle stress and difficult situations. I personally believe that an administrator has to do the dirty work of the community and take the greatest backlash. So, my take on RfA voting is different to yours. I can only echo the comments above, such a combatative opening statement does not suggest to me the sort of temperment which will cope well with the stress of being an administrator. WormTT · (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, obviously. If you're this aggressive regarding a hypothetical situation, there's no way I'd trust you with a block button, given that every admin regularly gets challenged. – iridescent 10:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Oh, wow, what a nomination statement! Being an admin requires more than just being a good editor (and you do appear to be a terrific editor) - it also needs the right temperament, the ability to take criticism, to take shit without dishing it back out again. A statement that you're going to adopt the exact opposite temperament and appear to be spoiling for a fight pretty much rules you out, sorry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. No one will disagree with you that the RfA process is in need of reform for the reasons you state, and there is now an active project whose goal it is to finally get some changes made. I don't think however that using your RfA itself to tell us something that many old hands here already know, is the right way to go about supporting that move. If it's an experiment, I admire your courage; if you really believe that this will earn you enough support to get the mop, I think you're wrong, because it demonstrates a combative side to your character, which would be unsuitable for the role of admin. Nevertheless, I commend your work on zoological articles, and very much hope that you will continue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose par some editors that participate on here are sadistic and deserve to be banned, along with the rest of the opening statement. I am sorry, but such as vindicative statement means that i do not believe - at all - that you should be given the ability to actually block other users, if you believe that this is a reason to block someone. I appreciate the honesty of your statement, and i am glad that you aren't trying to butter things up while thinking otherwise, but i will have to be equally honest and say that this is a big no-go for adminship. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont recall saying i would blocking anyone.... I stated Ban not block two very different things. ZooPro 12:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But you did state in A1 issuing blocks as required per blocking policy.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My core point is that i would not trust you with the blocking tools - especially par if you attack my edits be sure that if you have ever done the same I will find it and point it out, which translates to Hounding in my eyes.
    I am not going to be overly harsh here though - your other edits seem fine, and I can sympathize with the point that RFA is often a negative process. My own first RFA was definitely not the most fun experience either, since it can be a bit of a blow if you are editing in good faith. Still, the RFA did raise valid points which i could work on, which meant i could pass the second one quite easily. I am equally aware that some RFA comments can be uncivil or unreasonable at times , but keep in mind that, as an admin, you will also be exposed to this - perhaps even more often since admin related matters are often negative. I see little wrong with you as an editor, but i cannot - for now at least - see you handling the admin tools correctly. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strongest Possible Oppose WP:NOTEVER. If the candidate continues to show the temperament displayed in the opening statement, this candidate will never be worthy of the mop. Also cannot support due to the civility block last year.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed !vote slightly after seeing UncleDouggie's diff below. Cannot have admins who are uncivil like that, totally unacceptable behavior.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In ZooPro's defence, that was in 2009, a long time ago - it has been gone for over a year. I agree with UncleDouggie's point that the pre-emptive combative attitude is still evident, but holding old "crimes" against a candidate seems harsh WormTT · (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I agree with Beeblebrox. Minima© (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your history on RfA I would have expected nothing less, you are one of those editors I mention above. ZooPro 12:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Absolutely not! - Per the response to Minimac (talk · contribs), which violates WP:NPA, and per your nomination statement. You are exhibiting a tremendous battleground mentality, and your "I will kick you if you kick me" stance is not the way an admin is expected to behave. Would you block somebody just because they criticized your edits? There is no way I can trust you as an admin with an attitude like that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose – per lack of experience. Jessy (talk) (contribs) • 12:47, April 7, 2011 (UTC) 12:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, from Neutral, per this edit. There no longer appears to be any upside here, Sorry. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Wow. Keepscases (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per battleground mentality seen in this old edit that seems to have not changed at all. The slight watering down of the nomination statement is a bit of an improvement, but do you honestly expect such a statement to just make the "horrible, broken process" vanish? —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to mention that the page from the above diff had never been edited by anyone other than ZooPro when that message was inserted. It seems that waiting for an attack is just too inefficient, which is the same pattern seen in this RfA. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I dont recall saying i would blocking anyone.... I stated Ban not block two very different things. You are confusing the two terms, so along with pretty much all of the above, your apparent lack of understanding of policy makes this an easy decision. —DoRD (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Maybe you were shooting for humor or sarcasm in your self-nom statement, but neither came across as clearly as outright belligerence. No go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Oppose This RfA seems extremely WP:POINTY. Logan Talk Contributions 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Moral Neutral. With some well-intentioned candidates crumpling under a barrage of opposes, I'd be tempted to offer moral support, but not in this case. Admins don't need to go looking for trouble; trouble comes to them, so an aggressive, provocative, and defiant stance is the last thing we need. An admin should be able to pour oil on troubled waters, and that's the exact opposite of what I see in this RfA. I had a look through some past edits and they were OK, but... bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Yep, I took a look at your edits. They seem fine, and you seem clueful, and even friendly! But then here on RFA you just explode with fury. I see your earlier RFA's were a couple of NOTNOW's and then one that failed primarily because of recent rash actions. Adminship is not just about being a good editor, it is about being approachable, able to learn and adopt criticism (one reason the RFA process is designed to be critical), to take part in discussions calmly and, most of all, to stay civil. You've demonstrated being a good editor, but this RFA suggest that you are also a little too confrontational (at this point) to be trusted with admin tools. Doing rash/angry things as an editor is one thing, doing them as an admin can cause all manner of fall out and controversy. Honestly; if you had not posted the rant then I suspect you would be looking at a successful promotion... the RFA process has it's problems, true, and it can get nasty, but in this case you have scuppered your own ship... if you have constructive ideas to improve RFA you may be interested in the work at User:Kudpung/RfA reform --Errant (chat!) 12:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Quite frankly, I do see some good work in the candidate's contribution history. I can't really support, though, given the tone of the candidate's statements on this page. Is this a breaching experiment of some sort, designed to prove that editors at RFA are jackasses? I doubt it - but it sure seems that way, and that might be enough. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to Oppose. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:03, 7 April 2011 (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.
Category