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here is his first (withdrawn) RfA, where he was nominated after after less than 3 months on the wiki.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:
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
Mild Support - After his response to my question I am prepared to give mild support. Especially considering the "no big deal" point. --
Chazz8818:05, 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.
WhiteNightT |
@ |
C18:35, 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?--
Tznkai18:38, 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 :).
WhiteNightT |
@ |
C20:37, 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.--
Tznkai20:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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.
BYT23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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
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 Weysvotetalk06:56, 5 January 2006 (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.--
Tznkai21:20, 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.--
Tznkai21:35, 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--
Tznkai07:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC) I've been chastised about not answering so I figured I'd atleast give a breif set of answersreply
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? --
Chazz8813:27, 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.--
Tznkai17:51, 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.
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:
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
Mild Support - After his response to my question I am prepared to give mild support. Especially considering the "no big deal" point. --
Chazz8818:05, 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.
WhiteNightT |
@ |
C18:35, 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?--
Tznkai18:38, 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 :).
WhiteNightT |
@ |
C20:37, 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.--
Tznkai20:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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.
BYT23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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
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 Weysvotetalk06:56, 5 January 2006 (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.--
Tznkai21:20, 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.--
Tznkai21:35, 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--
Tznkai07:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC) I've been chastised about not answering so I figured I'd atleast give a breif set of answersreply
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? --
Chazz8813:27, 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.--
Tznkai17:51, 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.