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

Zppix

Final (0/8/0); ended 18:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC) per WP:SNOW Kharkiv07 ( T) 18:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Nomination

Zppix ( talk · contribs) – Cannot answer as its a self nom and per NPOV Policy However upon request I can provide some information. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 17:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Questions for the candidate

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: AIV, UAA, some ANI and CSD/PROD requests

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Reverting vandalism really I've only made 1 or MAJJOR article contribs see my userpage for the whole list

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: No

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Mkdw

4. Have you thoroughly read WP:RFAADVICE?

A:Yes Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Additional question from Mkdw

5. Why did you submit this as your "third" RFA when it doesn't appear you've ever run for RFA before?

A: As mentioned before

I had to create the page 3 times because I couldn't figure out the error I was getting when I tried transcluding and removeing the comment. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Zppix: Zppix ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Zppix can be found here.

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

Support

support as nom -- Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 18:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

The candidate doesn't participate in their own voting even if they're nominating themselves. Mkdw ^talk 18:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Strong oppose and WP:SNOW close. Not enough experience, as evidenced by the nomination statement; over 80% automated edits out of only just over 3000 total; and creating a "third" nomination page when they have not even run a single RfA does not inspire confidence that this is a good faith request. ansh 666 18:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   I had to create the page 3 times because I couldn't figure out the error I was getting when I tried transcluding and removeing the comment. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   Thanks for the clarification, but that's just another sign of inexperience. A large part of being an editor - not even an admin - is taking the time to figure out our processes and policies before trying to take part. ansh 666 18:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   Another thing, I'm not inexperienced I just misread the comment and instructions then when I reread I felt so stupid Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 18:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

2. Oppose, WP:SNOW, per user history. Supermajority of automated edits, lack of experience, no (satisfactory) AFD participation, lack of content creation. Everything, really. Dschslava ( talk) 18:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   To be fair, there is AfD participation, but there isn't much, every !vote is delete, and the accuracy looks to be around 50/50. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 18:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   They're all delete because they're all nominations. The nom statements are not really ideal by any standards. ansh 666 18:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   Noted. You know, the fact that this was the third nom page confused me (so I searched for the wrong AfD records. Hopefully fixed. Dschslava ( talk) 18:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

3. Strong oppose mostly automated edits, It's like nominating me for adminship, I have no experience ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose Just not nearly enough experience to justify being given the tools. I do believe it might be snowing now. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose: Simply not experienced enough. The CSD log speaks for itself. Misapplication of A11 in a lot of cases, a lot of A7 denials. This editor is clearly eager, as evidenced by the MedCom self-nom that was nearly contemporaneous with this RfA, but I think he or she needs more experience. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 18:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   Actually I wanted to be apart of MedCom so I could get some Wikipedia experience with dispute resolution. I'm not eager in fact I'm ok with not getting into MedCom, heck if I don't even get a successful RFA, I'll probably just wait a few more months (Late July) to resubmit a nom. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   I'll remind you that Wikipedia is not a place to advance through user rights like one would in a career. Dschslava ( talk) 18:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   I don't think "a few more months" will help. Maybe a few more years. ansh 666 18:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

6. Oppose: WP:SNOW. Simply not experienced enough, and botched setup of this RfA does not show respect for the process. Sorry. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose. Here's some history: 11/2/15 Zppiz created an RfA but apparently never transcluded it. I can't find a second RfA so I'm not sure why this is tagged as #3. 4/11/16 he applied unsuccessfully to be on the mediation committee [1] 4/14/16 despite being rejected for the mediation committee, he immediately applied for adminship. Sorry, Zppiz. You are off to a good start here as an editor, with a clean block log and some helpful work at AfC. But you are nowhere near ready to be an administrator and apparently you don't understand what is expected of an RfA candidate; please read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. At this point you have made about 3000 edits here; that's good but not enough experience. You have created only two articles, one of which was deleted. You have some participation at policy-related areas such as AIV and UAA; that's good. So you might be an admin someday, but in the meantime you are hurting your own reputation by this pursuit of advanced positions you are not qualified for. (We call it WP:Hat collecting, and some people regard it as a strong negative; they think if someone's main goal here is to acquire power, they should never be an administrator.) I suggest you keep editing and learning, work on improving the encyclopedia, and not apply again until you have amassed a much more impressive record here. Also, I suggest you not self-nominate again. If you can't find a couple of admins willing to nominate you, you should probably not apply. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   The second one was on the first one look at the history I forgot to add the 2 the second time (woops) also im working on another article at this time, I do have a life outside of Wikipedia so I cannot create as many articles as others can but just because I started off with a deleted article doesn't mean anything I'm pretty sure almost everyone has had 1 or 2 first articles be deleted. I also regularly read ANI and I believe I participated on 1 or 2 of them. Edit count isn't everything Melanie. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 18:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   The fact that you are arguing and getting defensive is another sign that you are not ready for adminship. You should be learning from what people say and the advice they give, so that your next application (maybe in a year or two) will have a greater chance of success. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

8. Oppose. Bare answers to Qs do not suggest bit is warranted. Glrx ( talk) 18:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

   I rather be bare then dishonest, also be aware that I filled this out to the best of the ability while remaining honest. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 18:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Neutral

General comments

• Comment Although this RfA is tagged as #3, in fact it appears to be his first submission to the RfA process. Note to the bureaucrats: would it be possible to rename this as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zppix, so that the record does not falsely imply three unsuccessful attempts at RfA? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:45, 14 April 2016 (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.