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

(talk page) Final (5/14/4); scheduled to end 23:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC) withdrawn by candidate, closed by –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

ZooFari (talk · contribs) – I previously nominated myself a few months ago (here), but was closed due to WP:NOTNOW. I decided to renominate using a different subpage because my experiences have changed (in case anyone was wondering why). So here I am again!

I am currently a rollbacker and enjoy using both Huggle and Twinkle. I'd like to thank those who designed it because it makes vandal work very easy! I also welcome new users with Friendly and seek adoptees by participating in Adopt-a-user. I currently have only one, and I am always willing to help new users. I also help at the Help desk, as well as asking questions myself.

In addition, I am very skilled at tables/templates. As you can see my user page, I know very well on how to create multiple transclusions to build up a template and how to make different variants of tables. I am also a big fan of photography and participate at both Featured pictures and Valued pictures. ZooFari 23:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: After reading through administration pages, I would use the admin tools that would interest me and continue doing what I usually do. I probably would not be up to blocking or protecting anything as a beginner, unless it would get very disturbing. My main target in admin work is doing user requests, as they are easier to do. Examples: consensus to delete at AFD, G7 tags, other obvious requests. If I get adminship, I would first go to the adminschool as I did with rollback (I'm one of those users who are nervous to do something wrong).

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

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are those who involve tools and gadgets (Twinkle, Huggle, Friendly, etc). I welcome new users with Friendly, revert vandalism with Huggle, and use many of Twinkle's tools (tb, revert, etc.). I also participate in photographic projects and participate in Commons as well.

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: There have been situations where I've tried to give out considerations, but receive negative, disrespectful responses. Whenever situations like this occur, I usually just apologize the user and ignore my contributions that caused it, unless the user's consensus was to revert or fix it.

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ZooFari before commenting.

• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw but before closing, I'd like to get a reply from those I made responses to. ZooFari 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responses to any questions can be placed on ZooFari's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate's user page suggests nice picture contributions and in that candidate has never been blocked. Plus, I'd rather not have any good faith user not have at least one support. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moral support - You're a good faith user with good contributions - if you sort out the sort of issues being mentioned in the oppose section your next RfA has every chance of going much more swimmingly than this one is. Don't be discouraged. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moral Support ^{(editconflict)} UIS ^{Editor Review} 01:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. More moral support, as I don't believe there are enough admins to serve in certain areas and you seem an appropriate choice. --candle•wicke 01:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Would you clarify - whilst you said 'moral support', you also seemed to give a rationale indicating actual support - which is it? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Support Seems okay to me, we have a lot of admins going inactive or semi-active (including me) so we are in need of admins. 山本一郎 (会話) 02:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry, but if you're willing to revert this as vandalism along with a a level three warning, you're far too hairtrigger. I appreciate you apologised when the editor complained, but for every editor who sticks round to read your apology and accepts it, there will be more who are driven off in disgust (I note that this editor hasn't contributed since). And quite frankly, if you think this is a legitimate {{prod}} tagging (less than two hours ago, not in the dim-and-distant past) there's no way on earth I'd trust you with a delete button. – iridescent 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for your feedback. Perhaps I'm making too many mistakes right now, like this (pressed vandalism instead of a faithful revert), this (The fact that "Punjab" was later mentioned proved me wrong), and apparently this (edit conflict caused me to tag the revision after the previous was redirected) I probably will consider withdraw, but I will see how it goes. ZooFari 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   @Iridescent: My intention here isn't to badger, but, while the first revert you mention is not vandalism, there was no reason for the TOC to be removed. The subsequent warning may have been a bit harsh, but as far as I'm aware, a warner should take into account past warnings. The user has only warnings on their talk page (save for ZooFari's apology) and the previous warnings are for blanking sections and replacing the word comedien with canadian; these are obvious vandalisms and the blanking occured on the same day. I probably wouldn't have gone level 3 but I definitely wouldn't have gone level 1 either. Just my 2¢. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Per Iridescent those are some scary links, no way that "vandalism" warranted a level three warning. Add on the bad prod, and you've got an oppose.--Giants27 ^T/C 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Regretful Oppose I would support but Iridescent brings up some strong points. The bad prod is, unfortunately, enough for me to vote oppose. While I really like the contributions you have made (mainly in pictures), a lack of understanding in Wikipedia policy is not a quality of an admin. Perhaps in a few months and more experience...Sorry - Fastily (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Sorry but too little experience: Soxred's tool shows 56% of automated edits and about 75% of all edits were made in the last 5 weeks. Only limited content building and experience in the project namespace beyond AIV is in areas that have little to do with sysop tools. (and of course, the two diffs of Iridescent do not help...) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   • I beg your pardon? I must be a tad misguided in my assumptions... --candle•wicke 01:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Please see the discussion at WT:RFA, and continue any further discussion there. Thanks, — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I actually have been reading your reviews. May I ask you, do you think that adminship will be taken away to decrease the amount of admins to once again start supporting candidates? I don't think so. That number will never fall, so you are saying that the deadline has been met. I need more than just "too many admins". Give me reasons so that I can know what to work on. Thank you, ZooFari 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Whilst I disagree with it, he demonstrates a cogent argument at WT:RFA. Please continue discussion over there. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the direct. The discussion is too long for me to read right now, but I'd prefer feedback instead. This comment is helpless to me...

   Don't sweat it. People are entitled to their opinions, and you may be assured this particular oppose is not at all specific to you.  Frank  |  talk  02:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Per Pascal.Tesson. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. ZooFari, concurring with Pascal.Tesson, I think you need more experience, especially content building in various areas.
8. Regretful Oppose I think you need more experience, but are on a good road to adminship. -download | sign! 03:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose - With only ~2000 "human" made edits, and while still making mistakes with ~2000 "assisted" edits, I don't think you're ready. The poor grammar on your userpage doesn't fill me with confidence either. It also seems a little soon since your last RfA.. Adminship isn't a prize, just be cool and run with it. Sorry, Matty (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for your feedback. Would you mind showing me the bad grammar you mentioned? There are only a few sentences in my user page (two which are quick summaries). ZooFari 16:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose per download. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 10:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose edit count seems artificially inflated in the last few days. Also, I do not trust an editor with the delete button who makes such mistaggings: G1 for school, G1 for school, A7 for professor at notable university, A7 for school. SoWhy 11:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose; doesn't understand the basics, like the principles of categorisation. Hesperian 13:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you mind giving me examples? It thought I was doing well in categorization. ZooFari 16:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Sorry, but you're not ready yet. This article is most certainly not patent nonsense. I'm also concerned that you lack knowledge in the field of notability (which leads me to question your knowledge of policy in general). I'm not terribly concerned by your excessive use of Huggle, but from what I can tell, you have little experience in admin-related areas. Overall you're doing well as an editor, and I'm sure you'd make a fine administrator come several months from now. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose I'm sorry ZooFari, but I must go along with Iridescent. Sorry. America69 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral To avoid an Oppose pile-on. Besides, this is a well-intended offer to help. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. We need more admins, but SoWhy's diffs prevent me from supporting. Wizardman 13:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. From here, it looks like ZooFari will make a great admin if he keeps improving & learning in the next few months. hmwithτ 14:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral We need more admins, and I hope you become one this summer, but sadly your CSD tagging is currently below admin standards. Please be a tad less trigger happy, and come back in three months. Remember when you are new page patrolling if in doubt use hot cat and categorise rather than CSD tag. PS those are great photos! ϢereSpielChequers 14:42, 6 April 2009 (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.