Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for adminship/Zanimum

< Meta:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Zanimum

edit
  • I have made 20,000+ edits to the English Wikipedia, a couple thousand on Wikinews, and probably 500+ to a variety of other projects, including in languages I don't understand. (ie adding images from Commons, usually.)
  • I have made 1000+ edits to the Meta-Wiki.
  • I am an admin on EN.WP, IK.WP, and EN.WN. (I'm also a member of the Communications Committee.)
  • I have a user page on Meta.

I doubt my adminship powers here would be used too regularly, but I have run across vandalism here on occasion, and had to deal with it manually, and try and get on IRC to alert people. I figure one more set of eyes can't hurt. -- Zanimum 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not too much. One time, I helped revert a mass vandal that attacked around 30 or so pages, manually reverting things, while alerting existing admins on IRC. At one point I tried to manage the Wikijunior establishment process on meta. I used to try and keep the "Latest news" section, haven't recently that much though. I've also been hopelessly trying to get "Wikipedia mascot" frozen as an archive, as the page isn't currently relevant. -- Zanimum 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Zanimum, you recently made the case for reconsidering the Suite101.com blacklisting[1] and noted you had written for Suite101.com yourself (certainly not a sin in my book unless you added links to your own stuff). My question is -- would you recuse yourself from any actions involving external sites you've been involved with off-Wikimedia? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Neutral for now -- see my question above. By the way, I am not questioning your actions to date -- it's OK to write for Suite101.com (as long as you didn't spam) and it's OK to advocate its blacklist removal. I just want a public commitment to recusing yourself on anything with a hint of conflict of interest. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support --A. B. (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional background on Suite101.com for those unfamiliar with it: They paid writers to add articles and rewarded them for high add click-throughs, so some of their many writers did a lot of spamming to en:Wikipedia. At the same time, they had many good articles (and some terrible ones). Aside from the spam issue, there were questions as to whether the articles were self-published. I'm not looking to rehash that discussion here; Talk:Spam blacklist is the correct forum. I'm just explaining why writing an article for this site should not automatically be a basis for opposing this RfA. Probably the majority of their writers never added spam to Wikipedia. Depending on Zanimum's response, I'd be happy to change my "neutral" back to "support." --A. B. (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During the period that I wrote for Suite101, there was absolutely no pay at all, except for screeners and other goodies from the TV stations and DVD distributors I courted. They paid 1996-2001 I think, I was there 2002-2004 or something, and they've started paying again. I can't even access my article view stats these days, let alone get paid for them. I wish I could, to be honest, as my articles had strong "afterlifes", often getting 5000+ viewers months and months after they were published. I still have an account at the site, but I don't even use it to comment on blog posts and the like. I had added a link to my Family Entertainment column during the time I was an editor, based on the fact I was #3 rated at that point. I has been since removed due to my inactivity. I also referenced one of my articles, regarding Sesame Beginnings products at Loblaws (see the top Google result), due to the fact it was the only source for the information in a paragraph of the article w:Sesame Street, at the time, other than the press release it was based on. -- Zanimum 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining more about Suite101.com -- so can we count on you to recuse yourself from admin actions when they involve Suite101.com (or any other URLs that would pose conflict of interest issues for you)? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. If not for that one reference in the Sesame Street article, I would have never bothered to wade into that process. -- Zanimum 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reassurance. I'm happy to support.--A. B. (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cbrown for explaining, it now looks a bit weird because my previous statements had disappeared. as i said..we have way too much admins..what is the objective? get all the editors the extra buttons? btw, the page you are linking isn't available--Alnokta 10:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work. Please follow this checklist.
Now? -- Zanimum 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now it works. Thank you, M/ 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote closed. Consensus reached (11/2), sysop flag granted.
--M/ 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all! -- Zanimum 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Zanimum&oldid=2608742"