Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Zachary 1

Zachary
I would like to nominate Zachary.‎ I think his edits over the past month have demonstrated a dedication to the project and a good understanding of the goals. He is a valuable member of the community and I feel he would be a valuable addition to our administration team Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 11:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept! Thanks Brian and everyone else who has supported me! :) —Zachary talk 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator, now candidate has accepted. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, user is already running up against limits that adminship would get round. Has, albeit being here for less than a month, already racked up a good count of edits - all good-faith contributions.  I'm happy to say this user has gained my trust, and support for adminship. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support-, Good user with great skill in sports writing. I would be more than happy to administrate sports with him. —Dark_Squall 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per SVT's reasons, wow... it took me three times to get adminship. Course, I'm impatient (self-nomed self)  Thunderhead  ►  22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're young and impatient. :) I can't comment on the age of our current candidates, but I'd hope you agree with me in saying that these people have earned the community's trust.  We should always be open to new contributors and welcome them into the admin team. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm actually the youngest administrator on any Wikimedia project :)  Thunderhead  ►  23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I would be very surprised, how old are you ;)
 * And I believe, personally, just because you had 3 RfA's, is not a good reason to oppose, I believe the community would be interested in this case, why you use your right to oppose.
 * I also lost my first wikinews RfA, and that was a selfnom, so... Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I have nothing bad to say about Zachary, but a rubber stamp for someone who has only contributed on a regular basis since April 2 (just over a week) is not cool. There are less than 500 edits and not one of these edits have been a new article. Sorry, Zach, --SVTCobra 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well yes that true, but if you look at admin history, we should not be giving out admimship as every (or nearly every) admin's article count has gone down, and in many cases died after receiving adminship. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but still only less than 10 days here. My comment on no articles may have been in error. I looked at Zachary contribs and saw no edits with the bold "N" indicating new page. But now I think that only works on the recent changes page. Is that true? --SVTCobra 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some irregularities in the editing of this section, and I do not see them as being in good faith. Would those who have edited the votes of others care to explain themselves? --00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it has been squared away. I have been in contact with both Thunderhead and Dark Squall. Thunder accidentally changed Dark Squall's vote when meant to change own. --SVTCobra 00:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Dark Squall's vote (directly above my own) was accidentally edited when I meant to change my own support to an oppose.  Thunderhead  ►  00:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, i'll just post to note that the above statements are correct, it was just a mistake. —Dark_Squall 01:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, SVT, but I have to ask what you mean by "not one of these edits have been a new article"? I have actually written a few articles, though not necessarily international news stories, they are articles. —Z<b style="color:#10679f">a</b><b style="color:#084d83">c</b><b style="color:#003366">h</b><b style="color:#0e448d">a</b><b style="color:#1c55b5">r</b><b style="color:#2965db">y</b> talk 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at Zachary contribs and saw no edits with the bold "N" indicating new page. But now I think that only works on the recent changes page. Is that true? --SVTCobra 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I never noticed before, but now that you mention it, it appears that this is the case. It seems as though the only way to see pages created by a particular user is to go to Special:Newpages and enter the username. —<b style="color:#1780bb">Z</b><b style="color:#10679f">a</b><b style="color:#084d83">c</b><b style="color:#003366">h</b><b style="color:#0e448d">a</b><b style="color:#1c55b5">r</b><b style="color:#2965db">y</b> talk 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I took a shot at this user and the person never flinched. -Edbrown05 04:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OpposeHis first edit was less then a month ago. If he keeps up with what he has been doing I have no doubt he will receive adminship soon, but he is a bit too new right now. --Cspurrier 15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Define to new, I have seen less qualified users receive adminship Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 02:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Keep on editing and work your way up to adminship. Don't rush... — Fellow Wiki  Newsie  19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * abstain sorry, not at this time. You're on the right track though. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral A good user I can see doing brilliant things. But the user is very new - take some time before ladening yourself with admin tasks. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, looks trustworthy.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support DragonFire1024 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I've not tallied the votes on this, but I would like some of those who've voted oppose to reconsider their position before the vote closes. Failing that, will one of those who opposes take it upon themselves to re-nominate in a month or so? I trust Zachary to continue his good contributions and win over the doubters. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I still say "too new." What is the rush/need for Zach to be an admin? If you can demonstrate a reason, then maybe I'll reconsider. I contribute a fair amount and for longer than Zach, but I don't think admin would make my existence here much greater. Sure I could delete some spam instead of just tagging it speedy. Is Zach desperate to do some arduous archiving? --SVTCobra 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I still think two months is a little short, if he doesn't have a specific reason why he wants to be an admin. If there is a specific thing he wants admin buttons for then it'd be a different story. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Zachary has already set up two bots - one of which would require admin permission to go through archived pages, and also protect pages such as Category:April 1, 2007. I am not comfortable granting a bot admin status unless the owner already has that status. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Craig and Cobra. He is to new, I mean there were 4 edits in March and he's been on a non-stop editing rampage since April 2nd, but he's still too new. I waited a few months before I applied for adminship here. Re-apply in a month or two I say. --TUFKAAP 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)