Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ItsZippy: Difference between revisions

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

Final (9/13/4); ended 18:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate. Regards SoWhy 18:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ItsZippy (talk · contribs) – I've been editing Wikipedia for 2-3 months now and would like to nominate myself for adminship. During my time here, I have spent time in numerous areas, including writing articles, participating in deletion debates, dealing with vandalism and helping out other users. I expect some people will be concerned at the amount of time I have been here and I accept that I have not been at Wikipedia very long. However, I do believe that I have gained a lot of experience in a wide range of areas and have demonstrated dedication to the project, maturity and trustworthiness. Havning said that, if the community thinks I should spend more time as a regular editor, then so be it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal - I said in my nomination that if the community thought my experience at Wikpieda was a problem, then I would accept that. As that seems to be the case, I withdraw my application. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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: I intend to work mostly in the areas of deletion (XfD, CSD and PRODs), and dealing with vandalism. I have spent a lot of my time as an editor joining deletiong discussions, tagging pages for deletion, reverting vandalism and reporting users - I think admin tools would help me to contribute in this way more.

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

A: Firstly, I feel that I have contributed a lot in improving the Irenaean theodicy and Augustinian theodicy articles, both of which I hope will pass their GA nominations. I have also spent a lot of time dealing with vandalism - reverting, warning and reporting. I feel I have been able to contribute at AfD discussions, sometimes being able to rescue articles, such as 1 and 2 Finally, my discussions with other users (which I will detail below) I feel have been beneficial. I have had extensive conversations with other ediots about how to imporove articles as well as listening to feedback on my contributions. I have also been able to have mature and civil discussion with users when we disagree over something, as in 1 and 2.

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: I've had a few disagreements with editors in the past - that's inevitable. I always try to approach disagreements positively, always assuming good faith and being as civil as possible. I like to clearly outline what I believe and listen to other people. During one AfD discussion an editor and I had a disagreement about the notability of an article. I was able to remain civil, listen to what they said and take them clearly through my argument. I'm currently involved in another AfD discussion, where I am again civilly and reaonably putting over my point of view. I do make mistakes sometimes and will always admit it and apologise when I am wrong.

Additional question from Beeblebrox

4. Since you intend to work at vandal fighting, under what circumstances would you block a user who had only been warned for their behavior once? Are there any circumstances where it is appropriate to block a user with no prior warning?

A: I'll answer these in reverse. There are very few occasions when it would be appropriate to block a user without warning; the only time I can think it would be is in a sockpuppetting case. As for cases with one warning... I think really sereve and obviously bad faith vandalism might warrant a block after 1 warning (though that would be rare). Also, issues including severe personal attacks, legal threats, copyright violations and edit warring might require a block after one warning. In all of these cases, though, it would depend on the specific circumstance.

Additional question from Beeblebrox

5. And since you plan to work with deletion, if you were closing AFDs and came across one that had already been relisted and after two weeks consisted solely of the nomination and one user who agreed with it, what would you do? What if one additional comment came in at the last minute arguing to keep it?

A: If an AfD comes to an end with only the nominator and an additional editor giving their opinions, I do not think we could claim any conensus had been reached. If the discussion had already been relisted, I'd close the AfD and keep the page.

Additional question from 28bytes

6. Which speedy deletion criterion do you feel is most misunderstood or misused, and why?

A: I think the most misunderstood tends to be A7. That's for two reasons, really. First, people tend to tag articles for CSD under A7 when they've not really looked for reliable sources. I have seen plenty of articles tagged for CSD (and also at AfD) where no notability is claimed and then I or another user manage to find some good sources. Also, there are sometimes cases of people tagging CSD under A7 when the article does not fit in any of the categories provided (and should instead PROD or nominate at AfD). This is rarer, but it happens.

Additional question from Baseball Watcher

7. If your an admin and you come across this what do you do?

A: The article is tagged under A7; I see two problems with this tagging. Firstly, this is about a product and does not fit into any of the A7 categories - if notability is an issue, then it should be PRODed or AfDed. Secondly, although no sources are provided in the article, it may still be notable. I would first check myself for sources to see if I could establish notability. If not, I would then probably PROD the article.

Optional question from Hurricane25

8. Say you come upon an article that reads:

"Blue Yellow Green Inc. is a company that is dedicated to research.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} It is the largest research company in Oregon, and has been awarded the ABC Award for Quality and the ZYX Award for dedication.^[1][3][7] It is criticized because it often considered smelly!!!!!"

Google only shows 1,500 hits on the subject, yet nearly all of the Google results say "BYG Inc. is the largest research company in the state of Oregon" or similar statements. The article is currently tagged as a {{db-hoax}} article. There are two editors to the article, one who created it, and another who said "it is smelly!!!" The writer of the article then removes the "smelly!!!" vandalism. The seventh source links to a Facebook page promoting the company; however, it lists the CEO as "Bobby Zinner," which upon a quick search of the company's official website, is not the actual CEO of the website. Further content is added to the article, citing an eighth source with more false information from the creator. What would you do?

A: I think with that article, both the accuracy (is it a hoax?) and notability need to be addressed. I first look to deal with the hoax issue, which I think the Google search results you said existed would probably do. Then notability would need to be established. I would again look for sources to see if any reliable, third-party sources could be found. With a company, I think using Google News and searching other news services would be the best way to do that. If it seems the company is not notable, I would tag it for CSD (I would not delete it outright, as I believe a second opinion is almost always needed in deletion, especially with A7). If the company is notable, I would then seek to address any of the problems I could and tag it with appropriate cleanup tags.

Additional question from Kudpung

9. A two part question: 1) If you were patrolling new pages what would arouse your suspicion of sockpuppetry? 2) When investigating a case of socking, you find that one of the users has an UBX claiming residence in the UK, and the other, an IP user who has made near identical edits, geolocates to Asia, what would be your conclusion(s)? Note: These question of mine are of course entirely optional,

A: If one editor edits in a very similar way, or edits similar article, to another editor which has either been recently blocked or is in some state of disrepute, I would be suspicious. I do not think that, as an admin, I would have much involvement with sockpuppet investigations. However, in your example, I would probably seek the advice of another admin or trusted user.

Additional question from Difficult Situations

10. Thank you for your interest in administrator duties. What would you do if an editor were to undo your edits multiple times?

A: Unless it was unquestionable vandalism to a page, I would always try to start a discussion with the user. If I am the one who makes the change, and I get reverted, I will leave the page as it was originally after the first revert and try to start a discourse with the other user. I would post on the talk page to try and resolve the issue. When I've been in the situations before, talking to a user will often prevent an edit war and resolve the issue.

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

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

• Editing stats posted to talk. Baseball Watcher 23:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. While I have concerns that the editor does not have enough experience on Wikipedia, from what I've seen he is a level-headed, mature user, and I doubt that he would break anything with the tools. I doubt that this request will pass, but this user really is doing a great job, and I don't want that fact to get lost in a sea of opposes. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - I was very close to automatically jumping down to neutral and brushing the candidate off as needing more experience, but then I started reading into his edits. I am extremely impressed by how calm and collected he presents himself (I'm using the male pronoun, my apologies if you aren't a "he"), especially in situations where a flame war could quickly escalate such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lawrence_Kennedy. Through all of the AfDs he has posted to, I see a level of clarity and deliberation that is unfortunately not seen from every person that contributes to them. From a prospective anti-vandalism admin, I would like to see a little bit more anti-vandalism experience but that's not something that's going prevent me from giving my otherwise wholehearted support. Trusilver 23:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support yes his history is a little sparse, but he appears intelligent, good natured, and clueful: Solid AFD arguments (e.g. [1][2][3]), a solid history of vandal fighting, 18 of his last 21 speedy deletion tags have been actioned (so just review the three declines and learn them well, Zippy), a decent grasp of consensus, and all of his request for page protection have been actioned. Here is a chance to push back against the even increasing standards of RFA I hear so much complaining about. JORGENEV 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The third one of those AFD links is from 2006. Comments were made there by Zippy (talk · contribs) who despite the similar name is not the same user and is already an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   You do make a solid point Beeblebrox. Stricken. I was searching for "per Zippy" when I found that one. Heh. JORGENEV 00:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I would also add that some five years later WP:GHITS is generally considered an invalid argument anyway, but I suppose that's neither here nor there as far as this candidate since he never made that claim. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. I don't see why not. True this candidate has a short stay, but that alone shouldn't be a cause for concern. Candidate seems very familiar with the project. I wouldn't hesitiate to entrust this editor with the promo. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'm going to go ahead and support with basically the same rationale as Trusilver above. I get the sense that this user would make a great admin despite their relative lack of experience. Besides, we need more zippers with the sysop bit. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Why not? James500 (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support, As a new user myself, ItsZippy and I had a civil discussion about the name to a page that I thought needed changed. I still think it should be changed due to Commonname but there isn't enough evidence. However ItsZippy is a civil and honest user and is doing good at what he is doing. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. I became an admin after 2-3 months of real activity and turned out okay. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. I agree with Wizardman and think a few months activity and several thousand edits is enough to assess someone competence for the tools. Contribs all look good. No red flags that I can see. WJBscribe (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose You've only been editing for only 2-3 and I think its too early. Baseball Watcher 23:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Concerns with limited experience in candinate's stated areas of interest, breadth of exposure, and familiarity with the English Wikipedia. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sorry, you're doing a great job as explained in the supports, but the depth and breadth of experience required of being an admin on the project is too great to obtain in such a short period of editing. Especially for an admin interested in deletion: I'd suggest hoeing into more WP:AFDs for a few months and checking out WP:DRV, the latter being the place to be to really learn about deletions. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose, for all the obvious reasons – lack of experience, low edit count, suspicious spike in activity last month – but also because of the number of times that "civil" and "mature" are mentioned in the nomination statement and in answers to the mandatory first three questions. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Certainly a very civil editor and with a heart in the right place, but Malleus, Mkativerata, and Fastily have said the essential Does not meet any of my criteria and 3 months and 3,000 edits are insufficient to prognosticate on a future performance as an admin. I would suggest reading WP:NPP and helping out with those urgent tasks - to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of page quaulity and deletion policy. Following through with participation in WP:AfD, WP:AIV and other administration-related areas, as well as working on a help desk would also broaden your own knowledge as well as illustrate how you would handle users' problems. Do also read WP:RFAADVICE before trying again in 6 months or so. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Ability to remain civil in discussions and keep a level head is commendable and required of all editors. That said, there's quite a bit more to administration. I've never been one concerned with automated edits, but with the high percentage, there's not much that makes me confident that there's a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the community policies and guidelines. I support the recommendations made by Kudpung above and look forward to seeing you again in the future. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   (Moved to neutral, but if this still fails please do consider my advice) Oppose - Unfortunately, your experience level drastically fails to meet my RfA criteria. I had a strong urge to go neutral on this because I do seriously share the sentiments of the supporters, but because of the lack of experience there's no realistic chance of this RfA passing. Going neutral will only prolong an inevitable early closure, and that wouldn't be fair considering the number of questions you got instantly slammed with. Keep editing regularly for six months or so, follow other RfAs, get more experience here in all different areas, and give it another go, and you'll have a much better chance then. I think you're probably admin material, you just lack the needed experience. I hope to support you sometime in the future! Best regards, Swarm 04:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose Sorry but I find both your number of edits and time spent pretty low to what I expect. Better luck next time. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 05:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. I'm reasonably sure you'll make admin, but at this time, in my opinion, you're simply not ready. You lack experience in admin-related areas and, furthermore, I agree with Kudpung that 3 months and 3.000 edits are too few to foresee how you'll act as a sysop. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose You need to be active for 1 year and have a lot of edits, you may apply in March or April 2012 becuase, your still active. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Is it 2 months or 3? Either way, ItsZippy thinking he's already got the necessary experience shows a lack of judgment, objective self-awareness, and a realistic understanding of the realities of adminship. There are several spelling mistakes and instances of convoluted wording and sloppy grammar in the answers. I'm concerned by the answer to Q8 where, ItsZippy tells us, "I believe a second opinion is almost always needed in deletion". I suggest that he concentrates on writing and improving articles: a slow but sure way to understanding policies and practices, and more enjoyable than cramming for a crown. Plutonium27 16:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

    Just curious - why does his answer to Q8 concern you? Is exercising caution before deleting content not a good thing? WJBscribe (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. oppose for now You've got a really solid handle on Wikipedia for someone who has only been active for three months. However there seem to be significant gaps and your knowledge of policies and you seem a bit too hesitant to actually use the admin toolset . For the record, your answer to my first question was pretty good, but I think you missed the mark with your answer to my second question. As these were requests for judgement calls there were no right or wrong answers exactly, but I would expect most admins would delete or relist a second time in that situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose - WP:NOTNOW —SW— ^spout 16:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. The answers to questions 4, 5, and 6 demonstrate a bit of a weakness in the candidate's understanding of how we do things. 5, in particular is problematic given that the candidate intends to work on XfDs. The answers to 4 and 6 are probably harmless, except that they indicate the candidate doesn't have a level of understanding we would normally expect an administrator to have. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I fully agree with Ajraddatz but find myself neutral. My76Strat (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moral support--Guerillero | My Talk 15:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moral support. There's a lot to like about this candidate, including his pleasant demeanor and thoughtful answers to the questions. It's clear that this RfA is not going to succeed, but I hope the candidate will take heart from the statements in both the support and oppose columns; even several of those opposing think he has the potential to be a great admin with some more seasoning. In particular, I think Mkativerata and Kudpung offer excellent advice. Keep up the good work, keep building your experience and breadth of knowledge, and in six months or so I suspect there will be a number of respected editors willing to nominate you for a second try. 28bytes (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Immoral support. How can the present Wikipedia exist with an omniscient, omnipotent, good being?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral - I still think you need a bit more experience, but you've impressed me with some of the answers, you're obviously very clueful, and, even if this isn't successful, I'm very confident that you'll be a great admin in the future. Swarm 18:18, 15 October 2011 (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.