Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ItsZippy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hurricanefan25 (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 15 October 2011 (→Questions for the candidate: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ItsZippy

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (4/4/1); Scheduled to end 23:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

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 edtor, then so be it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:24, 14 October 2011 (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: 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:
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:
Additional question from 28bytes
6. Which speedy deletion criterion do you feel is most misunderstood or misused, and why?
A:
Additional question from Baseball Watcher
7. If your an admin and you come across this what do you do?
A:
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] The sourced site is a blog that says it is the "Official blog of Blue Yellow Green Inc." Google only shows 150 hits on the subject, yet all the results given say things like "BYG Inc. is the largest research company in the state of Oregon."

The article is currently tagged as a {{db-hoax}} article. What would you do?

A:


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  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 he has a short stay, but that alone shouldn't be a cause for concern. Candidate seems very familiar with the project. I would hesitiate to entrust him with the promo. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  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]
Neutral
  1. I fully agree with Ajraddatz but find myself neutral. My76Strat (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ItsZippy&oldid=455619555"