Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Zippybonzo

< Wikipedia:Administrator elections | October 2024 | Candidates
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zippybonzo)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of an administrator election candidacy that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (75/347/194); See official results (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer Alt (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

edit

Zippybonzo (talk · contribs · they/them) – Heya, I’m Zippybonzo. I’ve been around for the best part of 3 years. My areas of focus are NPP, anti-vandalism and copyright to an extent. I recently looked again at the CCI backlog which I intend to focus my efforts on. I’m not expecting to get the backlog empty, but handling more recent cases is something that needs attention. I have never edited articles for pay, however I did participate in the Wikibench validation study, and received compensation for my time. I’ll be available for questions here throughout the remainder of the admin elections, so drop as many questions as you want below, and I’ll answer them to the best of my ability. There’s no such thing as a stupid question. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 06:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I’m primarily interested because I don’t do a lot of content work, so really I want to be handling background tasks, and leave the editors who are good at content to improve articles, instead of performing maintenance tasks. I initially intend to focus on CSDs, PRODs, AIV and UAA, and branch out once I get better at copyright, to help in copyright problems and contributor copyright investigations.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I’ll split this into content and behind the scenes because my content contributions are limited and they’re not my best contributions. Content wise, a while ago I noticed GoHenry up for deletion, and I knew that it was notable, so I decided to bring it up to Start class. Behind the scenes wise, I coordinated 3 NPP backlog drives, from July 2022 through May 2023. This involved quite a bit of planning, and then a fair bit of execution.
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: Last year, around this time, I was encouraged to leave the NPP coordination team, because of how I was coordinating drives in a way that made others feel like I was barking orders. In hindsight I should've taken that as my hint that I was doing it wrong, but I didn't. Eventually I did remove myself although it was never discussed onwiki. I was honestly a little annoyed because I didn't and still don't like criticism, though nobody really does. Then, what I should've done was take a week off and reflect upon it, and looked at what I'd done, but instead I left comment. After which my activity dwindled down, until over the last few weeks I've been trying to get more active. Moral of the story I learned: If people are telling you you're doing something wrong, they're most likely right and you should take a look at yourself.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from Giraffer

4. Last year, you opposed 0xDeadbeef at RfA for "lack of content creation", when they had brought an article to GA status. Your (self-described) best content work is a start-class article to which you made six edits and currently have 1.9% authorship of. Given your respective content records, why do you believe you should be made an admin, but (at the time) believed 0xDeadbeef should not?
A: I don't really know fully why I opposed at the time, however I was not the most familiar with OxDeadbeef, we'd rarely crossed paths, so what I imagine I did was a pile on based on what I had read. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Trainsandotherthings

5. You have expressed interest in focusing on CCI. You were recently asked to be more careful in your work in this area. How have you been taking this on board?
A: Firstly, I've learnt that the people who work in copyright do a thankless task and they need some extra people, but mainly, I've learnt that to mark something as not a violation requires a significant amount of research, reading and comparing, and that for someone new to the area like myself, don't mark stuff as not violations unless you have 110% certainty that it isn't, it's a lot easier to find a violation than it is to clear it as not a violation. In future, I plan to handle the possible violations, which can be presumptively removed, and leave the ones I don't think to be violations for later review. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Novem Linguae

6. Can you talk a bit about your 30 minute block in 2021? It was reversed by the same admin that placed it with the message "AGF", so it appears it might have been erroneous?
A: It's quite the story. For context. I was excited about beginning to edit Wikipedia, and tried to convince someone at school to get into editing (sounds stupid, I know). They turned out to vandalise a couple of pages, get blocked, the auto block caught me, it looked suspicious, Yamla indeffed me, I wrote an appeal, and they accepted it with AGF. I wouldn't say it was erroneous, but there was some misunderstanding and miscommunication from my part. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Thryduulf

7. Why did you choose to seek adminship via election rather than via a standard RFA?
A: I'm not expecting a 100%, or probably even 80% success, and I feel it'll be easier to fail here, because you don't have to read everyone's !votes, and it's less discouraging to fail here, because you can't keep reading back the votes. I also wanted to test the process, and plan on writing an essay about the new process if the trial run leads to full approval. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Ganesha811

8. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?
A: In terms of areas I don't plan to participate in, ANEW, ANI, some PERM requests (autopatrolled, template editor and new page reviewer) and History Merges (at least for the first few months). That's mostly because I either don't like the place (ANI and ANEW), for PERM requests, it's because they are quite controversial permissions and ideally I want to stay away from drama, and history merges because from what I've read, they're not simple. I'd probably wait a few months and watch history merges, and potentially start handling some, assuming I can figure out how the buttons work, but they seem like quite a complex process. As for eventually helping in PERM requests, I'd probably wait a bit, review requests but only provide comments or deny in obvious situations, and then eventually handle them more often. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Valereee

9. I'm concerned about your answer to Q4: so what I imagine I did was a pile on based on what I had read. Can you expand on your current understanding of how people piling on without fully understanding an issue affects discussions here on wiki?
A: Yep, from what I understand, it can skew the result of a discussion in one way or another, which is why discussions results factor in arguments as well as number of !votes. In the case of RfA, it can also discourage the candidate. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 10:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Bunnypranav

10. You mentioned that you initially didn’t handle feedback well during the NPP incident and also acknowledged that I didn't and still don't like criticism. As an admin, how do you plan to manage your personal discomfort with criticism while remaining open to community feedback, particularly when making difficult or controversial administrative decisions?
A: Ultimately, criticism is going to be a part of my editing, and where possible I plan to stay away from controversial areas for the forseeable future, until I am comfortably settled into admin tasks, after which I'd potentially start working in possibly more controversial areas, such as admin noticeboards. I'd like to say I don't want to be involved in any controversial areas, but that's wishful thinking, and nearly impossible to achieve, so I'd try to just keep out of places where I could get involved in controversy. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 12:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from BeanieFan11

11. You have not written a single article (the two listed on Xtools appear to be redirects expanded by others) – you've also expressed an interest in deletion-areas. Do you think it is appropriate for someone with no content work themself to be able to delete others' work? Why or why not?
A: I would say it depends on the case, if it's a spam page, attack page or other low quality page, yes. I also would say BLPPRODs could also be deleted by someone with no content work. PRODs are an edge case, if the subject obviously isn't notable, I would say yes, however if the subject is notable, even borderline, I would argue it should be taken to AfD. As for articles at AfD, I have no intent in handling edge cases, however if there's clear, or near unanimous consensus for the page to be deleted, I would say that an admin without content work could delete it, although it would probably be best for an admin experienced in content to make the closure. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 15:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Giraffer

12. One of your listed best contributions is coordinating backlog drives. While this is very helpful work, it does not involve you personally making major edits to Wikipedia. What do you consider to be your best edits on Wikipedia? You've mentioned your lack of content, so this could be a CCI cleanup, an big SPI, a comprehensive content review (GAN/FAC/FLC), etc.
A: I would say the 2 GA reviews (and the one that I'm in the middle of), are the closest to content work, albeit still quite lacking contributions. Relating to question 2, the main reason that I don't write articles or content is because I just can't think of anything to write of, and I don't like how the words I write sound when reading them back to myself. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 15:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Hey man im josh

13. Do you consider this recent comment of yours to be WP:GRAVEDANCING?
A: It was definitely untoward, and I should've recognised it was gravedancing before I posted it. It added no value and in hindsight I shouldn't have made it. I should've really left the incident and denied recognition, but it is what it is. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 17:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Significa liberdade

14. In the discussion below, you state that you would prefer to work with PROD and CSD rather than AfD because "PRODs and CSDs are less controversial deletions". Can you expand on this sentiment? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: PROD is described on WP:PROD as "a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion.", and CSD described on WP:CSD as "[to] specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion". They're typically less controversial, because they don't go through a full 7 day discussion, where there may be disagreements with the closure, although obviously the creator may disagree with the page being tagged for deletion, it typically doesn't have as much discussion, which usually means that it's less controversial for a deletion. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 18:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from HouseBlaster

15. Similar to your comment at 0xDeadbeef's RfA (see Q4), you also opposed Shushugah's RfA because Way too soon, 6000 edits isn’t enough. I also don’t particularly trust self-nominating - it just means that the nominee hasn’t been vetted by someone before being nominated. I admit that I find this a bit hypocritical, given that this is a self-nomination and you have 7,750 edits (7,650 > 6,000, but not by that much). Why do you believe you should be made an admin if Shushugah was not ready for adminship? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: I was planning to eventually run for adminship, but I felt that my best chance was at admin elections, and this may be the only run, so I felt it was a good opportunity to seize, experience the process and improve. The lowest edit count that typically succeeds is 8000 edits, and I felt it was close enough, and there may not be another chance to use the better (in my opinion) process, so I decided to run. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 18:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Sennecaster

16. In the discussion below, you said that you will watch the process to learn (properly) how it works, and do some of the less controversial stuff with regard to copyright. While CCI is not inherently controversial, it has a very high learning curve mostly overcome through practice and responding to feedback (including criticism) gracefully. To that point, you have said I didn't and still don't like criticism and I plan to stay away from controversial areas for the forseeable future. Participants are also frequently criticized - systematically removing content is a delicate process than can turn unpleasant very quickly, especially when mistakes are made, which naturally happens as someone gains experience. How do you plan to reconcile your avoidance of criticism with learning the nuances and complexities of copyright cleanup?
A: The comment about doing less controversial stuff was meant to be replying to the comment about deletions, but regardless, presumptive removals could definitely turn sour, so I plan to take it slow, only doing maybe 5 pages, wait a day to see if anybody has any feedback, and then do another handful of pages, until I'm confident that I'm doing it properly. I think the main way to avoid criticism for me is to just take it slow, make sure that any mistakes can be easily rectified, and build up confidence until I'm certain I can do it properly. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 07:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Rosguill

17 Could you specify what steps you would take to evaluate an article tagged for PROD after 7 days as an admin?
A Firstly as prerequisites, check that it has been at least 7 days, then check if any objections have been raised. Then I'd check that the reason for tagging still stands valid. If the reason was invalid to begin with, or the issues had been fixed, I would remove the tag without deleting. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 07:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from GreenLipstickLesbian

18. Despite having patrolled only 305 pages (many or of which have been the the project or userspace), despite being asked to step away from co-ordinating NPP drives out of concerns you were being domineering, and despite accusing an editor who asked you to step aside of blackmail, you have chosen to run partially based on your experience co-ordinating NPP drives. Similarly, despite having minimal copyright experience, I first met you when you announced your intention to start coordinating a the Copyright Cleanup Wikiproject in hopes of reviving what actual participants know is a fairly active, albeit non-chatty, Wikiproject. (Post). Given your apparent lack of hands-on experience in the areas your operate in (content creation, patrolling, deletion, copyright cleanup), why do you regularly attempt to co-ordinate and lead other editors with more more experience?
A: I'm very much overzealous, and I will come up with ideas that seem clever in my head, often in areas that I've not been involved in for longer than a few days, because I have a sudden thought that "example idea" might be the best way to improve this and reduce x backlog. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 12:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
19. You said in Q8 that you don't plan to participate in...PERM requests because you want to stay away from drama. Which is interesting, considering you have 25 edits to WP:PERM/NPR, 13 edits to WP:PERM/PM, and 42 edits to WP:PERM/R. (Most of these edits appear to be providing commentary on other editors' requests for permissions). So when you say that you will be eventually helping in PERM requests, I find no reason to doubt you. Yet, in Q4, you unapologetically admitted to jumping in with a pile on vote against a fellow editor. Could you expand on how you would choose to evaluate the skills, strengths, and weaknesses of your fellow editors, with particular focus to how you have (or have not) done so in the past and how you would do so as an administrator?
A: Q4 was intended to be more in the context of RfA, where I read what research others have done, and then make my decision off of that, and what I've seen from the candidate, and I wouldn't say unapologetically, it was last year, I was less experienced, and I made a decision based on what I had read, rather than doing my own research. With PERM requests, making the final decision is what I consider contentious, because it could result in either annoying the requester, or abuse of the permissions. Depending on the permission, I would either do an XTools overview, to check they meet the guideline statistics, and then a spot check of contributions to relevant areas (typically about 3-4 revert/warn combos per month for rollback, 1-2 requested moves and/or 3-4 requested moves/technical and/or 3-4 moves per month for page mover, about 10-20% of created articles for autopatrolled, AfD stats for NPR, AfC reviews (if relevant) and/or NPP school, for template editor, I'd probably leave that to the more technical admins, because I'm not great at understanding templates, etc). After that, I'd check talk pages (and archives if relevant) to ensure there aren't any major red flags being raised, and then assuming all is well, I'd grant the permission, if I spotted some potential issues, I'd probably comment and leave it for someone else to make the final decision, unless of course there were major red flags. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 12:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

edit

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

  • For Q4, Zippybonzo's work with NPP means that they know good (and bad) content where they see it. I'm not sure if 0xdeadbeef had similar activity in processes so closely tied to content. (t · c) buidhe 00:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe, in 2024, Zippybonzo has seemingly patrolled 34 pages. Of those pages, only five were in article space. (Of the remaining 29, 25 were redirects, and 4 were in user, draft, and project space.) Looking at all their 303 patrols, and that ratio seems remarkably consistent. I'm not analysing that, however, because they're not running on their content knowledge- but I don't think saying that they're heavily involved in processes involving content based on the fact that they've reviewed five articles in this past year is going to be persuasive. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually disagree with this and believe Zippy's NPP work is vastly overstated. I've had to correct them countless times when they've given incorrect advice on the NPP Discord, advice that someone standing for adminship should never be giving or that wrong about. You'll find, if you look through their patrol log, that they actually have very little experience reviewing articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD record: 80.00% match rate, n of 25. 3 keep !votes to 24 delete !votes. Mildly subjective comment: they have only participated in 3 AfDs in the past year, but they express an interest in deletion process (CSD and PROD). -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comment: I'm concerned about a candidate who expresses interest in deletion processes but has so little experience in them. These two recent AfDs [1], [2], which are 2/3 of the AfDs they've !voted in in the past year, don't inspire confidence. Their PROD log only has four items, but may have been turned off? (Nothing wrong with not keeping a log.) Their CSD log has not been turned off, but there are only ten items in the last year. -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering the PROD log isn't turned off, it's just that I don't nominate many PRODs outside of the NPP process, and within NPP, I use page curation to tag PRODs, iirc Special:Log/pagecuration should have some logs of deletion tags. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 07:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page curation deletion logs. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @DreamRimmer. I totally forgot about that log. -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, that's neat. This will make it a lot easier to find some things. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Edgemead Football Club was painful to read. Completely botched attempt to guide a COI editor through WP:DCM, for content we wouldn't want anyway. —Cryptic 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Piling on" to discussions rather than making considered, nuanced judgements based on available evidence may not be a characteristic we should be encouraging in our admin cohort. I also wonder if 12 days is long enough for a candidate to re-learn the complexities of CCI. And AfD is a worthy admin task, but when one has only partaken in 44—and two one of them this year—I would wonder how much experience has really been gained. SerialNumber54129 12:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re AfD (and XfD more generally), I don't plan to do much, if any work there for the first couple of years of adminship, however PRODs and CSDs are less controversial deletions and I'd probably rather do work there. Re CCI, I've not relearned CCI, and I'm not going to actively do much there for a few more months, but I will watch the process to learn (properly) how it works, and do some of the less controversial stuff. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 12:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say that's true about CSDs from the admin side. Yes, it's only supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions, but many things that are nominated are not, in fact, uncontroversial. A significant part of dealing with them is knowing when to decline them. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope for this discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also odd that the candidate expressed a commitment to support despite the instructions stating that voting is by secure poll and that during this discussion-only time, participants are discouraged from posting messages of support/opposition. SerialNumber54129 14:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was using it as a way of explaining why I was asking my question, not as a way of expressing my vote. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 15:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this should be interpreted as "keep it secret whether you intend to support". Just that we don't need to bloat the discussion with generic statements that don't contribute to the conversation or a bunch of bold votes that won't be counted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should probably be interpreted as participants are discouraged from posting messages of support/opposition. SerialNumber54129 15:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it's not a "message of support", it's a question which happened to mention that they intend to support. Sort of in the same way I sometimes sign off messages with "thanks", but I wouldn't call them a "message of gratitude". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find zippy's comment there to be acceptable. This is not the kind of diff I'd be comfortable opposing a candidacy over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that the comment was unacceptable. Still, we should consider questions in the format of "I support/oppose your nomination, and/but now answer the following" to be discouraged. There's no need to lace questions with such statements in RfA, which has dedicated sections for them, so it would be ironic if the new process introduced precisely to move away from that format of expressing advocacy would cause support/oppose advocacy to migrate upward, to the questions section. —Alalch E. 13:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to Q4 (my first question) is an explanation for why Zippybonzo cast the oppose !vote, but it doesn't answer the question about why they are not applying the same standard to themselves. I won't push further on it, but I've asked a second question which is hopefully easier to answer. Giraffer (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Giraffer, to answer why I'm not applying the same standard to myself, I'm not really sure, I made that oppose based on what I read in the discussion, and probably should've looked deeper, it's a bit crude for someone who has written no content to oppose someone who's written more than me. When nominating myself, I'd forgotten about the oppose, I should really apply the same standard to myself, so (assuming this passes) I'm making a commitment to write (or improve majorly) an article within the next year, and if I don't, I'll hand back the sysop right, because I should've held my own RfA votes against myself. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 15:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full credit to Zippy for their answer to Q3. I remember that incident, I imagine it's difficult to talk about, there isn't much published on wiki about it so not talking about it would have been easy, but instead zippy decided to be transparent about it. I think that answer shows some personal growth. There may be some other reasons to oppose this candidacy, but I think zippy should get full credit for that particular question and answer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAN & FAC notes. No activity at FAC. Four GAN reviews; listed here. All are checklist reviews, with only a little additional commentary showing what was reviewed. No evidence of spotchecks which have been required since March of last year; only one of these reviews predates that change to the instructions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned about his answer to Q4. First problem, it's double standard. Also, he promised to write more, but I like to see action rather than empty promises. Second problem, he failed to provide a rationale for his oppose last year. Third problem, "I did was a pile on" means that he was bandwagoning other editors. Traits that I like to see in future admins include having their opinion on different matters and the ability to defend their own opinions logically in a debate. This candidate has none. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:798C:64B5:CDB2:3714 (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is slightly odd to compare different editors but I suppose the point in Q4 still stands. I feel weird about them claiming that we'd rarely crossed paths. We're actually both active in areas around edit filters, I regularly patrolled WP:EFFPR and commented at WP:EFM at that time. There is also Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 11#Edit filter manager for User:0xDeadbeef, so I am a little surprised that they claim were not familiar with me. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew of you, and of your work around EF at the time, just not everything, for example I didn't know about your bot or content writing. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 10:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My intention with the question was to highlight a standard Zippy had set (one GA is not enough content), and ask why they did not hold themselves to that same standard. It wasn't supposed to be a comparison between you and them, but an opportunity for them to reflect on their content experience and how it stacks up against some of their own RfA criteria. I apologize if it was interpreted as rehashing old RfA opposition. Giraffer (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not see it as rehashing, I think it is certainly something to consider when evaluating this candidate. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright activity: Zippy has checked 9 CopyPatrol reports, never commented on a WP:CP listing, and edited 2 CCIs (Hauganm and Kippelboy). They've tagged [3] and [4] in the deletion PageTriage log, of which one was self-reverted due to being in the public ___domain. They have 4 G12s in their Twinkle CSD log, of which 2 are currently live; Special:Log/Chitra Ramaswamy was recreated and was a correct tagging, but Omnichannel retail strategy was a WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. For the CopyPatrol reports, they are all correct, but all of the checks are inverted of what they should be - "No action needed" is marked for pages that had copyvio and "Page fixed" for pages that had no issue. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comment: As mentioned in Q5, User:GreenLipstickLesbian and I pointed out two instances of missed CV on a CCI. The presumptive removal part is not obvious and I don't fault Zippy for that. However, I am unimpressed with the fact that they missed blatant CV because it wasn't picked up by the copyvio detector, and the lack of initiative to fix Varmahlíð themself. I understand that Zippy wants to gain experience in copyright before using the tools there, but I'm concerned about it being treated even as a premise for adminship given their track record (or lack thereof). Copyright cleanup also requires a very solid grasp on WP:V, and the lack of spotchecking on the GAN reviews that Mike Christie pointed out above does not inspire confidence in that. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I'm surprised Zippybonzo hasn't mentioned their three terms as coordinator at the Guild of Copy Editors (elections here, here and here). I'd have thought that would be a point of pride, not something to hide under a bushel. Whatever, it's nice to see they's still active on the project and I wish them luck in the election. Baffle☿gab 09:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I'd be rather surprised if he did mention it.He does not seem to have contributed much to the GoCE, either as an editor or coord: one c/e (New Amsterdam Theatre, which comprised one edit (!!!)) signed up for, he's only ever commented on the project discussion page three times, and one edit to requests. Hopefully there's a ton of stuff I'm not seeing, but looking at those elections, he were pretty focused on getting the 'Lead coord' position from the start (literally their second question after being elected the first time was to ask about the Lead position). In their second election, he offered again; this time Dhtwiki suggested the project can go another round without a lead. In the lastest election The again offered, being willing to step up to become a lead coordinator, given that we've cobbled around for about a year without one, and it's about time for us to get a lead coordinator. Their colleagues disagreed, suggesting that their work was limited and that he was someone able to do more work here. He was told, also, that he was stepping too far and stepping on toes, and that they haven't been very active at the GOCE since becoming a coordinator. While Zb suggested that he deliberately decided to step up to lead, because I would like to become more involved with the project, the Guild—like every other project, including that for finding new administrators—clearly prefers to judge its candidates by past achievements than future promises. SerialNumber54129 11:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedies

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. No error: Self-reverted after deletion was contested, creator saying "I am not done creating the page and citing sources".
  2. No real error: Minor mix-up, self-reverted.
  3. Highly excusable error: Not a clear-cut situation, self-reverted.
  4. Error: poor investigation. But this was in 2022.
  5. Not technically an error: Misused non-contributor user talk pages with no talk-related history are subject to U5, but while deletion would not have been inappropriate, it was more economical to simply blank and post a relevant warning, not requiring extra work from an admin.
  6. Not technically an error: Article content was indeed missing, but it was sufficiently clear what the purpose of this page was and that it was not intended as an article; the alternative to deletion employed by the responding admin was better. But this was in 2022.
  7. Error: This was clearly the start of an article about the party. But this was in 2022.
  8. Error: I don't understand how this could have been interpreted as "no context". But this was in 2021;
The tagging mistakes are consistent with someone starting editing in 2021, making a few mistakes and not repeating them. —Alalch E. 12:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that there's not a lot of CSD tagging to go off to show that they learned from those declines.
2024 – 8 items tagged, 2 declined
2023 – 18 items tagged, 1 declined
2022 – 57 items tagged, 5 declined
Personally I'd like to see more CSD tagging from someone who intends to work in that area. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the lack of the same mistakes repeated, and there being some subsequent CSD tagging, means that there is evidence that the editor is in the process of getting it, but evidence that they've got it would be, as you say, more CSD tagging. —Alalch E. 15:22, 24 October 2024 (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 the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Candidates/Zippybonzo&oldid=1300190325"