Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ItsZippy 2

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

ItsZippy

Final (67/11/3); ended 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC) - The candidacy is successful. I would, however, remind the new administrator to be cautious in handling speedy deletions. MBisanz ^talk 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination by Pedro

ItsZippy (talk · contribs) – Dear all. I'm delighted to offer up ItsZippy for the mop. This came about after a request at the start of February [1] where I advised ItsZippy to wait until the start of April [2] after his first RFA - a WP:NOTNOW closure. Pretty much the bulk of the opposition at that time was based on lack of tenure /number of edits with some concern around the questions. Well, since then we've seen 5 months of activity and some addiitonal 5,000 edits (for those who like to count such things). Whether this will still be "enough" for everyone is open to debate, but I would argue it's more than sufficent to provide enough evidence of ItsZippy's abilities and demeanour.

• ItsZippy has expanded on my talk page, but he is now more driven to article work than previously, when a lot of his work was using Huggle (not in and of itself a bad thing, but we all acknowledge that at RFA more than quiet "huggling" is required. 43% edits in the main space seems like a sensible ratio for someone also interested in the back end admin work. I high use of article talk pages demonstrates the desire for collaboration. The candidate is also active doing non admin closures at WP:AFD - I've been back through these and find nothing contentious or concerning - one minor slip up was courtesly acknowledged [3].
• On the housekeeping side all is fine - clean blocklog, rollback rights, sensible signature and a sensible user page (which is worth a perusal for extra detail on the candidate's work, which I won't duplicate here).
• I believe ItsZippy should have the extra tools to help wikipedia out, and thus I'm delighted to nominate and support. Pedro :  Chat  11:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Steven Zhang

I'm proud to co-nominate ItsZippy for adminship here. I've worked with him over the past months in dispute resolution areas and am confident that he has the right set of skills to wield the mop. Pedro has covered a majority of his positive attributes, but the key skill he brings to the table is experience in dispute resolution. A regular volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard, he possesses a rare skill - the ability to diffuse a difficult dispute. We have very few administrators who are also experienced in dispute resolution, and I think the other attributes that he brings to the table: decent AFD rationales, quality contributions to the article space and clue full input to discussions, is more than enough to give him the mop. His edit count is on the low side and activity isn't as high as some here may seek, but I'd put it down to quality over quantity here. He's done good work and isn't going anywhere. I hope the community will agree that ItsZippy is ready to wield the mop. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for the nominations; I accept. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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 plan to start slowly and with what I am already experienced in: that will predominantly be closing AfDs, as well as spending some time with CSDs and PRODs, and various aspects of anti-vandalism. I have had plenty of experience here, so should start well there. In the areas I am less experienced, I will make sure I am acquainted with processes beforehand and go slowly, seeking advice.

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

A: My best contributions have to be my work on philosophy & theology related articles. I worked with other editors to improve Prosperity theology, which became a featured article earlier this year. I have also created Augustinian theodicy (current an FAC), drastically improved Irenaean theodicy and recently created Religious language out of a redirect and brought it to good article status - those four are probably the ones I have most enjoyed editing and that I am the most proud of; the rest of my content contributions are listed at my userpage. Though my primary contributions are to content, I have also spent a lot of time assisting others at the Help Desk, I have contributed to the new Teahouse project as a host, I have done some dispute resolution (though not so much of this recently) and I have my fair share of anti-vandalism and new page patrolling. Finally, I like to spend a lot of time working with and helping other users; I feel that I have been a good influence to a number of people I have interacted with in the past.

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 have had disagreements with users in the past, but nothing I would really class as a conflict, and certainly nothing that has caused me any stress. Of my recent interactions, I have had to raise some concerns at the talk page of someone I am mentoring ([4], [5]); I have also disagreed on occasion with a user I am collaborating with on an article (the discussion can be found at Talk:Kantian ethics). I have also taken part in conflict resolution in the past, as Steven said in his nomination. Aside from these, I can't think of any recent disputes I've had, and I have never had any major conflicts. If there's something I've overlooked that someone manages to dredge up, I'll willingly discuss it.

Additional question from Achowat

4. You have indicated a desire to work in the Deletion processes (CSD, PROD, AFD). Can you explain, in your own words being however brusque or verbose you'd like, your opinions of WP:BLP and why that policy is important to the project, and how deletion can be used to better stay without our BLP-boundaries?

A: I believe WP:BLP is vital to the project. This is partly due to legal reasons (we certainly don't want to post libellous content), but is also important for maintaining the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia - if we want to be taken seriously, we need to make sure what we say on living people is accurate, neutral and sourced (this is especially important for living people because what we write can have a real impact in the world). Deletion is one of a number of tools we can use to ensure we abide by this policy. In some cases, particularly with vandalism or single problematic edits to articles, deletion need not be considered as we can easily revert the problems. Deletion is useful because it prevents BLP articles from remaining unsourced for longer than a week (through BLPPROD). I think this works well - it gives a week for people to improve the article so that we don't prematurely delete newly created articles, yet ensures that BLP articles do not remain unsourced. CSD is also useful in cases where even leaving an article for a week would be inappropriate.

Additional question from Keepscases

5. If the usage of Wikipedia were made illegal and punishable by death in the United Kingdom, what would you do?

A: I do value Wikipedia and enjoy editing it, but I'm afraid I value my life a little more. If using Wikipedia was made illegal, I would not use Wikipedia (though would probably protest about it to Parliament).

Additional question from Salvio giuliano

6. What is your opinion regarding WP:NOTCENSORED? In particular, how and when do you think this policy should be applied vis-à-vis controversial content?

A: I think WP:NOTCENSORED is important in cases where objectionable material does provide encyclopedic value (so, of course, it would not apply to spam, vandalism, and the like). The situation can be difficult with controversial content (often due to the strong opinions and emotional attachments); I personally believe that each case should be considered alone, weighing the nature of the article against the content in question. Generally, if an article would be improved by having objectionable content on it, the content should be there (articles about sexual acts/organs, or about Muhammed, for example, are improved in terms of their encyclopedic value if they have images of sexual acts/organs or the prophet Muhammed). Where a reader would not be better informed about the subject were objectionable content present, and the content has no direct link to the topic, there is no need for the content (for example, an image of sexual intercourse on our article on love). I therefore propose that, in terms of inclusion, objectionable content does need need special treatment (the principles I have laid out I would probably apply to all images). The key distinction is the emotional connection and likelihood for strongly held opinions - these mean that the process of discussion & implementation should be approached much more carefully.

Additional question from BuickCenturyDriver

7. You stated you've intended to work in anti-vandalism. Many newcomers often get block as a "Vandalism-only account" after only one or two vandal edits. The only talk page message they get is a notification they are blocked indef.

a: You witness new user John Doe making a few vandal edits. How inclined would you be to indef block a user as a VOA? Would you send a warning or would you block?

b: Would you be willing to unblock a user if they requested it, given the fact the block was their first one?

A: Ooh, a two part question. I'll answer in two parts.

a: As much as possible, I think at least one warning should be given before blocking a user, but that will depend on the severity and extent of the vandalism. When it is obvious that a user knows that they are vandalising (or at least knows that they are being disruptive, even if they are not acquainted with our vandalism policy), then a block without warning might be warranted. This would encompass repeatedly inserting large amounts of nonsense (repeatedly & large to ensure that it is not an accident), repeatedly inserting racist comments to articles, and similar vandalism. A warning may not be needed in such cases, as the user is obviously intentionally disrupting Wikipedia - a warning would be unlikely to prevent this, so a block is necessary to stop them from continuing. Other kinds of vandalism tend to just be the result of people who do not know what to do, or are bored (the typical "John smith is cool") - it is classed as vandalism, but is not as malicious. In these cases (and these tend to be the vast majority, I have found) a few warnings before a block would be a better route, as there is a chance that we can prevent the vandalism without resorting to a block. To summarise, then, blocks without warnings should be issued when it seems very unlikely that a warning will not stop a user from vandalising. The goal of warning and blocking for vandalism is to stop people from vandalising: if a warning might be enough, that should be used first; if a warning has little chance of working, an immediate block may be a better course of action.

b: I think accepting unblock requests from users can be useful - I like what is written at WP:ROPE. When considering unblock requests, I would want to make sure that the user in question understands why they have been blocked and has shown a willingness to change (and of course has not recently been blocked for the same thing). Hopefully, the user will have learnt what the problem was and will continue to edit positively; if they go back to vandalism, another (probably longer) block can easily be issued. Leaving a warning with the acceptance (along the lines of, if you vandalise again, your next block will be longer) wouldn't hurt. However, if the vandalism that earned them the block fell under my first category (in part a), in that they would have known that they were being very disruptive, I would be less likely to accept the request and would want to see a greater understanding and commitment from them before I considered it. This seems to me to be an effective way of helping potential positive contributors see and learn from their mistakes while ensuring that people who really just want to vandalise are prevented from doing so.

Additional questions from Whenaxis

8. Are you open to recall?

A: Yes, I would like to as as transparent and accountable as possible. I will be open to recall in some form, though the exact nature of that I am yet to decide. I would always encourage users to raise any issues they have with me on my talk page - if someone thinks I am doing something wrong, I'd like to know so I can either explain why I've done something or, if I am wrong, apologise and fix it. If it got to a stage where the community really thought that I should resign, then I would do so.

9. What is the worst mistake you've made on Wikipedia? What did you do to correct it?

A: Ooh, that's a tricky one. The first thing that springs to mind would be my handling of this mediation case back in February. The mistake was probably opening the case before having fully understood everything that was going on, which I believe led to some of the problems, and was also why the case never reached a conclusion. To resolve the issue, I first asked for guidance [6] [7] and then tried to close the case as well as possible. I believe I managed to close it without leaving any more problems, even though the issue was not resolved. I then gave advice to some of those involved about how to continue here. My mistake was opening the case too early, without all the information; I believe I managed to resolve the issue well.

Additional question from Josh Parris

10. If an administrator got about 10% of their CSD calls wrong (and reversed by other sysops) would any action need to be taken? If so, by who? At what point would intervention be (or not be) required?

A: If an administrator got 10% of their CSD calls wrong, they should be open to criticism. I would hope that any administrator would listen if someone was unhappy with their CSD calls (or anything else) and be able to deal with it personally, without the need for any external involvement. If an administrator is unwilling to listen to criticism, that is a problem in itself and needs to be addressed by the wider community. Intervention would be required, then, when an administrator is unwilling to listen to and act upon valid criticism from other users.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 11. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 11a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?

• A: Generally, editors should be blocked to prevent them from disrupting Wikipedia (in whatever form that may take) when alternative methods prove ineffective. Often, giving warnings to users and discussing their edits with them first can be just as preventative, so should be pursued before blocking. Having said that, in some cases, warnings may not be necessary if it seems obvious that warnings will be ineffective (my answer to 7a expands upon this). An editor could be unblocked if the block really was unfair (though that should be discussed with the blocking admin first), or if the user acknowledges what they did wrong and commits to reform (my answer to 7b expands upon this).

• 11b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?

• A: Articles should be protected to prevent disruptive or dangerous editing to an article, most often in the form of vandalism or edit warring. In the case of vandalism, semi-protection should only be used when multiple IP addresses are vandalising, and that the benefits of semi-protecting would outweigh the potential loss of edits from good faith IP editors. Protecting because of edit warring should be done carefully, as it may upset those involved, but nonetheless should be done if other attempts to prevent the edit war are ineffective. With an edit war, the current version should be protected, unless this gives an obvious advantage to one party, in which case, a version before the dispute should be protected. Pages should be unprotected when the rationale for protection no longer applies.

• 11c. ...a page to be speedily deleted (or speedily restored)?

• A: There are very strict guidelines for speedy deletion. A page should only be speedily deleted if it falls clearly into one of the speedy deletion categories. If it does not, the page should be PRODed or sent to AfD.

• 11d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: IAR exists to prevent excessive bureaucracy at Wikipedia. When applying a rule would clearly detriment Wikipedia, it would be acceptable to ignore it. This is best applied when editors are willing to listen to criticisms and are happy to discuss the problem should people take issue with their application of IAR.

• 12. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: Determining consensus is about considering all of the arguments proposed and determining which argument has the strongest support. Strength of support partially takes into account numbers, but should be more concerned with effective argumentation and appropriate use of policy. I believe using policies, guidelines and precedents to be useful in an argument, as they utilise a wider consensus - they will have the support of the wider community, so indirectly allow more people into the debate. Sometimes conflicting policies may clash; in these cases, as before, the arguments with the strongest support (based mostly on argumentation & other policies) should be called the consensus. In some cases, there will be no consensus - that is when the strength of support for either side is roughly equal, or when an discussion has no strong, policy-based arguments. Generally, no consensus means no change (though at DRN it could be reasonable to relist the debate). The major differences between talk page discussions, AfD and DRV are the arguments likely to be used, as different policies will apply to different areas. Talk page discussions are also slightly different, as the action to be taken is not always as clear (unlike AfD which has a limited number of possible actions) so the consensus established must also determine which particular action should be taken.

• 13. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Exact action would depend on the dispute in question. In most cases, I would first ensure that both users have been warned and would try to encourage a positive discussion on the talk page. If this does not work (or if another user had already taken that step) and the edit warring continues past 3RR, short blocks for the two users to prevent the edit war might be appropriate (possibly longer if they had recently been blocked for edit warring). In a small number of cases, one user might be in the 'right' - perhaps with vandalism, or BLP violations. I would be more sympathetic to this user (depending on the specifics of the situation) but would suggest to him that contacting an administrator is a better course of action that edit warring over it.

• 14. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: I would like to be an administrator because I believe it would help me better contribute to Wikipedia. I believe the admin-type work I have done as a regular editor has been helpful (to AfD, new page patrolling, anti-vandalism, dispute resolution, etc) and being an administrator would better enable me to serve the project in these ways.

Additional question from Tom Morris

15. I hate to pile on with another question, but could you explain what your opinion is of WP:COMPETENCE and when it would be appropriate to "competence block" a user?

A: I do believe that competence is important at Wikipedia; we should encourage editors not to get involved in what they are incompetent at and make efforts to help them improve. Often, there is no need to block a user because they can be mentored and taught; however, there will be circumstances in which a block is required. I would suggest that these circumstances are pretty much in line with our current block policy - when other preventative methods have been exhausted, or would obviously not work, a user may be blocked. With competence, I think that exhausting alternative methods is very important; if we can teach someone to recognise and act upon their problems, they may well become a positive contributor. However, there will be a stage at which warnings, mentoring and advice has failed to work. At this stage, if they continue to disrupt Wikipedia because of their incompetence, a block may be appropriate. However, I believe that this will occur in the minority of cases: many users are able to learn from the advice of other users (even if the advice is just to leave), so a block really is a last resort.

Additional question from Boing! said Zebedee

16. Can you please explain how you would deal with a CSD:A7 deletion request on a biographical article?

A: No problem. I would first check the article itself to see if the A7 criterion is really met. If there was any credible assertion of notability at all (even it is not supported by sources and even if I would vote delete at AfD), I would decline the request (and let the person who tagged it know). If I declined the request, I would then try to see if I could improve the article myself and determine whether or not a PROD/BLPPROD/AfD would be appropriate. I would search for reliable sources - if I found enough sources to convince me that the person is notable, I would add them to the article. With it being a BLP article, I would make sure that anything that is likely to be to challenged or might be contentious is supported by a reliable source and remove any material that I cannot support with sources (following the guidelines at WP:BLPSOURCES). Alternatively, if the article contained no relevant sources about the person at all and I could find none myself (and it was created after 18 March 2010), I would BLPPROD it. If there were some sources but I was still not convinced of the article's nobility, I would then either PROD the article or send it to AfD. If the CSD tag was accurate - that is, if there were no credible claims of notability - I would still look for sources myself and try to improve the article, in the way I outlined above. It may be that the person is indeed notable, but that the creator of the article failed to assert that notability. If I could not find a credible claim to notability, I would then delete the article according to A7.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/ItsZippy
• Requests for adminship/ItsZippy 2

• Links for ItsZippy: ItsZippy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for ItsZippy can be found here.
• Stats on talk page.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 15:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Stats on talk page.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 15:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Support: I've seen this user around a lot, particularly at the Teahouse, but also in some of the DR venues; I've seen him in action in a few places, and overall, I'm quite impressed. Civil, reasoned, friendly, patient, and clueful (as befits a philosopher!) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - passes my requirements with flying colors. Achowat (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Support I've seen Zippy (I hope you like being called that) doing anti-vandalism work, like CSD, AIV, RFPP, etc. I also see this user around the Teahouse, as Writ Keeper stated before, helping out newcomers. I think he will make a fine admin. -- Luke (Talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Support. The lack of experience is a slight concern, as is the way too soon first RfA from last October, but I see no serious concerns and ItsZippy has made good, well-rounded contributions to the project. I see no reason why not. --Michig (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Support How can I oppose if Keepscases supports? (kidding...)--v/r - TP 16:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   As an addendum, question 16 doesn't bother me. I think 'notability' was a mistype and the candidate knows what they meant.--v/r - TP 01:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

8. Strong Weak support - Strong content contributions, good policy knowledge, etc. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   Actually, the user needs to brush up on WP:CSD a bit more. Now personally I couldn't care less if he had wanted nothing to do with CSD, but the rejection rate and the blooper in question #16 together with a desire to work in the CSD area makes me pause. However, he has made so many other helpful contributions that I will not fully withdraw my support. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

9. Support Bruvtakesover (T|C) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
10. Strong Support Experience creating high-quality content, helping new users, clueful input on policy, I don't see much more that we could ask for from him! Also, I think he's being a bit modest when he says he "worked with other users to improve" Prosperity theology to featured status, he's the one who came up with the idea of progressing past Good article with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
11. Support as co-nominator. Good luck. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
12. Support - Have seen their name many times and are a very good editor. Yasht101 :) 17:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
13. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
14. Obviously, as co-nom. Pedro :  Chat  18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
15. Support No reason not to support this. Mythio (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
16. Support. AfD work looks good. _{Although he sounds like a sockpuppet.} Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
17. Support Other than the fact he appears to be seeking the role of adminship I don't see any issues with this user. I have seen this user around every once and a while and I thought this user was already an admin. O.o—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
18. Strong Support - as I am adopted by this user, and I know he will be a brilliant administrator, and will always be a brilliant user. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
19. I've bumped into the candidate a few times on wiki and been reasonably impressed. Deleted contributions look pretty good, I even saw an A1 tag - but then saw that the time gap was long enough to be OK (over hasty A1s are one of the most common tagging errors). One of the question answers is a smidgen off, BLPprod is ten days not a week. But perfection isn't required, and I'm confident that ItsZippy will do well. ϢereSpielChequers 20:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
20. A bit on the newer side, but a reasonable editor. Secret ^account 20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
21. Support. He does seem like he's seeking the mop out - but from what I see in his history, he's looking to be a sysop for entirely selfless purposes (e.g. being able to handle deletions himself, instead of waiting around for someone else to actually perform them), which is something I can totally get behind. I've not had any interactions with him, but I've snooped a bit and his levelheadedness jumps off the page, which just gives me one more reason to support this all-around clueful user. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
22. Support ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Head firmly screwed on, good answers to questions, enough experience in admin areas. Also, I have always found ItsZippy to have phenomenal patience—a trait that, in my opinion, makes them especially well suited to adminship. Pol430 talk to me 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
24. Support -Ducknish (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
25. Seems decently clueful. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
26. Support. Nom statements from trustworthy editors :P and everything else looks good! Lord Roem (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
27. Strong support Zippy is a good editor; he has done something to improve Wikipedia. He's now ready to take the challenges of adminship. Jedd Raynier (talk) (contributions) 02:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
28. Certainly. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
29. Support - Plenty of experience at AfD, clearly understands all areas of deletion. Happily support. —SW— ^spout 03:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
30. Support Great editor, great work at WP:AFD. Bmusician 08:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
31. Support No problems with this - mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 08:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
32. Support You'll be a great admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
33. Support per Keepscases ;-) EngineerFromVega^★ 11:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
34. Support. Seen this user around a fair bit, no evidence they would misuse the tools. Rcsprinter (rap) 13:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
35. Been coming on for a while. hf24 14:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
36. Support. I see no problems. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
37. Support. Good nomination. Admins should be not only be good writers, but also possess a character that exudes leadership. This seems the case to me here. Markerdryer (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
38. Support looks good to me. Also lol @ Q5. GiantSnowman 19:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
39. ItsZippy seems to be clueful. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
40. Support I've seen a good bit of Zip's work around the dispute resolution forums and think very highly of him. My only reluctance to support him is selfish: folks who do DR tend to slow down once they get the mop because of their additional janitorial obligations and I hate to lose a good 'un like ItsZippy, but good ones are needed as just as much there as they are in DR. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
41. Fairly decent answer to my questions. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
42. Support per all above--Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
43. Support No concerns for me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
44. Support Good track record; reliable and sensible. It's no big deal so yes. QU ^TalkQu 15:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
45. Strong support I've seen this user around; he's also a mentor - and I'm amazed by his answers. I think that he's one of the users who can be trusted with the sysop bit. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 15:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
46. Support. Definitely. I've had the pleasure of working with ItsZippy on the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I have seen him around at articles for deletion. He is knowledgeable, has a good temperament, and is skilled at resolving disputes. I would definitely trust him with the mop. (By the way, Steve, "weird the mop"? Surely not. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

    You try writing a nom in 20 minutes on an iPhone. I'm sure you'll make mistakes too :-) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

47. Support. Good candidate; reasonable answers; no concerns. Glrx (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

    Support: Good answers to my questions. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

48. Support based on review of AfD participation, AfD NAC closures, and answers to questions. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
49. Support per nom. Normally I'd lean toward the oppose end of things due to the age; but having seen a fair amount of the users work and their approach to our project, I feel that Zippy is another of those rare situations where their actions are more mature than a mere counting of years would indicate. (Perhaps it's the interest in Philosophy that's shaped his efforts?). Note to Zippy - once your RfA is concluded, please feel free to ping me. I'd really like to get Plato, Socrates, and a few others up to GA level or higher if possible. Best of luck. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
50. Support A few months back, we had a discussion about what the name of Methodist College Belfast, despite me pulling Wikipedia:Common Name as the school is better known locally as "Methody", there was enough evidence all proven by User: ItsZippy to keep the page name as it was. Very fair and civil discussion. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
51. No problem ---JFP (talk, contribs) 14:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
52. Support Clueful, communicative, responds well to criticism/collaboration, and has far more patience with newbies than perhaps is healthy. Can't see him causing any problems with the mop. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
53. Support. Looking good to me - has come on well since last time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
54. Strong Support ItsZippy is trusted user who has worked in many areas of the project as can be seen from their contributions. Good answers to the questions above. Has a brief knowledge and understanding on most policies and guidelines related to administration (particularly where they are more experienced and intend to work). Pretty much a potential candidate for Adminship. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
55. Support. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
56. Support, per myself in the previous RfA. Swarm ^X 17:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
57. Support. A cheerful, polite, intelligent user who has a track record of good work in mediation, and therefore should be able to function well in disputes where administrators have to act. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
58. Little concerned about CSD, but otherwise excellent. Take it slowly for the first few months :-) --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
59. Support Trusted user, knowledgeable, works hard, etc. Pretty much already an admin.Drla8th! (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
60. Support Excellent AfD work, very good answers to the questions above: looks good enough for me. A candidate doesn't need to be perfect, I'm sure he will be extremely careful in CSDs once he gets sysop tools. --Mark91it's my world 08:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
61. Great to see Pedro and Steve nomming ItsZippy. Checked the contributions trailing quite some time back and the editor is definitely worth being pushed into administration. Hope Pedro gets working and noms more editors like Zippy at RfA. Wifione ^Message 16:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
62. Support.Érico ^msg 19:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
63. Everything is in order. My76Strat (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
64. Support. There are no perfect candidates. This user falls well within behavior norms and while the CSD record isn't ideal, learning is a large part of the process. I see no reason to distrust the user with tools. BusterD (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
65. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
66. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - high-quality article work and rollbacker. Long enough service. Some concern about speedy deletion tagging. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
67. Support, no evidence that user would misuse the tools, but please be careful while working on CSD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC).

Oppose

1. I'm not happy with a CSD success ratio of 90.5%, and from the answer to Q10 I think the candidate is unaware of this ratio. They trip a couple of my criteria indicative of failure (uninformative edit summaries, editing without previewing) and one indicative of success (admin practice). However, those edit summary criteria are communications indicators, and no one could claim the candidate is a poor communicator. Acceptable AfD failure ratio of 13.0%. 8k edits, 10 months participation. Clean block log, as one would expect from a user so focused on civility. It's the CSD ratio that tells me the candidate isn't ready yet, especially given xe's planning on working in that field. Mind you, this objection seems moot given the overwhelming number of support votes, so all I can do is ask the future admin to take a lot more care with speedy deletions - or even avoid them all together until their own measurable ratio improves - and seek some various forms of mentorship during their early administrative life. Josh Parris 22:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   An honest question, Josh. What CSD success ratio would be considered 'favourable' in your terms for an RfA candidate? I'm asking this because I'm reconsidering my vote with this new finding. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   User:Josh Parris/RfA criteria currently says that 5% (a 1/20 failure ratio, or a 95% success ratio) is pretty good (everyone makes bad calls, especially when first doing CSD work) - but my criteria is evolving, and I know that the mechanism used to generate this ratio is not completely reliable (for this particular candidate - 10 moths old - it ought to work fine). In the absence of a better tool it's all I've got to work with to evaluate on things I care about - in this case, stuff getting deleted with no oversight. If there was a way to identify sysops who made (fairly) reliably good calls on CSDs (and another cohort that didn't), and looked at their pre-mop CSD ratios, that might provide guidance as to what - if any - ratio should be used as a cutoff. I've got no data, so I have to make it up as I go along. Josh Parris 22:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   Hey guys, quick question -- where did you find the nominee's CSD- success rate? I'm having trouble locating the specific tool that does that. Thanks! Lord Roem (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   Check the last two inline external links at Josh's RFA criteria page above (last paragraph), it appears that Josh uses the first as a numerator and the second as a denominator. There are some places where the results are imperfect, but the second result gives you a pretty good starting point if you want to analyze the CSDs one at a time. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   Using surviving delete summaries is not exactly an accurate measure of how successful one is, though; it doesn't account for unlogged taggings in general, as well as for things that were redirected instead of deleted, self-reverted misclicks, or subsequent changes to the article before it was actually looked at, nor does it consider improvement over time of the tagger himself. Trying to account for those, I got an overall success ratio of 84% for this guy, but that is a composite of 71% in 2011 (6/21 not deleted) and 93% in 2012 (2/30 not deleted). That looks pretty good, relatively speaking. — Isarra ༆ 02:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

2. I did forewarn the candidate here that I would oppose this candidacy, and I explained why: "You haven't actually made that many edits really, just over 8000, almost all of which are in the last 6 months. Added to which less than half of your edits (44%) have been to articles, and your activity appears to have been in decline since it peaked in September 2011." I advised the candidate not to rush to RfA, as did one of the nominators. Had he heeded that advice I would probably not have found myself in the oppose column, but here I am. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   Which nominator? Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   You: "I'd perhaps say the end of April and another 300 of those slow and measured edits to the mainspace would be more ideal, but up to you." Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   Dear me. You honestly think I didn't know that? (you did I suspect). Having "baited" you into the obvious answer I'll show my hand. I've long been of the opinion that to wait for some randomly defined quantity of edits is sheer stupidity - however at RFA it's a "crowd pleaser". Let's get people to work now, if they can prove they are capable. I'm not knocking your oppose, but I am knocking your interpretation of my comment that I told him not to rush. I'd have expected you to see the overtones to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   We have to try and write not just so that you and I understand what we're saying but that everyone else does as well. But I doubt my oppose will make any difference, so no need to get your knickers in a twist. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   My knickers are firmly untwisted. Your knicker mileage may vary. Sorry for baiting you - I couldn't resist it and I knew you'd fall for it! As above, I respect your oppose - you were clear on my talk page that you would make it and it's valid - I just happen to disagree with it. Pedro :  Chat  23:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   That's fine. I said my piece on your talk page, and it would have been inconsistent and uncharacteristic not to do what I said I would. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   BTW, in deference to one of the links I left on your talk page I was careful not to oppose too early, although in my case an early oppose might well have led to a flood of sympathy supports. So who can tell what's the right thing to do. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

   His CSD log is here: User:ItsZippy/CSD log. I may have ~100% success, but 90% is quite good going. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 08:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

   A ten percent rejection rate is far too high. →Στc. 22:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose: Per above. I agree that this candidate has made good quality edits, however, if he can't listen to simple advice like Malleus Fatuorum gave, how will we expect him to be able to perform edits with powerful sysop tools where editors may ask him to change what he did? To me, it seems this candidate is rushing to get sysop tools and it seems he only wants the power associated with it. As a young editor, there is reasonable doubt what happens when you provide power to youngsters. I originally supported this candidate because of outstanding work, unfortunately, valid concerns have been brought up by Malleus Fatuorum and Josh Parris. Regardless of what happens at this candidacy, I wish the best of luck to you, ItsZippy and keep up the good work. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   OK, I'll say this. When you're actually an admin, you can listen to all the advice you want, but sometimes you have to use your own discretion. If I followed the advice of every participant at AE threads, I'd never get anything done. Sometimes (whether or not you're an admin) you receive advice but you decide that's not the best route to go, so you go another way; when you're an admin, that applies x10. I still haven't made up my mind yet, but that's not the biggest concern I'd have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   I think when two editors suggest that waiting maybe a month or so longer are ignored in the rush for the mop then that's potentially not a good sign. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   I said it wasn't the biggest concern, not that it wasn't a concern. I wouldn't oppose over that in and of itself, but it is something I'm considering. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

   I didn't oppose solely over that either. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

   Ok, now hear me out. Please do not dismiss me as a vandal. Some members above, have been complaining that "ItsZippy" has ignored Malleus Fatuorums' plea to avoid running for adminship. Not only has he ignored damn good advice, but it looks alittle weird that he ran for adminship within the same year he registered last year. He ran in October of last year, only say 5 mnths ago! So I'm thinking because this guy is desperate for the admin toolset & ignoring advice not to run & ran for adminship in the same year he registered that maybe something isn't right with his account here! Some say he has strong knowledge of policy, well how he can have that strong of knowledge while having a XXX% of incorrect XXX? He also has been gaining edits within 6 mnths. as mentioned above. It looks like he rushing. Rushing for adminship. Back to that account thing, with all of that I said you add it up. It sounds like we have a case of sockpuppetry going on. Maybe the sock master, can achieve adminship with his "prime" account so he has to create an alt. to gain access to the admin toolkit. Hear me out again, I have evidence the sock master is Jasper Deng! Think about it, would Jasper pass an RFA? No, so he created an alt. account. Now the evidence, a couple of mnths. ago a member posted a message on Jasper's tlkpage regarding his alt. accounts. Jasper denied the allegations with a simple response of "I don't own multiple accounts, period". Yet the evidence still stands! Calabre_1992, Cyberpower678, ItsZippy and Jasper are all interested in admin toolkit. All 3 of those accounts have posted on Jaspers' tlkpage recently. That's one thing they have in common, another is that they all are interested in the admin toolkit. The 3rd thing they have in common is they requested adminship within the same year or a short time after they registered!!! Calabre_1992 requested adminship last year, so did Zippy. They just had registered at the time. Now, cyberpower678 hasn't but he's still interested in RFA's. In fact, in this RFA: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Yngvadottir#Neutral ItsZippy voted then alittle later cyberpower678 voted. They are Neutrals #7 & #8 respectively. Also, Jasper Deng's edits has been slipping in the past days? Strange? I think not, because he is observing the RFA of his alt account (ItsZippy) he's been having less time to edit. View his recent edits here: Note that, on April 4th & the 5th he averaged between 10-15 edits which is helluva little for Jasper! He normally edits 30+ daily! http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Jasper+Deng&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 Please remember that a checkuser is not adequate, he could be editing from multiple IPs so just because the CU results are inconclusive does not mean he is not the operator of those accounts! Now you have my report, do you support sockpuppetry? By giving ItsZippy access to the admin toolkit you are answering yes to the question. How come this user knows so much? While dismissing pleas to avoid adminship, and while rushing to make edits in a short time and by him rushing he has a high error rate in AFD? Because he's a sockpuppet trying to get access to the toolkit, and can't get it through his prime account. Reread this oppose to examine the evidence, and please show that you don't allow sockers by voting Oppose. Also they all participated or created a joke RFA on April Fools(Cyberpower created his own) also Jasper Deng has an RFA red link here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jasper_Deng which dates back to last month. Others are citing reasons like mine as well, read those too. Cardiovascularness (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

   Indenting obvious trolling Secret ^account 02:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

   So he's using a sock farm to vote-stack, in the neutral section of an Rfa? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

   If I were to act as at least one of the alleged "socks" does, I would probably go crazy due to the mind-numbingly stupid things I would have to fake. I doubt ItsZippy is a sock. I don't doubt that Cardiovascularness is one, though. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

   For the benefit of non-admins, that nomination was refused and the RfA tagged for deletion both by Jasper Deng himself. The nominator is blocked as a sock of User:Barackbush. Peridon (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

   They're not socks of Jaser Deng, they're socks of me. Oops. RevDel anyone?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)_{(Also, why wouldn't Jasper get sysop?)}

4. Oppose Getting 10% of the CSD tags declined is not good enough. If they intend on doing their own deletions, that represents a lot of content deleted and no doubt some new users confused or discouraged from editing. RxS (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose I followed most of the discussion regarding this potentially forthcoming RFA on Pedro's talk page and I found myself very much aligned regarding the advice that Malleus provided. The fact that he dove in anyway despite the reservations makes me think that this user already made the decision to go forward and feigned thoughtful hesitation. That doesn't sit well with me at all. It's been a while since I visited RFA, but I felt compelled to voice my concern and echo the above. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose: ItsZippy wants to work with CSD, but the editor hasn't done much of it. From what I can see, ItsZippy has under 100 CSD tags since July 28, 2011. That is not enough to show that this editor knows what he is doing with CSD even with the rejection rate. SL93 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose - After considerable study, this Rfa makes me uneasy. The opposers raise a number of points that raise concerns, and in the end I find myself swayed. Deadminning is a lengthy, difficult process at this point and a "promotion" lifetime adminship requires a lot of trust, so I feel that the relative brevity of the edit data base is a stopper. I thank the candidate for willingness to serve but suggest another six months of experience is not a bad idea. Either way, best wishes. Jusdafax 21:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Sorry, but CSD A7 is about significance and importance, which is a lower standard than notability. So, per my neutral, question 16, and Jusdafax, oppose. →Στc. 00:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   According to you, importance and significance are of lower standards than notability and if the user considers notability in judging for A7, then if they found the article not-notable, then it will also be not-important so there won't be an error in that (according to me).

   My real point was: As you said that, significance and importance, which is a lower standard than notability, then can you give me an example of an article (briefly) which is important, but not notable? Yasht101 15:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   Hey there Yasht. Sigma is right that there is a difference between notability and importance, and that importance is a slightly lower standard. CSD is supposed to be an extreme scenario, and so any indication that the person has some indication of significance means that the article shouldn't be speedied. An example would be an actor who has appeared in one or two indie films. Even though he fails WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG, those roles give us an indication that he just might have done something worth knowing about, and so a speedy would be out of order. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   Don't Tell Mama was maybe an example: It is/was the bar of the TV series Friends, but nobody could provide a RS in the AfD. mabdul 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for clarifying my doubts! Yasht101 04:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

9. Oppose Less than a year's tenure as a regular editor, less than 9000 edits, 52% of which are automated, 2nd RfA. I don't feel comfortable supporting an RfA that seems so rushed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 06:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus, and are unenforceable. Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

    Is there ever an RfA where you don't oppose?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

    There are hosts of RFA's that go entirely uncommented on by me, including, oh, I don't know, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yngvadottir, which I missed due to the late-add of the recall pledge, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scottywong which I was conflicted on voting support or just skipping, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dpmuk, which was boring, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fayenatic london, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fayenatic london which I missed due to just not paying enough attention, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman 2 for which I believe I was out of the country. That's just every passing RFA but the one where the candidate decided it would be cool for his nom to go twitter canvassing. I haven't voted support this year (because I only support candidates I trust outside of RFA, and I haven't trusted any yet. Here's (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philwelch) me being convinced to change my opinion of someone, and here's Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fred_chessplayer me supporting someone I trusted, and here's Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bushytails me demonstrating that I support failed attempts also, if I disagree with the reason for failure. But, you were just making a rhetorical point about how the current crop of candidates lack that je ne sais quoi, right? Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

    Hipocrite - if that's the case, then would you oppose all admins who say they are open to recall? GiantSnowman 15:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

    No. There are ways of answering the inappropriate, divisive, gamesmanship recall question that I never ask with a "yes, but" that would not cause me to oppose. Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

11. Oppose Any editor who badly wants admin tools within only a few months at the project clearly doesn't want them for the right reasons.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

    They have been here for almost 1 year. I have found a editor who was granted admin rights in 6 months of their service. Also, how can you be so sure that their intentions are bad? Yasht101 11:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

    I don't. But I draw the line when somebody makes a quick number of edits in a short space of time and prematurely actually ask for tools and is twice told its too early. I get suspicious when editors see admin as some sort of promotion or power quest. There is the chance that this editor genuinely thinks the tools will aid him in what he does and badly needs them for maintenance reasons which is fair enough. But I am entitled to my opinion. If he had been here a year, contributed a lot of content and shown a clear love for the project and then Pedro said "you'd make a good admin, mind if I nominate you" I'd likely have given a strong support..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

    I understand your concerns. For information, they are active for 10 months which is close to 1 year. Still I m not asking you to change your !vote. I agree with your thought about you'd make a good admin, mind if I nominate you. But opposing just because you are suspicious is not justified according to me. If you aren't sure, then an neutral !vote might be perfect. They have good number of good edits. Please also do consider going through their contributions and specifically their work done. Opposing someone just because of a doubt sounds little rude at least, I think like that. Yasht101 11:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

    Actually, opposing someone because one has doubts is exactly what we want. It is ideal if one can point to something definitive, but it is well-established practice that editors can oppose simply because they feel unconvinced. I see absolutely nothing rude in User:Dr. Blofeld's oppose.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

    Question is not about doubt. Dr., stated that: Any editor who badly wants admin tools within only a few months at the project clearly doesn't want them for the right reasons. He clearly states that ItsZippy wants admin tools for wrong reason. And I do not agree with that statement at all. Yasht101 11:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

    I think User:Dr. Blofeld's original statement expressed an opinion using the language of fact, to which you understandably object, but the followup clarified it was an opinion. If that is all that had happened, I wouldn't have responded. However, I was taken aback that you would characterize a legitimate expression as "rude".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

    Rather than rude, I thought it to be not justifying. Yasht101 12:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

    With comments like this [8], it is not difficult to see what motivates you. Bad form. Leaky Caldron 12:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not stating it as fact or implying that I'm right, but that was my impression, and I usually assume good faith in editors. I thought RFA was about editors freely drawing their opinions and conclusions on whether certain candidates would make suitable administrators. As I say it concerns me that this editor made demands to be made an administrator. Kantian ethics does indicate this editor is capable of producing good content and is editing in good faith though, but looking at his edits I don't see why he needs the tools desperately. Above all I question why the editor wants the tools.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Although this user is experienced, I have a feeling (please, I have my own logic, but don't ask me about it) that I can't trust him with the mop.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 15:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   It's hard not to ask you about it; claiming that you can't "trust" the editor is not a light comment. Have you had any past experiences with ItsZippy that may have influenced your opinion? ~dee^(talk?) 16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   It's not like he is opposing over it, there's no reason to ask. Withholding support isn't the same as openly opposing.--v/r - TP 16:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   I apologize for asking. ~dee^(talk?) 17:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   I think, as does Beeblebrox, that '"great editor" and "decent administrator" do not require the exact same set of skills'. ItsZippy has incorrectly applied CSD A7, has a grand total of 64 speedy deletion nominations, 8 of which were incorrect. Also, 64 tags do not provide a large enough sample size for an assessment of the user's understanding of CSD, which he claims, with a 90% accept rate, to have "plenty of experience" with. He plans CSD to be part of his main focus to begin with, which adds to my concern. On a more positive note, the user gives mostly insightful opinions at AfD and is an excellent content creator. →Στc. 00:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose. →Στc. 00:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

2. Neutral While some have offered their concerns over only a 90% acurracy rate with CSD, even a speedy can be undone and so we have no permanent harm. I've crossed his path many times at AFd and found him polite, reasonable, and open to discussion. My only true concern is that his contribution history was pretty minimal until last August. While it does seem this will pass as one of few recent successful RFA with with less than 9,000 life edits, I'd really like to encourage a bit more seasononing and content creation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

   A speedy can be undone, but how many editors will we lose over mistakes like that? We don't want this to happen again, do we? →Στc. 00:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   I do not think we have lost editors over ItsZippy's very few errant CSDs, and in a sidenote we probably lose more when a enthusiastic newcomer begins editing without understanding our processes and then runs face first into their misunderstandings of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:COI. Some survive, gain understanding, and become terrific contributors. Some feel so frustrated that they depart. I cannot blame ItsZippy for that, nor move to oppose by prognosticating it as a likley outcome.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral I can't Support or Oppose, but I can wish the candidate good luck in the future. Mrlittleirish 10:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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.