User talk:ItsZippy

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 16, 2015

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I should have the summary done in a few minutes; please look it over when you get a chance. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Good day. An editor has asked for unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattress

Hi ItsZippy, thanks for protecting Mattress Performance recently, but would you consider extending it to long-term semi-protection or even indefinite? There's enormous potential for BLP violations against both parties, and on other sites some of the most vicious comments I've ever seen. Within minutes of your removing protection, an IP added the lawsuit, [1] which several editors agreed on talk yesterday not to add. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Thanks notifying me; I've semi-protected the article for 1 month. I'll also keep an eye on the article and discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earn to Die 2

Did you mean to close this AfD as delete? I don't see a strong consensus, nevertheless one for deletion. – czar 01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Czar. I deleted Earn to Die 2 because I saw a consensus, albeit a weak one, for deletion. Mathematically, I counted 4 in favour deletion to 3 in favour of keeping the article (counting the userfy vote as a delete because the intent of the vote was to take the article off Wikipedia article space). Two of the votes for deletion regarded Google Play downloads and coverage on a YouTube channel, which do little to establish notability. Although two of the delete votes primarily deal with these issues, there were also concerns raised regarding the quality of the sources too, which I thought tipped the balance towards deletion. Having said that, I recognise that this is not an uncontentious call, and I would be happy to hear a second opinion from another uninvolved admin. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CLOSEAFD says, "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." I don't see how the policy-backed consensus supports deletion in any way, especially considering the dearth of policy-backed arguments at all. The arguments not backed by policy contribute very little towards consensus at AfD. I showed several sources vetted by the video games WikiProject that were sufficient for the GNG.  – czar 00:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks for your reply. Having considered this further, I'm happy to concede that my closure of this particular AFD was probably not reflective of consensus. I wasn't just counting votes, but I admit that I gave too much weight to the deletion arguments in closing the debate. I would be happy to reopen this AFD and relist it for a week, and leave closing it to another admin. Does that sound acceptable to you? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Adam Schefter

Hello ItsZippy,

I have previously asked for full protection for Adam Schefter wikipedia page. Semi-protection was granted for one month however, users are already editing it with harmful information. Only 3 days after the semi-protection was put on a user edited his personal page and added that he was jewish. Please reconsider the original ruling and give Adam Schefter page a full protection so the false and harmful information can stop.

Thank you. Sportsfan191920 (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

HI Sportsfan. I put pending changes protection on the Adam Schefter article because it was the subject of BLP violations and related childish vandalism, consisting in people adding or changing information without a source and writing tasteless jokes about Schefter. The editors who are writing that Schefter is Jewish do not fall into the same category, as they are writing in good faith and with a reliable source ([2]). In the most recent edit, the point was made more subtly ([3]). Full protection is reserved for pages which are being disrupted by the actions confirmed users, which is not the case here. I suggest that, if you disagree with how some editors are editing the article, you take it up with them on the talk page. Additionally, I must remind you that this is not Adam Schefter's "personal page"; no-one owns any Wikipedia pages, even if they are the subject of the article. Of course, we are always very careful to keep our articles about living people neutral and reliable, and operate a higher level of scrutiny on these pages; however that does not translate into the right of the subject of an article to dictate what is and is not included in their article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)