Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/DoubleGrazing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is preserved as a closed administrator election discussion. No further discussion on these pages is permitted. Please visit the voting page for next steps.

Nomination

[edit]

DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs · they/them) – Hi All, I'm DoubleGrazing. I registered my account 18 years ago, but only did occasional edits until about 5 years ago when I started getting increasingly active, and now a significant chunk of my spare time is spent here on Wikipedia.

I've created over 200 articles, although these days mainly spend my time at AfC, with a bit of NPP on the side, which then inevitably leads me also to AfD, SPI, dealing with copyvios and vandalism, etc. From all that, I send a lot of work to our already-overworked admins, and that's the reason I'm putting myself forward for the mop, so that I can start hopefully reducing the work load in those areas rather than just always adding to them.

I think I have a reasonably good understanding of most areas of policy and practice. One relative weakness is 'short-termism', in the sense that although my account is fairly old, I've only really been active for a few years, so lack the long view and depth of experience of behind-the-scenes work that more established editors have. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom... so yeah. :)

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay. Never have done, never will.

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: Admin backlogs are a perennial problem, and because of what I mostly do, I'm conscious that I'm constantly contributing to them, so I thought I should stop being part of the problem and become part of the solution – pick up a mop and bucket, and roll up my sleeves, in other words! I would start slowly, in the areas I'm already familiar with, as I like to know what I'm doing and not rush into things. And I would naturally welcome feedback and corrections, and ultimately be open to recall, if folks didn't feel I was doing it right.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I don't know about best, but I'm maybe most pleased about the fact that approx ⅓ of the articles I've created have been women's biographies, as part of the WikiProject Women in Red. I've not even tried to pursue GA/FA status for the articles I've created, and consequently only have one GA to my name, 1987 Viking Sally murder; I guess that must also therefore count among my 'best contributions' in some ways.
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: In AfC/NPP reviewing, one inevitably comes into contact with editors who are less than happy about their draft being declined or new article moved to drafts etc., but I try to explain what I've done, and more importantly why, and this usually helps avoid conflicts (although I expect admins experience much more such interactions, and this is something I've considered before nomming myself). I haven't got into edit wars and similar conflicts; I usually try to follow the WP:BRD approach. Occasionally I've had to resort to ANI on behavioural issues, but luckily such instances have been few and far between. So no, I've not been in any major conflicts. IRL, I cope with stress pretty well, and would like to think I can handle any stress that adminship brings, also.

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.

PLEASE NOTE: At this time, approx 18:00 UTC, I have to go offline due to an IRL engagement, and am therefore unable to reply to any more questions tonight. Apologies to anyone who was hoping to ask me something in the remaining hours. Feel free to come by my talk page to post your question, and I will reply there as soon as I can. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Thryduulf

4. Why did you choose to seek adminship via election rather than via a standard RFA?
A: A couple of things. Firstly, it was suggested to me by 0xDeadbeef; without them, I probably wouldn't be here. I've previously declined a couple of suggestions of RfA, because I'm not really a fan of the process, but when this came along I thought it would be a chance (possibly one-off) to try something new and different. I've also been for a while undecided about throwing my proverbial hat in the ring, and this opportunity finally pushed me off the fence. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Ganesha811

5. 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: Yeah, the whole area of banning users, especially with partial (ie. not whole-site) bans, is something I'm not at all familiar with and certainly wouldn't rush into. I sometimes browse AN/I and see deliberations on someone's behaviour and whether they should get a TBAN or ABAN or something else, and why, and who has the right to impose it, etc... I just groan and move swiftly on. I guess eventually I might have to get my head around these things, too, and would then study the rules and follow those AN/I discussions more closely and chip in myself, but it's not something that appeals to me. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Asilvering

6. What got you into AfC and what do you enjoy the most about it?
A: This goes back a few years so my memory is a bit hazy, but I used to spend much of my time wandering about aimlessly, adding a maintenance tag here, taking part in an AfD there, categorising articles, patrolling the recent changes log... then I somehow discovered the AfC (or possibly NPP, can't remember which came first; IIRC, I got both rights around the same time) backlog. I figured 'backlog' means there's more to do than there are doers, so thought I'd chip in. The first reviews were hard work, I didn't want to make any mistakes, but soon you get into it, and it immediately just felt like I'd found a 'purpose'. And there's a nice supportive community, and always something new you can learn from fellow reviewers.
What I enjoy most is accepting a draft, no question about it! This might surprise someone looking at my review history, where acceptances are rare as hen's teeth, but that's because I mostly (esp. more recently) fish in the new submissions end of the pool, and there's just a lot of dross you have to wade through (copyvios, spam, hoaxes, etc.) which means the vast majority are declines or rejections. But when you find that all-too-rare gem you can accept, in particular if it's by a new editor, there's no better feeling than hitting the 'accept' button. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Serial Number 54129

7. What would your view be if you were accused of being one of the most solid candidates for admnistrative tools the community has had for over three weeks?
A: Ha! I would say that's one thing I have never been accused of. This preposterous character assassination is wholly without merit, and I move to strike it from the record! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:22, 22 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.

  • As a fellow AfC reviewer, DoubleGrazing is a name I see often. In their reviews, they tend to post informative comments for the submitters. Ca talk to me! 00:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I frequently find pages tagged G11 by the candidate that can be salvaged by removing a paragraph or section or two. Draft:Velur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a recent example I happen to remember. —Cryptic 01:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed the same (I declined that one, after all), but I think that's a function of volume to at least some extent: User:DoubleGrazing/CSD log. A lot of their G11 tags even result in blocks for the submitting editors. I can also say I've had the experience of declining and cleaning up something that they CSD'd, only for the original editor to return and make everything even worse. (I recall getting a wry "asilvering, you sure about that?" ping. Point for DoubleGrazing.) -- asilvering (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting you should say that, @Cryptic. Your comment made me curious, so I took a look at my CSD log. In the last three months (since start of August) I've made 630+ speedy requests. Of these, all but a few ended up getting deleted.
    There are actually 30 blue links on that list (of 630+), but the vast majority of these are subsequent recreations; in two cases the speedy tag was removed before an admin got there; in one, I failed to realise the draft was copied form an existing article whereas I thought it was copyvio (duh!); two tags I removed myself because the authors wanted to rewrite the drafts; one was tagged accidentally by someone else; and one (Draft:CodeWeb Agency) has a bit of a back story to it so the draft was retained on purpose.
    In fact, unless I'm mistaken, the Draft:Velur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd you mention is one of only two where the speedy request was declined, per se; the other being Draft:AVXE.
    Of course, I'm not saying these are the only two of my speedy requests that were declined ever; I only went through the last three months, and one would no doubt find many more if one went back further. And of course you can still characterise this as "frequently", regardless of the number. I just wanted to say in my defence that I don't request speedies willy-nilly, there is always a reason, and the requests are usually (as in, 99%+ usually) accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't checked but from general impressions, I'd count DoubleGrazing among the more accurate patrollers wrt A7/G11 tags. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD record: 89.50% match rate, n of 447. 14 keep !votes to 431 delete !votes. Mildly subjective comment: only one result hasn't gone their way in 2024, and it was a "draftify" instead of the voted-for "delete"; many of these deletes (226!) are nominations from doing NPP work; this is a very good AfD record. -- asilvering (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal comment: the delete % is extremely high, even if the nominations are removed, but they're extremely accurate delete !votes and I'm not worried about this; I have to go back a full year to find the first AfD where the candidate !voted delete and the outcome was keep. -- asilvering (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at the AN(I) contributions of all the candidates, and DoubleGrazing's contributions stood out positively. He's firm, but unfailingly kind to new editors and willing to diplomatically go against the grain when experienced editors show insufficient patience to newer editors. Important quality in an admin. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedies

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of random three of above:
  • User:LibreCompliance/sandbox [1] G12 Decline reason: "declining speedy deletion although I did speedy the draft and blank this page; a new user with 6 edits ought to be able make mistakes in sandbox space without undue administrative action". DoubleGrazing is technically right as WP:G12 says This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Indeed, the page consisted of two copied sentences. However, the decline provided a good WP:IAR reasoning.
  • Draft:Neeru Yadav [2] G5 and G11 Decline reason: "declined, this does not appear to be block evasion". The decliner is correct; the page has been extensively edited by a socks Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Theflyerofspace, but the initial creator User:PQR01 is a good faith user. The entire draft reads promotional but contains some inklings of usable prose, but I have seen promotional drafts speedied for less.
  • Draft:바카라사이트 추천 G2 [3] Decline reason: "not sure how this is a test". Only text in the page is (translated) "Cato Community provides diverse guides to Baccara", which is a gambling game. Title translation "Baccara website recommendation". I feel as WP:IAR applies here because there is no way this promotional one-liner will ever become a useful article. Ca talk to me! 12:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Overall, the three declined speedies I analysed were edge cases with no clear right and wrong, and it is natural for a prolific editor to make some mistakes. Ca talk to me! 12:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've picked another random three:
    • Carla Walker-Miller A7. Contained a borderline claim of significance (speedy deletion is explicitly only for the "most obvious cases"), but original author added clearer claims after the nomination.
    • User:~seaofstars~/Mary Bukoh U5 and G11. Was tagged immediately after it was moved to userspace (from draft) explicitly so that it could be improved. U5 was egregiously bad, G11 was also incorrect as rewriting to avoid being exclusively promotional did not require TNT and no opportunity for doing so was given.
    • Draft:Viveen (admin only link) G12. Declined because the copyvio material could be (and subsequently was) removed. I've not looked at the source material but based on the difference between the tagged version and the first revision not-revision deleted the tagging was aggressive but not unacceptable.
    Based on the six analysed I'm seeing significant errors of judgement, particularly given that IAR has absolutely no place when it comes to speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the seaofstars deletion is concerning, but since the February 2024, DoubleGrazing has nominated more than 1000 pages for speedy deletion, with 25 being declined. That is 0.025% [2.25%] error rate. Ca talk to me! 00:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Candidates/DoubleGrazing&oldid=1253364570"