Meta:Requests for translation adminship/ZI Jony (removal)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

ZI Jony (removal)

ZI Jony (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.

Not ending before 04:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to request the community to review ZI Jony's use of the translation admin user right as his use of the tool doesn't comply with the Meta:Internationalization guidelines despite reminders. Ref. Special:Diff/28217549, Special:Diff/28217586, Special:Diff/26236117, Special:Diff/28333949 are examples. And as far as I can see, it's a repeat of the diffs provided at their failed request for TA. As such, I'd like to propose for the removal of User:ZI Jony's translation admin user rights and should the right be removed, they can request for it again via the normal process. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per nom. I also cannot help but notice that there wasn't a whole lot of support at Meta:Requests for translation adminship/ZI Jony 2 (by number of votes) either. //shb (t • c) 04:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I acknowledge the concerns raised regarding my use of translation admin tools and appreciate the feedback. My intention has always been to support multilingual accessibility on Meta, and I regret any mistakes I have made.

I have always been open to learning and improving. When Minorax pointed out issues, I acknowledged them and even requested one-on-one mentorship to better align with Meta’s internationalization guidelines. Unfortunately, this mentorship has not been provided, and I am still looking for guidance to refine my approach.

Despite these concerns, I have actively contributed to marking pages for translation, supporting important Wikimedia initiatives. Instead of outright removal, I would greatly appreciate an opportunity to improve with proper mentorship. If needed, I am willing to take a temporary step back from translation admin activities (including removal) while receiving guidance.

I remain committed to following best practices and ensuring that my future translation work fully aligns with community expectations. I sincerely ask the community to consider my willingness to learn and improve before making a final decision. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZI Jony Minorax has however been telling you about this multiple times. Have you considered asking before preparing the page for translation, or prepare the page for translation and then ask for help at something like Meta:RfH or Discord? Basically, I'm trying to understand why you're running into issues multiple times. Leaderboard (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaderboard, thank you for your feedback. I understand that Minorax has pointed out these issues multiple times, and I genuinely regret any mistakes I have made. My goal has always been to contribute positively, and I now recognize that I should have been more proactive in seeking guidance before proceeding with translation marking.

Moving forward, I will follow your suggestion by asking for help—either on RfH or Discord—before marking complex pages for translation. I am still looking for one-on-one mentorship from Minorax or any experienced translation admin to refine my understanding and avoid repeated mistakes.

I truly appreciate the community’s patience and guidance, and I am committed to improving my approach to translation admin work. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll give you a chance.

Keep Leaderboard (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're willing to learn but repeating the same mistakes despite reminders shows otherwise. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 15:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points! However, still I am asking help from you. We can start an academy subpage under your/my user page for this. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 12:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

remove Due to the concerns raised by Minorax--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 11:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Change to dont remove--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would be willing to give a final chance, assuming good faith and that you will commit to what you said above, despite the repeated failure to do so. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I see ZI Jony's mistakes but I also acknowledge that they will ask for guidance in future. --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: although this is a close issue, on balance, giving a final chance would be safe --Arcticocean ■ 12:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The policy on removing adminships are not clear for non-inactive ones, I'd love to preserve (and ask other "remover"s above to also preserve) such nominations unless and until we established it one day future. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: I agree it's not defined by policy, but I don't think it's unreasonable for Minorax to follow past precedent as seen with previous de-sysop requests (see this or this). I'll think about my remove !vote over the next few days, however. //shb (t • c) 09:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per above. --V0lkanic (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Response looks promising, so I am all right with giving him a second chance. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat note: I am inclined to wait for other votes or a second opinion, since there's not a clear consensus in this procedure (5/2/1). --M/ (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crat 2O: We generally operate on a consensus model here. Removal following a well advertised, well attended discussion that finds a consensus for removal seems appropriate and has precedent. We should probably document this currect practice at Meta:Administrators. This venue appears to meet the "well advertised" criteria as it is the standard location for such discussions, for which Meta:Requests for comment is likely overly complicated. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, I agree in full about documenting this removal practice. Still I am wondering if a 6/2/2 (currently 75% keep/25% removal) can be considered sufficient. --M/ (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the primary question of this discussion to be "Should this access be removed?". With 10 participants and 2 weeks duration, I think it has been adequately attended. I do not see that a consensus for removal has emerged. (As opposed to if it were a "confirmation" type discussion along the lines of "should this access be retained" which could would have attracted different participants and used the usual granting criteria in measuring the consensus). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, removal request did not reach consensus. @ZI Jony your translation admin rights have been kept. Please read again the objections that have been raised in this procedure and make any effort to adhere to translation tool recommendations (this and related pages). Remember that one of my preferred "mantra" as a volunteer is "it's better to do nothing than to do badly". --M/ (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you for your trust and advices. M7, thank you for your suggestions, I'll reduce my activists, and will try to make sure that all the contributions are following good standards. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 21:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.