Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BZPN

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

• Withdraw, NOTNOW (1/4). BZPN (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

BZPN

BZPN (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 23:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Today I would like to nominate myself for adminship. Why? Well, I'm an active editor on simplewiki almost every day, especially on RC and in the main namespace (but also in wiki spaces). Sometimes there is a lack of immediately active admins, either on VIP or AN (also it seems that a minority of admins do frequent RC patrolling). Also with RC, I regularly patrol new pages. It's not uncommon for me to post a QD or report an article to RfD (according to XTools, I have 372 deleted edits, most of which are QD, although I don't keep a QD log). For this reason, I think a mop could help me handle these basic admins tasks in a short period of time, also against vandalism on the RC. Personally, I also think that the more admins, the better it works - in the case of simplewiki, generally having a majority of active admins would be useful. I am also active in other Wikimedia projects. While I understand that self-nominations are often a step into unknown waters, I feel it’s worth putting myself forward to do more here :). Thank you for considering my request. If you have any questions, feel free to ask - I’ll be happy to answer them. BZPN (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination BZPN (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Support: Since we are getting more admins in Simple English Wikipedia and your edits are kinda good, I will support the vote. thetree284 (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Weakly, relatively new editor, with more experience, I would support. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 07:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cactusisme. Don't get me wrong, you are admin potential, but I feel like it's a bit too soon. Your account isn't even a year old here.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   Thank you for your feedback. You might be right, but I feel quite well-adapted to Simple English Wikipedia, perhaps because of my prior experience on another Wikipedia. Personally, I don't believe the age of the account is the most important factor, especially if someone is already experienced with Wikimedia projects. Having been active elsewhere, adapting to Simple English Wikipedia felt natural to me. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   BZPN, What do you mean elsewhere? — Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

   @Cactusisme: I mean plwiki. BZPN (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

   BZPN, how did you get experience from plwiki which is applicable here? — Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

   This is very logical... Basic policies common to all projects, recognizing and combating vandalism (or using rollback), how MediaWiki works, etc... BZPN (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

3. Oppose BZPN joined Six Months and can be still new editor, More experience, I would support it, I oppose this vote now. Raayaan9911 18:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose as unfortunately TOOSOON, My personal preference is 2-3+ years tenure, I would certainly support in future after a few years, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

Questions by Griffinofwales

Good morning BZPN, thank you for volunteering for this role. In your nomination statement, you mentioned a desire to use the tools in new change patrol. A few questions on that and some other topics...

• Previous block - Could you explain the details of your August block on the Polish Wikipedia, including events before, and what, if anything, you have changed since that block?
• Quick Deletions
  • When should the G2 QD reason be used for an article/page?
  • When does the G5 QD criteria apply to articles? Are there examples when G5 should not be used?
  • What criteria would you use to delete an article as an A4? How do notability requirements differ for deleting an article under A4 and deleting an article at RFD?
• Deletion requests - Are there circumstances under which the administrator closing a RFD should not follow the decision of the majority of commenters in a RFD? If so, what are they?
• Username policy - What is the difference between a username soft block and a username hard block?
• Protection policy - is indefinite semi or full protection of an article appropriate? If so, when would it be appropriate?
• Permissions - How would you decide if a user should receive the rollbacker or patroller user rights on this project?
• DENY - Administrators on new changes patrol are frequently the first line of defense against long-term abusers. What is your opinion on this essay for responding to long-term abusers?
• Administrator criteria - You have mentioned that you are very active on the project. While the general criteria for administrators is described in a guideline, what criteria do you believe a user should meet to become an administrator, and how do you meet that criteria?

I would like to note that there are no perfect or correct answers, these questions are simply meant to help myself and other community members understand your reasoning. Best, Griff (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Griff. Thank you for asking me this question.

1. First of all, I would like to point out that I myself have doubts about the validity of this block. It seems I might have been treated a bit too harshly. But to answer the question: the block was imposed on me for being too strict with new editors introducing incorrect, rule-violating edits. The problem lies in the fact that on plwiki, we essentially don't have different levels of warnings that we can send to users based on the escalation of the situation. We have pl:Template:Kom, which only allows one type of warning for each kind. Thus, when patrolling RC and encountering a user persistently editing incorrectly, I could only warn them several times using the same template or issue a slightly stricter one (equivalent to uw3). Consequently, someone considered this too harsh treatment or perceived it as attacking newcomers (which, of course, was never my intention). Since the block was symbolic (2 days), it wasn’t worth making an issue out of it. Why do I think the block was unfair? Because good faith was not assumed. Before the block, I was a mentor for newcomers (simplewiki doesn’t have this concept, but you can read about it here: pl:Pomoc:Przewodnicy), always helping them and never intending to harm them. Has anything changed? Definitely. First and foremost, I’ve adjusted my approach to discussions. Although I consider the block unjust, it’s always worthwhile to work on oneself. I started forming more personalized messages to newcomers and increased my activity on "PN" (pl:Wikipedia:Pytania nowicjuszy). For a long time, I participated on PN, helping newcomers by answering their questions and requests. After the block, I became the main active editor on PN, addressing most queries. This used to operate on Flow, which has since been disabled (as per WMF's decision; Flow edits don’t count as regular edits, so it might be harder to trace), so here’s the link to that page: pl:Pomoc:Pytania nowicjuszy/Flow, where most threads were resolved by me. On the new PN (pl:WP:PN; with the discussion system), I was equally active until I suspended my activities. However, I would prefer not to discuss plwiki much, as it’s currently a rather unpleasant experience for me (but, of course, I will answer questions).
2. QD:
   1. In cases where the page is clearly an editing test and contains no useful information/definition for the reader, e.g., the only content is "I like apples" or "Messi is the GOAT."
   2. When the page was somehow created by a user who was blocked at the time of creation. This happens, for instance, when a blocked user circumvents the block using a sockpuppet, creating new pages (often vandalism) during that time. Such users can be identified by a CU or simply by the DUCK test. In such cases, G5 can be applied. When shouldn’t it be used? Personally, I think that if the article is properly written, fully compliant with rules and guidelines (simply not worth deleting), and we assume good faith. Obviously, it also cannot be used when the user wasn’t blocked during the page's creation, even if it originates from a series of vandalism (appropriate QD should be used then).
   3. First, I would check whether the article falls under G11. Such cases are not uncommon—lack of notability often correlates with promotional/advertising content. If the article doesn’t meet G11, I would then consider whether it meets any standards from NGN (or NBIO and others). If it doesn’t—meaning it fails to explain why the subject should be notable and described in an encyclopedia, but the article's tone isn’t promotional—then, if the topic doesn’t meet any NGN criteria, I would tag it with A4. When should it go to RfD? When we're unsure about QD for some reason. Uncertainty is not a bad thing, and RfD always provides a fair outcome. RfD is also appropriate when the subject has characteristics that might be considered notable, or there is partial compliance with the criteria. Such a case might be a biography of a businessman who is the CEO/founder of a large company, but that’s the only characteristic supporting retention (in such cases, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON might apply).
3. Yes, there are such circumstances. We must remember that the number of votes does not determine deletion; it’s the quality and validity of arguments that matter. I would pay little attention to votes from newly registered or anonymous editors zealously defending, for example, a promotional biography. Similarly, poorly argued votes would have little weight compared to others that thoroughly analyze the situation. I would also delete a page if it was nominated for RfD but clearly qualifies for QD/is part of a vandalism series (e.g., hoax articles about fictitious battles, which have been frequent recently).
4. A soft block occurs when we aim to block an account due to a username that violates guidelines but isn’t intended for vandalism (or the user is unaware of the rules; assuming good faith). This block applies only to that account. A hard block, on the other hand, is for cases involving vandals (LTA) and offensive usernames (incidentally, such vandals frequently vandalize my talk page on plwiki: pl:Special:PageHistory/User talk:BZPN).
5. Full protection is extremely rarely used and discouraged. I wouldn’t apply it in any known situations, especially as simplewiki is targeted at people learning English, where determined vandals are fewer than in other projects (although they do exist). I would lean towards several months of protection for articles persistently vandalized in a highly offensive manner (example: Barack Obama, if vandalism continues).
6. For rollback: first and foremost, I would look at the user's contribution activity (CA). A rollbacker must not only be experienced but also trusted. I would check their permissions in other projects (regarding rollback), if any exist. Then, I would apply the criterion of the number of performed undos. While I usually believe the number of edits doesn't matter much, here I think a minimum of 20 correctly executed and justified undos in articles is reasonable. I would also check the user's activity on Recent Changes (RC) because users not patrolling RC may need these permissions less frequently. Finally, I would consider their knowledge of project rules—if the user demonstrates a strong understanding through their edits, then permissions can be granted (the user must be trusted). If I had doubts, I would ask a question. If the user is an active RC editor frequently undoing incorrect changes/vandalism, I would grant the permissions.

1. Regarding patroller: here, as before, I would primarily assess the user's knowledge of project rules by evaluating their edits. For patroller permissions, I do not apply quantity criteria, only quality. I do not require a large number of articles. A dozen good articles and new ones (patrollers usually create them relatively often) are sufficient, as long as they meet basic criteria (sources, Basic English, which is crucial, etc.—we know the rules). A patroller must be active and demonstrate a need for these permissions. I also believe that prior activity in the project is important. I think one month is enough time to become familiar with the rules, start working, and "get into it."

1. I know this essay and agree with it. However, there are cases where an edit war is unavoidable. What kind? Situations where a vandal introduces vulgar or highly offensive content, particularly personal attacks. In such cases, the changes should be reverted immediately before anyone has a chance to see them. If the changes are not offensive but merely distracting, it is indeed better to wait for an admin to block the vandal and then undo all their actions.

1. This is an interesting topic because criteria on simplewiki are not strictly defined (e.g., on plwiki, we have specific minimum edit counts). I believe an administrator should primarily demonstrate the need for permissions. This includes activity on RC, reporting vandals to VIP, and participation in RfD. The candidate should, of course, also actively engage in discussions—especially on the Simple Talk page. The candidate should also show boldness (please don't misunderstand me; I don't mean it negatively) in making certain decisions, assessing situations, or, for example, closing discussions. Activity in the backlog, composure, and prudence in discussions are important. An administrator must also always be available when needed. In my opinion, the number of edits, age, or registration time are less significant factors—the most important is a good understanding of the rules and the quality of edits. Good edits and articles are fundamental skills.

And that's probably all I can say at the moment :). I'm sorry for replying so late, and I hope my response is satisfactory :). Thank you for your time. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Questions by BRPever

My questions are simple:

• How strictly should the QD criterias be applied? Where can be you be lenient and where should you apply it exactly as written?
• Do you think simplewiki needs any major changes in regards to policy and processes? If yes, what changes do you recommend?
• Which areas are you confident to work in as an admin, and which you aren't and why?

Thanks,--BRP ^ever 03:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, BRP. Thank you for your question, and I apologize for the delayed response. So, answering:

1. Criteria like G12 or G10 should be applied strictly. However, I believe that "leniently" one could apply R3 - for example, while this criterion applies to uncommon typos, in the case of misleading or uncommon redirects resulting from the author's original research, I would lean towards its use. Generally, QD criteria are not flexible, which prevents their application, but always we have RfD ;).
2. No, not at the moment. While I had suggestions regarding QD and AI usage policy, these have since been archived, and I do not plan to revisit the discussion for now. The only thing I might consider changing is the ability for a user to remove the flood flag themselves. I raised this topic before, but it expired without significant interest (available here: Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 164).
3. I think I could certainly contribute during work on RC (admin vandalism handling), reviewing QD cases, and participating in RfD. I also don’t think I’d have much trouble engaging in GAN discussions. The only area I don’t feel confident about is DYK (because there are definitely better people who know more about it, and I don’t want to get in their way), though I do participate in discussions about hooks.

Thank you for your time, and I hope this answers your questions! Please feel free to reach out if you need anything else. Best regards! BZPN (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2025 (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.