Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BZPN 2

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
  • Withdraw (0/6). It seems the community prefers not to have an additional active admin - duly noted. As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. BZPN (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


BZPN (talk · contribs · count)
RfA of BZPN
Previous RfAs: 1 2
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: Barras.

End date: 23:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)



Hello everyone! I took a short break from editing in July and August (summer holidays) but I’ve been keeping an eye on the wiki and now I’m back. It’s been nine months since my last RfA. Since then I’ve done a lot of work across different spaces, esp. RC patrol, RfDs, and definitely gained a lot of experience.

Lately the level of vandalism has been (and currently is) high, I'd say rather higher than before the introduction of temp accounts (or at least that's what I think after a week of observation). I’ve caught up with the current state and I’ve returned to my usual work. Having an extra admin would be very useful right now. I’m familiar with temporary accounts topic (I know the documentation, I looked at the situation here and on other wikis) and would really like to help. I think the need is clear. Saying that, I hope you’ll consider my request, and thank you for taking the time to read this. I’m always happy to help and I believe now is the right moment to do so :). Of course, I am open to questions and will be happy to answer them. Thank you! BZPN (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate's acceptance: Self-nom BZPN (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
Support I feel like BZPN is indeed experienced enough to know the following things: how to determine consensus, how to apply policy and project goals, and use the tools effectively. I really don't think that having the buttons for stuff you request anyways should be a BIGDEAL, and so we shouldn't be requiring people to have years of experience for, really, just some buttons. Sure, we should be able to trust them, but we should definitely be much more lax. Justarandomamerican (t • c) 00:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - I'm sorry but I don't feel you have enough experience yet, but keep up the good work. --IWI (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - The "knock" at the previous RFA was experience. By my count, I see about 700 edits in the 8 months since that RFA. I don't know that the edits since then show enough experience gained. Additionally, I think that requesting RFA about 48 hours after returning from a 2-month vacation is too soon, especially when you're coming into an environment that just had a big change in the temporary accounts. CountryANDWestern (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, I've been following the wiki over vacations and I’ve already caught up. I don't need a particularly long time to get back into it, because it's like returning to editing after a few days off. You don't lose skills and experience by not editing for a few weeks. BZPN (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per reasons stated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BZPN, recent UCOC case and discord ban. Build more trust first.--Plutus 💬 🎃 — Fortune favors the curious 08:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to ask - do you have any doubts or reservations about the trust and my activity on simplewiki? To be clear, a distrusted user would mean someone who is dishonest or untrustworthy. And as far as I recall, I have never failed in my work on purpose or committed any abuse in our community. BZPN (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way - are you suggesting that I would abuse the tools in some way? BZPN (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want you to gain more trust before requesting advanced permissions. Plutus 💬 🎃 — Fortune favors the curious 10:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Described a user's changes as vandalism just because they were creating unsourced articles. Special:diff/10511569. With temporary accounts there's a risk that the user behind this could be considered to be "evading a block" forever, which makes it a greater problem than blocking IPs for this reason. canadachick (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canadachick, you're not familiar with Wikipedia:Disruptive changing#Signs of disruptive changing and Wikipedia:Verifiability, are you? In that situation, imposing a ban was a legitimate necessity, and most admins would probably do so. BZPN (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those pages are open to interpretation. Making some unsourced articles that don't contain controversial material and are clearly notable topics are not grounds for an immediate "forever" block, in my opinion. I understand that you disagree, but that's why I would prefer you not receive adminship. canadachick (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Sorry, but I did not know about a UCoC/U4C case. That shows me that you don't have the temperament needed for an administrator, along with the badgering of every oppose comment. Justarandomamerican (t • c) 14:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Plutus. ShadowBallX (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]


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.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BZPN_2&oldid=10512621"