Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FusionSub 2

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it.

FusionSub

[change source]
FusionSub (talk · contribs · count)
RfA of FusionSub
Previous RfAs: 1 2
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: Chenzw.

End date: 13:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, today I am here to nominate FusionSub for adminship. In his last RFA, I was the first one to oppose as I felt they needed more experience regarding simplewiki. After some months, now, I think they are ready. I have seen them active doing the much-needed anti-vandalism work, participating in the discussions in RFD and almost everywhere else. A lot of these areas could definitely use more admin participation. Also, having more active admins helping with anti-vandalism will definitely help us respond to urgent request quicker. Along with all this, they are also active in IRC and discord and we get plenty of requests there which they could respond to. I think they will definitely be a good addition to admin team. Thanks for your time.--BRP ever 13:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you for your kind words, I will accept this nomination. Feel free to ask me questions.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support as nominator.--BRP ever 13:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Good luck. – Lionel Cristiano (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support I trusted FusionSub because they Experienced Editor, I'd chosen Strong Support. Raayaan9911 18:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --M7 (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per nominator. FusionSub's actions on Wikipedia, discussion on community pages, and RFA responses show an understanding of Wikipedia's five pillars, rules, policies and guidelines. FusionSub has also shown a strong ability to communicate and maintain the trust required of administrators. Griff (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. support - I see no reason not to support this as a net positive to simplewiki. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support seems like a good thing to me! Ternera (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support – A good amount of experience and work done here; has proven themselves as a competent editor that would be suitable for adminship. Chris ☁️(talk - contribs) 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support Trusted editor, useful to admin team. Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 08:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support fr33kman 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support FusionSub has my full support after I opposed on the last RfA, this time around great answers to questions below that show proficiency in admin policy. --Ferien (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Definitely Support. I must admit that I was waiting for this RfA ;). I trust you and believe that you know how to use the tools, and as an administrator you will certainly do much more for simplewiki. Good luck! BZPN (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support If we have more administrators in Wikipedia, then it will make Wikipedia a better place! So I would definitely choose support! thetree284 (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Experienced editor and I was pleased with his responses. Looked back at previous nomination and it’s evident how much more prepared he’s become. He’ll be a good asset to our community! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Everything I've seen has been positive. Ravensfire (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]

Comments

[change source]

You asked for questions, I tried to deliver:)

  • If given the administrative tools, how do you plan on using them?
  • When would you use the RevDel tool and in which cases would you send the action to an oversighter?
  • What criteria would you use to determine if full or semi-protection is appropriate for an article?
  • Are there occasions when warning a vandal is not appropriate? If so, when?
  • When reviewing a request for rollbacker or request for patroller, what would be your review steps to determine if a user should be assigned those rights?
  • Are there times when a rollbacker or patroller should have their rights removed? If so, what are they and how would you do it?
  • A member of the community has reported a user for a ONESTRIKE violation. How would you respond? I've included an example to help guide the answer.
  • An editor has posted a message to your talk page questioning the quick deletion of an article a different administrator has deleted. What steps will you take and what guidance do you provide this editor?
  • Is it appropriate for administrators to close discussions they are involved in (for example, a RFD)? If so, when?

Thank you for offering to become a part of the administrator team, it is not an easy role. I have appreciated all your work on the Wikipedia and BRP made an excellent nominating statement. Griff (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these questions, and I do agree that BRP did an amazing job when writing up the nominating statement. As for the questions:
1) I plan to be active in places like RfD and DRV as well as dealing with vandals if I catch them in the act :). Most of my planned areas of administrative involvement also require consensus determination which is something I believe I have improved upon since my first RfA.
2) I'd probably use Revdel sparingly outside of the explicit cases mentioned at RD. As for when I would send actions to oversighters, that would involve PII. If it is loacted in an area of decently high traffic, I may revdel it when waiting for oversighter action to surpress it to lower any risk associated of the data's continued accessibility to the public.
3) Full protection shouldn't really be used in articles (even in extreme circumstances), so by default, if I determine protection needed, I would almost certainly semi-protect the page.
4) If the vandal is a known Long-term abuser, they shouldn't really be given any warnings as they've been made aware that they break policies many times but they continue to try and get around it (and most of them are lock evading anyway so they should be reported somewhere like m:SRG immediately instead of going through the regular warning system).
5) First of all, I would review their edits in relation to the right (so undos / reverts for rollbacker and page creations for patroller) to make sure that they meet the requirements before looking further into it. If I'm dealing with Patroller request I would also look into if the user has been involved in any disputes, as their actions in a dispute would show how they act in such scenarios, which is something that would be important in showing if the user might be considered a "trusted editor". As for rollback, I would investigate the editors work in other parts of anti-vandalism (like warning users and reports) to completely confirm that the editor knows their stuff in that sector. If I am uncertain after reviewing the users actions I would ask for a second opinion before making any decisions on the granting of the user right.
6) There are some cases where I see removal of rollback/patrol rights warranted, such as if the user consistently misuses it after being let know that they are misusing the right (e.g "Hey, that's not how you do that." or "Hey, can you please stop doing that, that's not what Insert right is for."). If I do see that the user is misusing the right and others have said stuff along the lines of the example texts in the brackets, I would first reach out to them before taking any action to make sure that they are aware. If they continue to misuse the right roughly a week after my notification I would reach out again like "Hey, maybe stop doing that as that is misuse of the tools. If you continue to misuse the tools your right(s) may be removed.". If they still continue after my second message to misuse the right I would remove it with a notice.
7) First of all, I would make sure that ONESTRIKE would actually be applicable to avoid accidentally enforcing one strike on an editor in a case where ONESTRIKE wouldn't apply. After verifying that ONESTRIKE could be applicable on the user I would investigate the infraction that could trigger ONESTRIKE and see if it is a case where it actually triggered a clause in ONESTRIKE. If it did, then I would apply the appropriate punishment (e.g perm block with TPA to allow for an appeal). If ONESTRIKE wasn't triggered in this case I would simply leave a message saying "ONESTRIKE doesn't seem to apply here" and leave it at that.
8) First of all, I'd check to see if the article was deleted and for what reason to make sure it isn't a trolling attempt. For example, if I agreed with the deleting admin's decision I would say to the editor "Sorry, but I won't restore it as I agree with the argument that the deleting admin." but would also follow up with some advice (for example if the page was deleted under A4 I would recommend them to put what they believe makes the subject notable enough in the page during the creation process). However, if I see potential in the article I would see if the user would be willing to work on their article in their userspace and get another editor to review the page to make sure that it wouldn't break any rules before moving it into mainspace.
9) In most cases I probably would say that involved admins/editors should not close a discussion they have been directly involved in, unless that involvement was minor (e.g striking the !vote of a sockpuppet or performing maintenance work on the discussion page) or it is agreed by multiple editors that in that specific case, it would be acceptable.
Thank you for these questions and sorry for the chapter of text that is my response. This took me a proper hour to write out so I hope it serves its intended purpose :).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 18:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a slight aside for q7 I thought I'd mention, one-strike and whether it's applied is done at admin discretion. The amount of requests for one-strike applications has picked up lately, but is / should be generally done without a request - of course, the way you'd handle such a request on AN is still correct. --Ferien (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, too bad I only saw this now due to my wall of text.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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/FusionSub_2&oldid=10004043"