Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ImprovedWikiImprovment

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment

ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 00:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Closed as unsuccessful - ImprovedWikiImprovment is a prolific editor, and certainly among the most active ones of the last few months. As we can see below, he has some support in the community, eight people supported him, four opposed. This gives a support ratio of two thirds; unfortunately, our guideline wants three quarters of the votes in support. ImprovedWikiImprovment is eight percent (or four support votes) off that mark. Wikipedias are community projects, consensus has to be honored. So, regretfully, I am only able to close this as an unsucessful request. ImprovedWikiImprovment: I, and many other editors, value you as a successful, prolific editor; don't feel bad about the unsuccessful request, but continue the good work you have done so far. --Eptalon (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi all! Today, I'm here to nominate ImprovedWikiImprovment for Adminship. I must begin, by saying, I'm Impressed by the work ImprovedWikiImprovment, has put into this project. ImprovedWikiImprovment, obviously, has a better understanding of Wikipedia's Policies than I do, One reason I am here today to nominate ImprovedWikiImprovment for adminship, is for all their excellent work they have done here, from Reverting Vandalism, to Starting RFD requests, to participating in community discussions, ImprovedWikiImprovment has racked up more than 17,000 edits, created more than 300 articles, and is always active, exceeds the Criteria for Adminship. I believe ImprovedWikiImprovment would make an excellent addition to the SEWP admin team, and I invite all users to participate in this RFA. :) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you Thegooduser for your kind words; I accept :) --IWI (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support I think that ImprovedWikiImprovment would be a administrator here, primarily due to their high activity levels, clear need for the tools, very good judgement calls (better than some existing admins), and content creation (while you don't have to be the next TDKR, I do expect to see some interest in building an encyclopedia from RfA candidates-- admins who have no interest except by taking admin actions are a problem in my opinion). I hope that ImprovedWikiImprovment will be a great administrator here and hope to see much more excellent work under a new layer! Naleksuh (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Support as nom --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Strong support per nom and IWI is very reliable, has used the tools responsible and appropriately throughout his tenure here. You create articles, have been active through RfC to RfDs to Wikipedia Talks, etc. You are very well balanced with different tasks in Wikipedia and I will firmly say you have been the most active than some admins here when it comes to creating articles, welcoming users and frequently talk part in talks pages, to discussing community guidelines, etc. I firmly support this nomination of a trusty well balanced user. Good luck old friend. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Thought about this for a while, it cannot be denied that IWI have done good work to our wiki. Although he didn't have any recognized GA, VGAs, the content creation side is okay. I note that if a content creator TKDR can endorse him, I am fine with content issues. As of A4, it's not easy and yes, I am aware that there's different interpretations amongst admins here too, but I think they can learn with experience. If unsure, I trust they will tag rather than outright delete. The reason why I asked for disputes is that at times, they can be quite insistent on their POV and it might cause issues, but overall I see is an editor who is willing to get into these disputes acting in good faith for the encyclopedia. Lastly, I also wish to point out my desire for active admins, having come here on and off the past 2 years, I am always seeing them which allay my concerns. It's not easy to cast this support, but I guess let's give them a go? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Support - I know IWI has had his ups and downs, like all of us. Nobody knows everything. But he is level-headed, active, knowledgeable and ready to learn from his mistakes. He and I may not always agree on everything, yet I do not feel worried at the idea of him being a sysop, and we will definitely see a net benefit from an active user with the extra buttons. --Yottie ^=talk= 18:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
6. Strong support IWI would make great admin --sithjarjar ^{(my contribs | talk to the sith lord)} 18:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
7. Support Tbiw (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
8. Support --Lefcentreright (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I found myself originally inclined to weakly oppose the candidate due to a recent disagreement at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Phan Bich Thien where the candidate, in my view, ironically violated AGF by telling another editor to AGF (the essay en:Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith is particularly relevant here). From my understanding of the discussion in that RfD, being told that you were dodging the question of whether you need to be a Vietnamese speaker to evaluate viwiki's version of the article is valid criticism when the question had been left unaddressed on at least two occasions: Special:Diff/7129462, Special:Diff/7135843. I feel this is particularly significant especially when you, as a non-vi speaker, went to viwiki (a non-small wiki with a decent number of rights holders) and nominated an article there with the sweeping claim that "this person is not notable". AGF should not have been cited in this scenario to, as I perceived, deflect criticism off yourself. This was the only major concern that I noticed, so it was my hope that the answers to my questions in the RFA would tilt the balance in a different direction.
   • Now, about why my vote has now shifted to an oppose: evaluating an article under the QD A4 lens makes no determination about whether the subject of an article was in fact notable per our various notability guidelines. Our QD A4 is based on EN's WP:A7, which also chimes in with the additional explanation that this is a lower standard than notability, and that "[t]he criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Indeed what you mentioned in your 2nd answer is correct: just because no sources are included in an article does not mean no sources exist; notability does not depend on the state of sourcing in an article. However, it would not be correct to automatically come to the conclusion that an article which meets QD A4, would not have any sources that provide significant, independent coverage of the subject, not to mention that evaluating/proving whether a subject does indeed meet our notability criteria is something to be handled at RFD, not QD. The background at Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_101#QD_A4 and en:Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance may also be useful in explaining the intent of this criterion. Chenzw  Talk  04:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

   @Chenzw: As for me asking another user to assume good faith, this was in response to being told to do so myself. This was not in response to the claim of "dodging the question" at all. The user said "and what ever happened to assume good faith?", which was what prompted me to ask them to "take their own advice" in my response. You actually linked the essay en:Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith, which is relevant to my response. I can see now how that may have been perceived, but the mention of AGF was unrelated to the claims of avoiding the question and any mention of my activities on vtwiki, and I am being completely honest in saying so. I did say that it sounded like they may have been suggesting bad faith, but I did not go as far as to say that they were. I would not have used AGF in such a way to avoid criticism, and I agree that this would be very bad. As for A4, I (of course) can't argue these points of criticism, and they will help me grow as an editor in order to improve in the future. Thank you for the response, --IWI (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

   Chenzw I'm just curious, what's the difference between weak oppose and oppose (same with support and weak support) don't they get counted the same? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

   @Thegooduser: There isn't a difference on its own, although a weak oppose might have less effect on a crat chat. Stuff like that is done for best expressing points of view (which is why I myself try to leave rationales instead of simply a support/oppose template instead of my name). Builds discussion as well. Naleksuh (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

2. Oppose Chenzw makes a compelling case. -Djsasso (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose Thank you, Chenzw, for making the case I had wished to. Having been dismissed once, I didn't think it was worth raising my concerns again. The editor is too aggressive in pursuit of deletion. And, continues to dodge the questions in that case even here in this discussion. They exaggerated the basis for deletion and refused to demonstrate their claims or answer core questions. I was particularly disturbed by the action at the Vietnamese wiki. --Gotanda (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

   Hi Gotanda. Although this request is shortly due to close, I would like to address these points. I didn't feel my conduct at the deletion discussion you are referring to to be aggressive in any way, and certainly did not intend to come off that way. I am truly sorry if you felt my replies to be aggressive. From my end, it was a civil debate about the notability of the subject in question. As for the viwiki nomination, I am somewhat regretful for making it – my intention was to gauge the opinions of viwiki users on the article's sources in relation to notability, which in my view did not appear to be sufficient from what I could translate. I personally do not feel this was "disturbing", despite the fact that it shouldn't have been made at all in the first place as I was not eligible (as well as the fact that it is not a small wiki, as Chenzw stated). Finally, you stated I dodged a question here, but I do not see any questions that were left unanswered or avoided, so I am not sure what you are referring to. Either way, I thank you for your feedback :). --IWI (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

4. Reluctant oppose, per Chenzw --DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Questions from Camouflaged Mirage

• Thank for volunteering :) Can I know what areas you are interested in using the tools, your best achievement thus far in Simple and how you handle disputes. (The usual 3 RFA questions rephrased). Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  Hi Camouflaged Mirage, and thank you for questions. My interests in using the tools will just be a continuation of what I already do. I will delete new pages that fit the QD criteria (including patrolling the QD category) and also block vandals and spammers reported at VIP. Currently I tag pages for deletion and report vandals to VIP, but in most cases I would delete or block them myself (although if I'm not certain about a page being deleted, I think an admin can still use a QD tag for a second opinion). I will also use the import tool to help keep templates and modules (as well as their doc pages) up to date. Currently I do this manually with copy/pasting with attribution, but the import tool would make this quicker to do. I consider my best achievements to be my content creation, such as expanding the Oxygen article or creating most of the UK motorway articles. I handle any disputes in a reasoned way: I recently had disputes with editors on Fascism and London Underground, where both were brought to the talk page in order to resolve them. I hope this answers your questions, thanks --IWI (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for your answers, let me ponder a while before !voting. @ImprovedWikiImprovment:. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks Camouflaged Mirage :) --IWI (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Chenzw

• The appropriate enforcement/application of relevant policies/guidelines is a key responsibility for an administrator. For each of the below stated policies/guidelines, please provide an example, as well as any necessary explanation/elaboration, of where (1) the policy/guideline applies, and (2) the policy/guideline does not apply. Either real or hypothetical examples are fine. I am sorry that this may sound a bit confusing, I will elaborate below:
  • QD A4: please give an example of an article which would be eligible for quick deletion under A4.
  • QD A4: please give an example where an editor might nominate an article for QD A4, but the article might not actually be eligible for QD A4.
  • AGF: please give an example where the conduct of an editor would be considered a violation of AGF.
  • AGF: please give an example where the conduct of an editor would not be considered a violation of AGF.
  • (for AGF examples in particular, you might want to consider hypothetical examples, and/or not mentioning editors by name)

--Chenzw  Talk  16:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Chenzw, and thank you for your questions. I agree with you that the enforcement and application of the rules laid out by the community are perhaps the most important jobs of an administrator. Here are my answers to your questions:

1. An article has been created about an aspiring actor currently in acting school that has never acted in any film, TV series nor on stage. There is no explanation why such a person is notable, so it can be deleted under A4, unless there is another explanation why they are notable. Nothing has been said about the subject that shows why they are notable. It can be guaranteed that there would not be significant, independent coverage for such a person.

2. An article has been created about a local politician that lacks sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. If someone tagged this article for A4, it should be declined as local politicians (such as mayors) can be notable providing they have had significant press coverage, so it would require an RfD discussion before being deleted in order to discuss whether they have had such coverage. Just because there are no sources included in the article, does not mean others are not available elsewhere. It does not fit the A4 criteria as being a local politician could be an explanation for being notable.

3. A user's very first edit to the Simple English Wikipedia is to create an article by copying an entire article from the English Wikipedia without any simplification. A user tags this for deletion and tells them to stop vandalising or they will be blocked (perhaps even with a level 3 or 4 template). This is a violation of AGF as they have assumed that the user was acting in bad faith even though it is reasonable to assume that a new user may not understand that it is wrong and is likely acting in good faith trying to improve the encyclopedia. A softer notice should be given reminding them that copying articles directly without simplifying is not allowed, providing links in order to help them learn how to write in simple English.

4. If this user keeps doing this over and over again and it is clear they understand that copying articles is not allowed (i.e. they have acknowledged their understanding of it directly), it would become clear that they are acting in bad faith. At this point it would be reasonable if a user warned them to stop making bad pages and their creations could be considered vandalism. It would also be reasonable if an administrator applied a block if in order to protect the encyclopedia from further bad pages. This would not be a violation of AGF, as good faith has been assumed up until the point where it becomes clear that they are probably not acting in good faith.

I hope this answers your questions and please do not hesitate to ask anything further. Kind regards, --IWI (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2020 (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.