Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ImprovedWikiImprovment 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.

ImprovedWikiImprovment

[change source]
ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk · contribs · count)
RfA of ImprovedWikiImprovment
Previous RfAs: 1 2
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

End date: 23:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings fellow Wikipedians. I have the privilege of nominating ImprovedWikiImprovment for adminship today. This would be IWI's second RfA. The reason I'm happy to stand and nominate IWI is I believe they've genuinely demonstrated a willingness to learn, dedication to the project, and the competence necessary to be a great sysop here. While there were some concerns addressed in their first RfA, I've personally witnessed them grow as a Wikipedian and improve themselves. This ability to accept critique and be taught is perhaps the single most important quality in a sysop. IWI has not only demonstrated this, but also proved they genuinely are eager to be the best they can be and serve the community here.

When considered along with IWI's activity level, quality of contributions to the project, and general personality, IWI exceeds my expectations of an deserving editor ready to accept additional responsibility.

I believe they would be an outstanding addition to our cadre of sysops. Operator873talkconnect 23:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you for your kind words and trust Operator; I accept :). I look forward to listening to the community on how I can do better and answering any questions they might have. Best, --IWI (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Responsible, sufficient relevant experience, and knows when to stop and ask for help. Meets my standards. Thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Has surpassed requirements. Has the ability to reach adminship. MeritedElm63160 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Experience, reliability, judgment. Antandrus (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cannot Oppose Must Support I'll note that IWI had a note on their talkpage about non-admin comments, but I understand that this was not meant to be disruptive, and it was meant to be a helpful comment, as IWI stated, it was added for a record. I'm happy with the work IWI has done here, and their answers to my questions. (Yes this is a support vote :-) ) --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I actually thought IWI was an admin when I first joined this wiki. They helped me out during the first few days I was here, and I am thankful for that. I think IWI would make a good great admin. ShadowBallX (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I don't see why not. This user is somebody who, in my experience, is highly dedicated to the project and I trust them to use their tools wisely. If I had any words of wisdom to give, they would be as follows: Keep in mind there usually isn't a rush for any action. It's better to take it slow and get it right than to rush into error. Feel free to take your time to think things through, and an admin should always be able to stop and ask for the help of those around them. Best of luck, you'll do great. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this useful advice :) I will take it on board; best, --IWI (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support In addition to other's comments, IWI has been, for months, the most active user I've ever seen on simplewiki. dibbydib⌐■_■ (talk!) 00:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support of course. Didn't notice this was open until today. IWI would make a great admin. He is very active, knows policies related to adminship and is always helpful. —Belwine (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Yep, that’s what I believe. I think Improv would make an exceedingly good administrator here. He deserves it because he has helped with a lot about adminship, reverted vandalism, been kind to other editors and all sorts believably. ImprovedWikiImprovement, I give huge thanks to you and all the supporters of this RfA and wish you a happy nomination. DJéxplîćît (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: because this user made their first edit after the RfA started, they are not eligible to vote per the rules. --IWI (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And now also a blocked sockpuppet. --IWI (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support ImprovedWikiImprovement deserves to be a responsible admin. Because as far as I am observing him right from my early days of joining Wikipedia, he spared good times in helping other users and performing anti vandalism tasks. Haoreima (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Good, support. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I've had some good interactions with IWI - I trust that they'll be an excellent admin. Hiàn (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]

Comments

[change source]

Questions

[change source]

Tsugaru's Questions.

  1. Should users (Non-Admins) make comment on requests for rollback, Patroller, Requests for unblock, or any other administrative discretion forms. What actions should be taken, if the user does comment?
  2. User:Example is an New User, but an admin on the X Language Wikipedia. He does something against the rules on this Wikipedia, multiple times, what action will you take, you are also considering the fact that he is an admin on X Language Wikipedia
  3. Please state what actions need to be taken if a edit war is happening on a Wikipedia Page, Please note that User B was previously blocked 24 hours for edit warring 1 day ago. How long will you block user B for?

Thank You --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 (change conflict)  Hi つがる, and thank you for your questions. Here are my responses:
  1. Generally speaking, there isn't usually a need for a non-admin to comment on such requests unless there is something they genuinely believe is compelling and that the admin team may not be aware of. So, I would advise them that they aren't community votes or discussions, and that they should avoid comments unless they are absolutely necessary.
  2. Somoene's status on another wiki (or even this wiki, for that matter) would never affect my decision when someone is breaking the rules. Being an admin elsewhere does not make you exempt from the rules of the wiki, and they are as just as answerable for their actions as any other user. I would attempt to talk to them like any other user, and eventually if they did not stop, I would take relevant action (which would depend on the nature of the behaviour). It should also be taken into account that they are new, and may not be fully aware of the differences between our wiki and their home wiki, so dialogue would be important.
  3. If there is an edit war taking place where one user (user B) has previously been blocked for the same reason, I would block them for a longer period than before, perhaps a week. Assuming there was another user involved, the other user (user A) would get a standard 24 hour block for edit warring. I may also protect the page for a time longer than the blocks to encourage dialogue and collaboration on the talk page; this would all depend on the particular case, though.
Thank you, and best regards, --IWI (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Auntof6:

  • What administrative actions have you seen that you would have handled differently, and what would you have done? (It's OK if it was something I did!)
  • What areas of admin work do you feel most ready to handle? What areas do you feel least ready to handle? Which areas you prefer not to handle at all, and why?
  • When do you think pages should be protected? When should they not be protected? Answer for both semi-protection and full protection.

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Auntof6; thank you for your questions.
  1. I think the admins do quite a good job here overall, considering the low editor numbers. I do wish generally more attention was paid to places like VIP and sometimes AN. There was one case recently where a report to AN was missed entirely and archived. Though, I think this is just a result of having few admins and not the admins individually.
  2. I feel I can continue my work with anti-vandalism; patrolling any new pages that may need quick deletion, including patrolling CAT:QD; and working in RfD (where I would close discussions that I am not involved in). I also think I will make use of the import tool, as currently I bring templates over via copy/paste; this tool would streamline that process and make my content work a little easier. I have very little experience in edit filters, so I would prefer not to contribute there at all, at least not at first.
  3. Page protection should be put in place if the level of vandalism or other disruption from a number of accounts or IPs is not able to be controlled by blocking alone. Semi-protection can be put in place if there has been an extended period of anonymous users or new accounts causing disruption, initially for a short period. Semi-protection should not take place if the vandalism is coming from one or two accounts or IPs, or if there hasn't been a sustained level of disruption where it is reasonable to believe there will be further vandalism. In terms of full-protection, that would usually be used in cases of edit warring where an autoconfirmed user was involved, especially where there are multiple autoconfirmed users; this can prevent disruption and encourage dialogue between editors involved in the dispute, and thus end the edit war. Full-protection is rarely required otherwise, and should be seen as a last resort to protect the page from damage. It should always be temporary in an article. It is also can be a good idea to fully protect highly visible templates that could cause widespread damage if vandalised.
Best regards; --IWI (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment on #1 (which is a perfectly fine example). Just because a report to VIP/AN was not actioned and was archived doesn't necessarily mean it was missed. Often it means all the admins passed on actioning it because it wasn't worth actioning or the editing had already stopped. Remember blocking is preventative and not punitive. So if bad edits are no longer happening a block is no longer necessary and the user/ip should not be blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there are certainly situations where that is the explanation. If a user (especially an anonymous user) stopped vandalising hours ago, there certainly is no reason for a block. --IWI (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2021 (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/ImprovedWikiImprovment_2&oldid=8899603"