Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thegooduser 2

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

Comments from Closing bureaucrat: Hello Thegooduser, what I currently see are three valid support votes, and three valid oppose votes. Even if I counted the vote that was cast after the request was created, we would be at four support votes, of seven total (or 57%). Unfortunately, our Criteria for Adminship want 75% support for admins. Even though as a bureaucrat I have some discretion as to closing requests, I don't think I can overrunle a fourth (or 18% in the case we counted the vote of the account that was created after the vote started). I see you have some understanding of the policies, and some support in the community; unfortunately, the community support isn't enough yet. Also: If you decide to try again, please wait at least six months before filing your next request. Keep up your good work as an editor, you don't need to be an admin to be a valued member of the community. --Eptalon (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thegooduser

Thegooduser (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 02:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

In August of 2020, I had filed my first RFA. However, I was proven unfamiliar with the policies on wiki, and humour was used by me in the RFA to 'lighten up' the process, while still taking the role of an Admin, and the RFA, very seriously. Before I go further (I forgot to mention this in the previous RFA), it is important to note, that I was banned from the en wiki REVDEL channels, however, as you can see, this happened 2 years ago, I've obviously matured and grown older since that happened, and I now know what falls and what doesn't fall for REVDEL. (I haven't been unbanned from that channel yet, mainly because I edit here and not on en wiki). Going back to the RFA, I wish to serve the community, assisting with QD requests, VIP reports, Page Protections, RFD closures, and to stop spam and disruptive editing. Many Admins/Crats, are offline while I'm online, and I've ran into many times where I needed help from an Admin/Crat, but none was present. I'm now familiar with the policies. I acknowledge that the Admin flag is not for hat-collecting, or an exempt from following the rules, it is given after a genuine need is shown for it. I hope the SEWP community will place their trust in me, and please rest assured, that the revdel ban happened long ago, and it is no longer who I am. (Activity note: I'm active for usually a few hours a day, (due to school) but I won't be gone for long periods of time) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination

Support

1. While the understanding of policies from the candidate is not perfect, I will sunshine support both per WP:DEAL and as I greatly appreciate how the candidate is willing to work with others, improve themself, and learn, and I hope they can continue doing so as an administrator. Naleksuh (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Support I am satisfied with the user's answer to my question. I said it in the last RfA and I will say it again: Thegooduser knows when to act, but also crucially when not to act and ask for another opinion. This has been demonstrated with an administrative function he already has, rollback, where he has been careful not to use it when it is not appropriate. He has asked me and others on a number of occasions if it appropriate to use it in certain instances. He also assumes good faith more than any user I have came across on Wikimedia, and is always kind in the face of hostility. All in all I see a user who knows their stuff and is willing to learn from their mistakes, and I think Thegooduser will make a great administrator. --IWI (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Fine, mainly per IWI. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

   Largely moral support now per issues with the answers to Chenzw as well as the collapsing of answers and stub usage (per talkpage). However, I am still confident they can use the tools in a proper manner and if they aren't confident, I am sure they won't unilaterally. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

   Support Thegooduser will be an administrator BobEvansErie (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

   This account created after the creation of this RFA. Hence, the vote is invalid. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Waaaaay to quick to self-nom for another run. Should have waited for another user to nominate them as I am not convinced that the problems from the original RfA could be solved in only 3 months. -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Per Djsasso --DannyS712 (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose - the answer to my question was, frankly, borderline incoherent and does not inspire confidence in the candidate's ability to act as an administrator, particularly in the realm of evaluating community discussion/consensus. It is also worth pointing out that NOLYMPICS does not say that an Olympic/Paralympic athlete must be participating in an individual capacity to meet NOLYMPICS, and no one in that RfD mentioned that being part of a team disqualified the athlete in question from meeting NOLYMPICS. Chenzw  Talk  11:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Camouflaged Mirage's Comments/Questions

• 3 months from 1st RFA might appear to people as a little too quick? What had you done in the 3 months to allay the fears of the opposers? What content work have you done in the past 3 months? What non-content work had you done? These are things I am looking for? Hope will have an answer. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• In addition, what are the things that you are best contributions to wiki and how will you resolve disputes (if any) (the typical 3 adminship questions). I am also noting that you for a period of time posting on WP:ST to take Kimono to GA, thanks for the few addition of ref, but apart from that, the page seems the same from before you start editing, any updates? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Camouflaged Mirage: Chenzw's first and second RfAs were only a month and a half apart, although I suppose it was a different time in 2008. Yes, I was a bit alarmed by his quick RfA as well, but I regret opposing his first one. Naleksuh (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Response

I don't think this is too quick, because I demonstrated that I understand why my last RFA failed, and I now know the policies. In the past 3 months, I've read the policies on the wiki, looked at the history of SEWP, Particularly the talk archive pages of various users, this is a great way, because the talkpages, give you a sense of the rules that we have at the SEWP, talkpages usually contain messages about warnings and about rules, and by reading the warning and the rules that were broken, this lets me know of rules that If I didn't know existed, does. Talkpages are also a place to ask questions (Simple Talk for example) and is a robust way to gain information/consensus from the community, when unsure or in doubt before action is taken. To make sure we're on the same page, can you please define what you mean by "content/non-content work", to me content work means pages in article pages, and non-content work means project pages, etc. But before I provide an answer, I want to make sure were on the same page, of what that means. If you mean the same then I will answer as follows: Content Work I've wrote a new article called Sapporo TV Tower, this article creation was to help expand the current article of the city, Sapporo. I've cleaned/fixed up the article Kimono (More about it in the next answer below) I've fixed up concerns listed at Geisha, in order for it to stay as a VGA status article I've fixed grammar and general errors in various articles, and added images were necessary Reverted Vandalism and spam, etc Non-Content Work I've joined WAM, as a organizer/jury (I haven't judged articles yet, because November is still just getting started, but I will get to judging in a week or so) I have assisted many new users, from Simple Talk, to the individual talk page of the user I reminded/let new users know of Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution, many new users expand articles from another Wikipedia, and forget/don't know about the translation templates that are required for the article's content that was translated here VGA Demotions: I gave my input on the demotion of the VGA article Violin RFD Requests, Many new articles, I have sent to RFD for further analysis on the subject(s)/articles notability (Since RFD takes place in Project space, I consider this to be non-content work) Simple Talk, I usually participate in discussions at Simple Talk Wikiproject Japan: I encouraged some new users (that spoke Japanese or were interested in editing articles relating to Japan) to join my Wikiproject about Japan Participate in RFD Requests Main Page DYK Hooks Kimono's status Technically, Yes, I could have got Kimono to a GA by now, but I chose to slow down and take my time, and here's why: School Work, I cannot be neglecting/ignoring my schoolwork and putting all my time outside of school on Wikipedia, or I'll fail school, and I can't put all my time into school and not edit Wikipedia, or I'll have no balance in life and schoolwork. I must balance out both Wikipedia, and schoolwork. Schoolwork and Wikipedia are equally as important to me. Take your time! If I did nothing on Wikipedia, and just straight out edit Kimono, I'd either get really tired, and start making mistakes in the article, or miss out on finding grammar errors or typos that are in the article. If I was constantly on the Article, I'd get bored of it, and I would not want to touch it again, hence not promoting it to GA I will be working on Kimono soon, the reason why you haven't seen activity on it, is because of the above reasons. I invite you to compare the revisons before and now. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia, hence the reason I'm taking my time. Best Contributions I believe my best contributions are the ones to do with Japan. (Full disclaimer: All my edits, I enjoy doing, If I didn't like doing them, why would I be here? I'm being asked about my best contributions, and since, I'm passionate about Japan I choose those ones, there might not be much, but learning/writing about Japan, is something I love to do.) Outside of the edits to do with Japan, I joined WAM (Wikipedia Asian Month), because I also have a passion for Asia, and I want to help SEWP, expand, by writing more articles about Asia (I noticed the articles about Hong Kong are out of date, so I will try to update them while WAM is taking place). But ultimately, I joined Wikipedia, to help Wikipedia grow as an encyclopedia, by fixing, or making new articles, for the sum of all Human knowledge, to be shared,for free. Content Disputes/Resolutions The answer to this will depend on the situation. Since the 2020 US Presidential Elections was fairly Recent, I am going to use this as an example. In the article '2020 USA Presidential Elections' there is User:X and User:Y. Before the election is over (it just started in this case), User:X says the election is rigged and inserts into the article, with no sources that Donald Trump has won the election. User:Y says Joe Biden won the election (with no reliable sources), both users also didn't keep a WP:NPOV. I then see the edits (and in this case I'm an admin) and revert them all (using the twinkle rollback button) and warn both of the on their talk page with a level 1, warning, that tells both users to cite reliable sources, and to stay to a Neutral Point of view. User:X then stops changing the article, and listens to the warning. However, User:Y ignores the warning and keeps going again, I revert them, I re-warn them, this time with a level 2 warning. After this I encourage the users to stop edit warring, and to discuss on the talk page of the article about the changes they are making, and where they are getting this information from and to look for reliable sources. This came to a conclusion that there were no reliable sources. Out of good-faith that the users would stop, I did not protect the article yet. But then user:y continues adding that Joe Biden has won to the article again, with no sources, after I warned and reverted them more times, they still continue, leading to a block. I then protect the article for 6 months to stop further disruption. I would like to point out that no matter the case, or the status of the user, all users must be treated with respect. Respect is important, and even if the user is being disruptive, it doesn't mean we should not respect them. Respect is of utmost importance, and sadly, I've seen users/admins be rude to other users, on many occasions. I hope this answers your comments/questions. Thank you for your time, --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from ImprovedWikiImprovment

Hi Thegooduser, and thank you for volunteering. Following on from your last paragraph here, I'd like to ask a question. Let's say we have two users who are autoconfirmed edit warring over how an article should look (maybe what image should be used in the infobox) and they both continue to do so after an edit warring warning, both making four reverts each. How long would you apply a block for on their accounts (if at all) and how long would you apply protection on the page for (if at all). Thank you, --IWI (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

response

ImprovedWikiImprovment, Assuming that they both violated the 3RR, they will be both blocked, the standard blocking time for this is 24 hours (1 day), with talkpage access enabled. If the talkpage is used for something other than discussing unblock, then talkpage access will be removed. Instead of edit warring, the users should have discussed on the talkpage of the article, which image should be used, and get a consensus from other editors, before making the change. If it's only two users edit warring in the article, and they are blocked, and no other edit war starts, there is no need to protect the article, However if the article is of a controversial/popular topic (like the election) then it's best to semi-protect (semi-protection would work in this case, because the 2 users are blocked so they cannot edit) for temporary (the period would vary from article to article). If a user who is not an admin sees an edit war, they should notify an active Admin, or at WP:AN. And let the users know they have been reported. Thank you, --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Chenzw

For better or for worse, being an administrator nowadays entails more than just access to the anti-vandalism tools - they are elected by the community who can be trusted to exercise good judgement, as well as discern and enforce community consensus. Please have a look at this long-ish RfD that you have managed to remain uninvolved in: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Ilse Arts (2nd nomination), and briefly summarise the discussion in the RfD:

• Reasons for keeping the article, and whether they were grounded in relevant guidelines/policies
• Reasons for deleting the article, and whether they were grounded in relevant guidelines/policies

Additional background information is available at the first RfD for the article, if you wish to refer to it. Chenzw  Talk  13:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Response

Before I start, I wanted to point out that there is a tag in the article, that's been there since July of 2020 that disputes the notability of the Subject (And the RfDs took place in July, both RFD's were around 10 days apart). Now on to the RfD. I'm going to be talking mainly about the 2nd RfD... Reasons for Keeping the Article: The main reason for keeping the article in the second RFD was, that Ilse Arts, had won a bronze metal, in the Paralympics, and being part of the team was a factor, for the keep votes, but being part of a team doesn't staisfy the notability guidelines, because it (en:WP:NOLYMPIC) stipulated for an indivudual sport in the Paralympics. (a user mentioned if a team won a metal, then the entire team (every single person) is notable) and becasue she won a metal, and participated in the paralympics (assuming that the paralympics were equal in status as the olympics), this seemed to have claimed the subject's notability for some of the keep votes . One user in particular did mention a good point, that the reason why Google probably showed little results about the subject, was that the sources, may have not been written in English, or they were published in a book or newspaper,etc. When, I did a Google lookup myself, I did find some results about this athlete, and not much news sources, in the news section, (which is why the user mentioned the sources may not be in English, or published in a book or newspaper, etc) there wasn't much (or any) results at all. A user later, then shared coverage of this Athlete in the Dutch Newspapers, and However, these newspapers sources were shown to be the same source of one newspaper company . Another source was then found, but was just a mere mention of the Athlete. The keep sums up to, that because the Athlete won a metal, and was in the Olympics, the Athlete is deemed notable Were they grounded in relevant guidelines/policies? EN Wikipedia's NATHELETE, states, that an athlete is deemed notable, if they have competed, in the Olympics. EN Wikipedia's NOLYMPICS, states an athlete is notable, if they won a metal in the (modern) Olympic Games, this includes the Paralympic Games (However, it doesn't mention if participating in the Paralympic games makes them notable, but it states that they are notable if it was an individual sport/event at the paralympics). Considering that the Athlete, was covered in the newspaper, and won a metal, and participated in the Olympics (I Explained above of why Olympic is the same) is a factor that makes the Athlete notable. However, it was pointed out in another RFD, that Notability, is about coverage by the news and not ability. The reason why the second RFD was a 'keep' was because of her participation in the sport (again, a user did mention in the first RFD that they consider the Paralympic and Olympic games to be equal, hence why the first RFD was a keep.) However, there are other factors, and just because a person/Athelete meets the en:WP:GNG, or en:WP:NOLYMICS or en:WP:NATHLETE guidelines, does not guarantee them a Wikipedia Article. Ultimately, an RFD discussion is not based on the number of votes, but which side has the best argument(s) that's relevant to the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. Main Reasons for deleting the Article Little to no coverage by the Media, news sources didn't give many mentions, if any they were just mere mentions. A user did point out that when using a database for research, That Some sources were found, but the sources were mere just mentions. The Athlete's Participation in the Paralympic games wasn't enough to establish notability (because it was a team sport), despite having meet some of the guidelines, at en:WP:NOLYMPICS The article is short, this may be becasue of lack of coverage (Stated in the 1st RFD and not the second, just thought I'd bring this up) Were they grounded in relevant guidelines/policies? As stated by en:WP:GNG, en:WP:NATHELTE, and en:WP:OLYMPICS, Just winning a metal at the Paralympic games, Individual Particaption, and coverage by the media would be enough to claim notability. However, it was stated, that the soruces were mere mentions, hence they did not count as coverage. Also becasue it was a team sport, was another factor for deletion. Wether the Paralympics was equal in status in the Olympics, was debated in the first RFD. I should note that when I do RFD's I usually do Google search, but it doesn't mean that if I can't find results that whatever subject I'm taking to RFD isn't notable, and when I do a Google search it's just for a general lookup to see how many results are on the internet and any mentions (just to get an idea of the general notability of the subject on the internet), then I bring it to RFD for people to evaluate the notability, or look deeper in the internet/search off the internet for sources Thank you for your time, --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note: The collapsing of the questions and answers by Thegooduser had made this RFA hard to read and the sections are all messed up. I don't know why they want to do this. I had done slight adjustments. I don't think any wiki collapse questions for RFA to make it easier to read or the answers are collapsed. Certainly zh/en/meta don't, I don't see why there is a need for collapse + I don't think is simple policy to collapse. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Because it was getting too long, I'd like to note that there was also collapse template on Vermont's Request for Checkusership Request too --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It is just unconventional for the candidate to collapse, for the Vermont RFCU is some additional IRC conversations, not directly questions and answers. In addition, there are times where an admin needs to answer for his/her actions, having so long explanations might not help , the best is cogent, concise arguments. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:45, 15 November 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.