Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tropical Storm Angela

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.

Tropical Storm Angela

[change source]
Tropical Storm Angela (talk · contribs · count)
RfA of Tropical Storm Angela
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

End date: 13:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


User:Tropical Storm Angela has been on simple wiki since August 2010 and has made over 14,000 edits. She has made some great contributions to the wiki and that’s why I’m nominating her for adminship. NOTE: It says on her user page that she is not an admin but she would like to become one someday so this shows to me that she is happy to be nominated. — Cheers TGSL (Leave me a message) 13:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I would accept being a Wikipedia admin. I've always undid vandalistic and substandard user edits, mostly IP editors. When IP editors make questionable edits here on Simple English too many times, they can certainly be blocked for a certain period. Angela Kate Maureen 13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Support

[change source]
Support as nominator. — Cheers TGSL (Leave me a message) 13:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh well then. Seems like a stable candidate to me. Darubrub (Let me know) 13:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC) See below. Darubrub (Let me know) 17:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support11 years is pretty cool stuff. Mo1980s- (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Sock strike. Darubrub (Let me know) 20:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Katieamerican (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Sock strike. Darubrub (Let me know) 20:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, the above user who voted is not the account, but an IP, see edit made. Fixing26 (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --213.66.95.210 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Sock strike. Darubrub (Let me know) 20:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, IPs cannot vote. Fixing26 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Angela, regardless of the outcome of this, the community very strongly values the time and dedication you put into your work here. You are one of our best editors and your work has been invaluable to providing a positive encyclopedic experience for readers. I strongly believe that you being an administrator would be a net positive to the project; though you do not have much experience in most administrative areas, we can more than trust you not to misuse the tools and to stick to using them in the areas that you are familiar with, or to ask for help from other admins. I also understand that surprise RfA noms are abnormal, and TGSL is not remotely a good nominator for something like this, but I would urge those in the oppose section to reconsider. Your answers to the question by Ferien are not incorrect but are not perfect, overall fine though; there is definitely a learning curve when stepping out of the content creation side. Best regards, and thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above. SHB2000 (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I am happy with the answers that Angela gave to my questions. A big point bought up in the oppose section was that Angela is mainly involved in content creation. That is true, but Angela does have a reasonable amount of experience in anti-vandalism work and reporting to VIP; she just has a much larger amount of content work: 250 articles created in the last 9 months. Adminship is no big deal and I think she would do great work with the admin tools, and she would definitely be a net positive to the admin team. Thanks for all you do here Angela. --Ferien (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien: Your implication that Angela is mainly involved in content creation is a reason to oppose is concerning. As far as I'm concerned that's a good thing. Demonstration of the ability to create content is absolutely essential on any wiki. The Simple English Wikipedia has a problem with that especially, if you open the 16 sysops' contribs page you'll find that 9 (more than half) have basically no content creation at all and are only interested in other things here. More sysops who actually create content is a must. The opposes here are mainly due to CIR issues and other such things. Naleksuh (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ​Okay, I should have been clearer. Angela is more involved in content creation than in administrative areas, and the amount of contributions to administrative areas like RfD from Angela is low. If you're active in administrative areas then you will likely be more knowledgeable about policies, and this is why some people opposed. Just to be clear that is not the only reason I thought people opposed, it is just something I wanted to mention in my support. I think that as long as one understands when to/how to appropriately use admin tools, giving the tools to them is not a big deal. I found the answers that Angela gave me acceptable and showed to me that she could do some good work with the admin tools, which is why I supported in this case. Apologies for not being clear enough in my actual vote. --Ferien (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Weak oppose I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I've been changing opinions by the minute. But, I just don't think the user is quite yet prepared for administrator. I don't question Angela's experience, I think the user just isn't prepared for the tools used, and I don't think they particularly need them either. Fixing26 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding onto my earlier comments, I share many of the thoughts Gordonrox24 gives below. Angela has been of great assistance to the Wikipedia, but I don't see a need for admin tools. Fixing26 (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Though it may cause offence, I think a question is whether the candidate is psychologically sufficiently adult. A secondary issue is that we do have enough admins as it is. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If one feels their comment may cause offence, that may be evidence that perhaps it was not an appropriate comment to make. --IWI (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I first want to make it very clear that I believe this Wikipedia is much better off because of the hard work Tropical Storm Angela does. I believe they are an invaluable member of this community. However I feel I must oppose at this time. I was on the fence here, as I do not believe this user would ever harm the wiki with these tools. However, in my mind it comes down to experience and necessity. I don't think the user has enough experience in community discussions such as at RfD, where an admin would be expected to participate in some capacity. Im seeing only 225 Wikipedia space discussion edits in 11 years. In my opinion, Tropical Storm Angela's greatest contribution to this wiki is in her content creation, and the admin tools aren't required for that work. I hope this makes sense, and I hope to see Tropical Storm Angela on this wiki for many years to come. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose looks like socking above, which Darubrub has struck, but there's always haters of certain users who pretend to do this. SHB2000 (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SHB2000: the socking in the support section was designed to disrupt the RfA and a checkuser has confirmed it was not done by Angela. --Ferien2 (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I've struck my vote. SHB2000 (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose While the nominee may or may not be active on SE-wiki, I doubt her use of tools and vandal fighting. Furthermore, I don't think the psychologically mature enough. Experience isn't everything, and there is a low amount of work she has done for her time period. Elytrian - Talk 11:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose since I don't see a particular need for the sysop tools and never really saw the users name in the recent changes lately. –Morneo06 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Sorry, I don't feel they have the competency for such a role. While their content work is definitely great, the role of an administrator requires much more and I don't think that is something she can provide. This isn't meant to be a slight in any way, but some people are just not meant for all roles. -Djsasso (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose While we value your work, I think it would take more time in order to get a need for new admins. Darubrub (Let me know) 17:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - While I do see a lot of article creation and fixing, I do not see a whole lot of work or comments on other areas of the wiki, therefore, I have to oppose until I see more work in other areas of the wiki. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? (Pronouns: He, him, his) 21:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I think Angela's work on this wiki is fantastic, and I hope it continues, but I don't feel the user has sufficient competency for admin tools at this time. --IWI (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Naleksuh (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per above. Also the difficulty in identifying LTAs like Ljupco also questions me. SHB2000 (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LTA experience is not required for the admin tools. --Ferien (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be required, but it's like leaving vandals/LTAs a welcome message (no, literally, there's an admin on envoy who did that) SHB2000 (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien: No one has implied it is required. There are plenty of sysops who are not able to identify them, but without causing disruption. Causing disruption with LTAs is bad enough on its own but becomes an absolute hellscape with the sysop tools. There is already a problem with an already existing sysop who is constantly causing problems in fighting LTAs and has been for over a year. Only about a month ago a "warning" was delivered to an editor who has been editing here for over 17 years that they were "edit warring" (aka reverting a WMF-banned user) and that they "may be blocked" (blocking policy does not permit blocks for reverting WMF-banned users) if they do so again. It's actually an absolute hellscape and that is why an incident like this is a major red flag for anyone trying to request sysop toolkit. Naleksuh (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Naleksuh: I am aware of that incident.
    Identifying LTAs was put in the oppose vote as a reason, and little knowledge of LTAs alone should not be a barrier to adminship. Discouraging editors to revert LTAs can be a barrier, though. --Ferien (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just thought I would point out Naleksuh that WP:3RR says going past 3RR with obvious vandalism may not apply, it does not say that it will not apply. You can still be blocked for edit warring with an LTA, especially if you have been told not to multiple times. -Djsasso (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring with WMF banned users is not though. SHB2000 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even WMF banned users, WMF global ban policy only says their edits may be reverted, it does not say that edit warring is allowed. Local policy covers edit warring, which allows for blocks for edit warring, though not common in a case like this. There is a point where you need to stop and let an admin handle it. Edit warring just leads to more reverts, meaning more edits of whatever their junk is in the recent changes log etc and thus getting their vandalism or whatever it is more in front of more eyes. In other words revert warring with them helps them more than hinders them. -Djsasso (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose for several reasons. Angela does create a lot of articles, but they have had serious-enough issues that I have had to revoke her patroller right more than once. One issue is not understanding when language is simple, as evidenced by her needing to ask editors why they changed something in an article she created or why they flagged an article as complex. You could dismiss that as an issue with article creation, but it would also be an issue when communicating with users.
    Outside of article creation, I haven't seen Angela participate in general discussions very much. Before supporting an RFA, I'd want to see the candidate participate in discussions where they give their thoughts and support them with reasoning of their own. In addition, the original writing I have seen from her, such as some of the answers to questions on this page, has been written in a way that non-English speakers, and even some native English speakers, would find hard to understand.
    Finally, I worry about how the attacks and vitriol that admins are subject to from time to time would affect Angela, given the health issues she mentions on her user page.
    For these reasons, I oppose this candidacy. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I haven't participated in general discussions all that often I because I'm afraid of embarrassing myself during such discussions; I'm very scared of making myself look bad after being involved in certain discussions. Angela Kate Maureen 12:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to respond to this by saying I understand that concern and it is a valid one. I appreciate the honesty and openness of that response. Editing/changing on this Wikipedia should be an enjoyable experience, and I, and I think nobody else, would ever want to push you into doing something you're uncomfortable with. As I wrote above, I strongly believe this Wikipedia is better off because of the work you already do, and I don't think that belief will change. Thanks for your open comments here. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
  • This seems like an immature RfA to me. While I don't suspect nominee's experience, but this seems to be a bit off the rope. A user who came only a month ago started searching for RfA candidates. I know Tropical Angela Storm wishes to be an administrator, but you can't just nominate them and then tell them "I nominated you". ~ Hulged (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk with TGSL, the nominator. He is CU blocked, so he kinda is overenthusiastic and a bit, well, off the rope. Elytrian - Talk 18:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wholeheartedly agree with Vermont on all aspects of what s/he said. I’m going to add some stuff here later today. I’m reviewing your editing history and stuff as I know you’ve done an amazing job here with the articles and who (besides you) knew we had so many tropical storms? PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? (Pronouns: He, him, his) 09:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Ferien
[change source]

Hello Tropical Storm Angela, thank you for volunteering for adminship. I have a few questions for you:

  1. How do you want to help out as an admin?
  2. You are going through CAT:QD and you find a page tagged as A4. The page says "Jane Doe is a famous actor" but there are no sources to prove this. Can it be quickly deleted?

I look forward to your response. Best regards, --Ferien2 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. How long should IPs and accounts be blocked for vandalism respectively on 1ST BLOCK?
On normal offenses, IPs will be blocked twenty-four hours for first blocks, and if they resume vandalizing, the same IPs face even longer block times. For more serious offenses, including legal threats, racist comments, hate material and threats of violence, any account or IP certainly faces no less than the seventy-two hour block; the named accounts are subject to permanent blocking for any such behaviors. Any pages having no meaning, test pages, vandalistic pages, along with attack pages will be quickly deleted. The vandalistic and attack article creators are subject to more serious warnings. Anyone creating pages with copyright violations will also be subject to being warned more seriously than the usual warning; named accounts are subject to permanent blocking for any pages with copyright violations more than two times here on Simple English. Long term abusers on Simple English will be served under only warnings informing them their behaviors will not be tolerated on this or any Wikipedias. Any substandard edits will be reverted, mostly those that constitute vandalism, personal attacks, hate content or violating neutral points of view. Angela Kate Maureen 17:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Angela. Please be careful using the term substandard. That is a very vague term that can mean anything from a minor grammatical error to extreme hate speech. Also, I don't think you answered Ferien2's two question, and I am also interested in seeing your answers to them. In addition, I have some questions of my own:
  1. What admin work do you intend to participate in?
  2. What administrative actions have you seen that you would have handled differently, and what would you have done?
  3. What areas of admin work do you feel most ready to handle? What areas do you feel least ready to handle? Are there any areas you prefer not to handle at all?
  4. 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) 18:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: I did ask the question about how long IPs and accounts should be blocked for, and Angela moved it to her reply. --Ferien2 (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If actors or certain other celebrities did not meet with notability requirements on Simple English, I would have such articles in reference to such a person deleted within twenty-four hours or less after its creation. Sometimes, however, if the quick deletion criteria do not apply, the pages in question are taken to request for deletion; upon being classified as not having enough notability for their own page here on Simple English, the pages are deleted after a certain amount of time by whosoever may be an administrator, and I would do likewise treatment of such pages in question on this Wikipedia.

As for handling actions differently from other admins on Simple English, I wouldn't really do much different from other administrators on Simple. When I'm declared an admin on Simple English Wikipedia, however, I'd like to have understanding in identifying long term abusers before serving any such account operators and IPs with certain warnings related to vandalism, making inappropriate pages, not using neutral points of view when providing articles information on the subject to which articles refer and purposely giving wrong information on the subject of any article talking about that subject. Pages on Simple would warrant semi-protection when too many vandalistic edits, questionable edits or edit wars involving the articles have happened in certain amounts of time; pages having been deleted will face either semi-protection or full-protection. Full-protection will be applied only when necessary for pages and templates which are especially subject for being targeted with vandalism or very questionable edits from certain editors on Simple English.

I'm very ready to handle account/IP operators who create vandalistic, questionable, wrong information-related and personal attack-related editing on this Wikipedia. I'm also ready for deleting inappropriate, questionable, vandalism or attack pages here on Simple. But I would require certain help about identifying any particular IPs which are operated from schools (colleges, universities and high schools). As an administrator I require knowing when leaving warnings for editors involved with long term abuse would not be appropriate. Angela Kate Maureen 07:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With relations to how long named accounts/IP addresses would be blocked, in normal vandalistic cases, usual violations toward neutral points of view, being unkind/rude or adding spam to articles here on Simple English Wikipedia the named accounts and IP addresses in question would face twenty-four to thirty-one hour blocks for their first blocks; any following blocks for the same account operators will be longer. The named accounts will be subject to permanent blocks here after making the questionable edits just mentioned on Simple English. Ferien2, thanks for asking this serious question. Angela Kate Maureen 07:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answers, Angela. I'll think a little before voting in a few days. Regards, --Ferien2 (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Thegameshowlad
[change source]

Hello Tropical Storm Angela, thank you for volunteering for adminship. I have a few questions for you.

1) If you become an admin, do you understand the WP:AGF policy and that you should warn vandals for a first offence and then block if it continues? 2) Do you understand how our RFD system works?

Also I would like to issue a huge apology from the bottom of my heart for the allegations I made against you yesterday. It looked like they were your socks but I think the troll (who I now know was likely LTA Projects) was trying to make us think that. — Cheers TGSL (Leave me a message) 09:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC) I have struck out these lines as the user is WMF banned evading their ban. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? (Pronouns: He, him, his) 21:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegameshowlad I’m recommending you not comment or ask any more questions on this RfA. You are already in deep right now so I would stop and literally just create or fix errors on articles. You are basically one word away from being blocked and/or community banned. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? (Pronouns: He, him, his) 09:23, 5 August 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/Tropical_Storm_Angela&oldid=8898731"