Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thegooduser

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

2/3/0 - Request withdrawn. Closed on Thegooduser's behalf per Special:Diff/7076944. Naleksuh (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thegooduser (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 01:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Guys! I hope you all are having a great day so far (Unless your wifi is dead haha). Anyways, I orginally Intended to do an RFA, a few months later from now, but seeing that ImprovedWikiImprovement has nominated Naleksuh for adminship, I decided to be Bold and file my Request for Adminship.

What I intend to do/Why I want to run for adminship

• Many Backlogs in, WP:VIP, WP:PERM, and Quick Deletion Requests, etc
• I see many bad pages being created that I can just delete myself without adding to the backlogs
• Most of time when a user/vandal is reported at WP:VIP, or not, they just have a free vandalism spree, because no admin is not around
• At certain times, sometime admins forgets to revdel logs that clearly fall in the category for REVDEL.
• When a page is being vandalised many times, it does not get protected fast enough

What I don't intended to do

• The IRC channels, because it's too confusing for me there

These logs are provided for convenience

• User:thegooduser/QD log
• User:thegooduser/rd log

I understand that being an admin, does not make me special, and that I am just an editor with a few extra buttons, and that means nothing, and I must follow the rules at all times. Successful or not, I thank you for everyone's input, and I look forward to continuing serving the SEWP community. Thank you. :) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination

Support - solid contributor over the last few years who has a clue. Knows when and, crucially, when NOT to act, as shown with their careful use of rollback. Will be very helpful as part of the admin team. He has a valid reason for his inactvity, and I don't think that should hold him back. IWI (chat) 01:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support - Strong Support: Great balance of good article creation, spot-on vandal fights, as well as strong leadership in terms of getting newbies on board from patiently telling me about Twinkle, giving very insightful and detailed feedback, not only assuming good faith (but seeing the good in others). All in all, thegooduser lives up to his name - very instrumental in encouraging more people to join the project and stick around). --Infogapp1 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Why not. Good editor; won’t abuse the tools. --sithjarjar666 ^{(my contribs | talk to me | see my enwiki profile)} 17:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - Regrettably, the candidate's answers to my and Operator873's questions were, in my view, unsatisfactory and do not inspire confidence in their ability to perform administrative functions. I also want to note that revdel and page protection are, in general, sparingly used on this wiki and that revdel does not extend to "'ordinary' rudeness, personal attacks or conduct accusations". Chenzw  Talk  00:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Chenzw If they didn't qualify, then why did it get rd'ed? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't say that all of the linked diffs did not qualify for revdel. RD2 provides for the deletion of "grossly insulting" content, and the extent of "grossly insulting" is a matter of interpretation and careful weighing of various contextual factors. What I do think, however, is that at least one of the diffs was not a clear case of revdel, as mentioned (that's not to say it wasn't valid). Administrators are expected to exercise careful judgement, and I cannot support a candidate who comes across as someone who is quick to jump into using administrative tools. Chenzw  Talk  00:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Chenzw Thank you clarifying --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   ​​I disagree that the candidate here is 'quick' -- I often find that they question their own actions and often ask others for second opinions before doing things ( some of our existing admins have also asked me about how to use their admin tools as well ). I think that this is a very useful trait, however my main concern is that administrators should have a 100% clear understanding on policy. I am considering a weak support per WP:DEAL, however, I know that Chenzw has his own interpretation of what WP:DEAL means. I will probably put down my own questions sometime later today. Naleksuh (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree with Naleksuh here. Thegooduser has frequently asked other users whether it is appropriate to use the rollback tool or not in specific situations, and this shows they think before they act in relation to advanced tools. I don't at all agree that thegooduser comes across as someone who is quick to jump, in fact, the very reason I supported is because that is exactly the opposite of how thegooduser behaves. --IWI (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Okay, this is difficult for me to write, both because I know that the user edits in good faith, and he also supported my own RfA. But I must say that the reply to Operator873 is very concerning. A CheckUser block should not be lifted by a non-CheckUser without consultation simply due to an unblock request and nothing else. I think that is very concerning. Look man, I appreciate your editing and tireless attempts to assume good faith, be nice to everyone, and be the best editor possible, accepting feedback immensely well (more than some of our existing admins), but I think that this RfA sounds a small bit destructive. It would not be a good idea to just unblock a checkuser blocked account without checkuser consultation. I really hope that this is not taken the wrong way, because I don't want to lose this editor or make him feel unappreciated. Please continue editing and listening, I appreciate the edits that you have done and the extremely selfless attempt to mop for the community. But I sadly feel myself forced to oppose this. I hope, that you do not take it the wrong way or hold against me as I myself am doing what I believe benefits the encyclopedia. Naleksuh (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Naleksuh OOPS! I guess I won't be successful, Should I withdraw then? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Also don't feel bad for opposing me because I supported your RFA. Don't support my RFA cause I'm your supported yours, only support if I meet the criteria, otherwise you should oppose :) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.  (change conflict)  Oppose I'm afraid the candidate's answers to Operator873's questions, particularly question 4, are enough for me to withdraw my support. They were not satisfactory and I am not confident enough to trust the user with the admin toolset. Checkuser blocks should not be overturned without consultation. But please continue the great work you are doing, and I hope to see you at an RfA in the future when you have more experience with policies :) --IWI (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also,Out of Humour, cause RFA'S are always/mostly serious, God's going to use this against me in Heaven if I were to get my 'reward' there lol --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this RFA. Thanks Guys for your input! :) (thanks IWI for Edit conflicting me lol) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you able to recall any specific example of (1) pages/logs that were not revdel'd (as you pointed out), and (2) pages not being protected fast enough? Chenzw  Talk  03:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chenzw here and here. For a page, Ellie Goulding --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To follow Chenzw's question: Can you describe when a page should be protected? Operator873^talkconnect 12:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operator873, see my answer above --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operator873 Sorry, I misread your question. Okay, so, if a page is being vandalised or has info added that ins unsourced, in breach of BLP, etc by multiple IP's/Accounts then it needs to be protected, otherwise if it's just one account/IP, then we just need to block the user and no protection is needed --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The specific part of the answer I was looking for here is Semi-protection should only be used if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. On this project, similar to what Chenzw said above, protection is a measure of last resort on this project. In addition, there are many pages that attract known WMF banned users which are intentionally left unprotected as honeypots to attract them. Operator873^talkconnect 00:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As an administrator, do you think the community established policies should be strict or are those policies intended to be flexible? How would you gauge a possible breach of those policies? Operator873^talkconnect 12:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operator873 I think our policies are pretty decent, and not in a sense that all polices should be strict, because if policies were too strict, it might turn certain editors one way into black and white with no grey, when they get an apology from an editor for making a mistake, making it hard for an editor to correct a mistake they may have made. Otherwise, I think rules should be lenient, but not in a sense, where it allows LTA's to bend the rules. If rules were too strict no one would have fun editing, and people might be scared of being Bold, because if they made a tiny mistake/mistake in editing, the consequences could be fatal if rules were too strict. As for Ignore all rules, this should only be applied, if the rules of Wikipedia prevent you from changing it, example, You cannot make test edits on any page but the sandbox, but sometimes a 'dummy edit' is needed to make the page history more readable in the case of a revdel, or to stop/slow down vandal from undoing your changes. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer here, but I think I didn't do well communicating my question. So, for lack of a better route to the information I seek, allow me this... somewhat crude approach:

1. Two accounts are linked to one human using the accounts in a manner against policy and/or Wikimedia Terms of Use. How would you handle this situation?
2. An an established editor from another project begins editing on this project, but is making a lot of style mistakes. What would your response be?
3. A brand new account created just moments ago creates an article with bad English and lots of style errors, but the subject is notable. How would you handle this?
4. I have blocked an account with reason: {{checkuserblock-account}}, but the account requests an {{unblock}} and provides very good reasoning. It does appears I've made a mistake blocking this account. What actions do you take?

I do apologize for the essay questions. I HATE essay questions and feel badly for having to resort to this. Operator873^talkconnect 00:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operator873 This is turning into one of my Vice Principal's type of homework assignments, lol. But there are my answers:

1. I am going to say that these two accounts are used for paid editing to the X Article. These two accounts will be User:A and User:B, and are under the same human. Firstly, in order to violate Wikimedia terms of use, user A and user B are going to be paid by Mr.Y to edit the X article, and these two accounts, will not be disclosing they are being paid to edit. So let's start with user:A first: User A, starts with a simple grammar change to the X article, fair enough. But after an edit or two, it is clear that their edits are not sourced correctly (no link to reliable source) or not sourced at all and highly biased, when asked if they have a COI, or are paid to do this, they lie and say 'No I aren't', I then block User A after being repeatably warned not to do this again. User:B then comes in, let's say they do the same but not as extreme as user:a, but then I have the page on my watchlist/Happen to see the change on New Changes, I will then look further into their edits, and the article's edit history, seeing that a User:A who has edited similar before in the edit history, and User:B seems to be doing the same, I will go file a Request for Checkusership, under the suspicion that these accounts are linked and have a COI and are probably paid editors. If Checkusership does not link them to the same IP, I will just block User:B for 'undisclosed paid editing/ WP:COI concerns' If more accounts are made, out of AGF, they will be warned, assuming that they ignore the warning, they will be requested for a checkuser, and, again, if checkuser finds nothing, I will block all the other accounts for the same reason, and semi-protect the article against more paid editing.

2. It's hard to say for this one, but maybe the user came from the Japanese Wikipedia and is an rollbacker there. When I see them making style mistakes, I'm going to Welcome them first on their user talkpage, and offer them some help with editing, and encourage them if they haven't done so, to read some pages on how to write in Simpler English (Example pages are, User:Auntof6/Things I would like New Editors to Know, Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist, WP:MOS, and other related rule pages) I would then encourage them to practice editing/formatting in the Wikipedia:Sandbox (or their own sandbox, where I ask them to make their own sandbox, create a page there and let other editors give (s)he feedback) and Wikipedia:Introduction to better help them. I would also help walk through any questions they may have about Wikipedia. I wouldn't rampage them with a warning, because that will/probably scare them off. I want to help them to be the best editor possible

3. If I have time to fix the article, I will turn the article into a stub, with enough references to keep the article, as I did with Wagon. However If I have not enough time, I will have delete the article, unless a wait template is visible, and I will try my best to help the editor out who made the article, and also ask them to read WP:MOS, etc, and, again, ask them to make their own sandbox, create a page there and let other editors give (s)he feedback.

4. If a mistake was made blocking the account, we cannot request another checkuser request to be sure, because we can't use the tool for no valid reason, so I would go ahead and unblock them, provided that Checkuser-Block account was the only reason they were blocked. Otherwise, if there was another Issue, I need to get them to resolve it first, before unblocking.

Also for Questions 2 and 3, for both editors, I will tell them the use of an article's talk page, if they are unsure of if a change should be made, they can discuss there

Thanks --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for humoring me. I liked your answers except for #4. Any account blocked with the CU tag is only able to be addressed by a CU. Even if it looks like a bad block. There may be more to it than face value, like technical evidence which is not public. Operator873^talkconnect 02:09, 21 August 2020 (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.