Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ShadowBallX

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

Withdrawn -Djsasso (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

ShadowBallX

ShadowBallX (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 17:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Adminship is one of the highest statuses on this wiki, with multiple rules for nomination. I have planned on trying to become an admin since around a month after joining, and believe that now would be a good time to put my request up. I expect to get a few opposes, and if you do oppose, any advice would be appreciated. Thank you, and have a good day.

Candidate's acceptance: Self-Nomination

Oppose

1. Oppose Nothing personally against them. But they just plain are not experienced enough. Haven't been around long enough and been involved in enough community discussions. For example their answer to Belwine's 5th question is incorrect and its a problem I and a couple of others have been trying to stamp out with the incorrect use of A4. By all means in the future you might be a good candidate, but I would wait until someone nominates you and you get some more experience under your belt. -Djsasso (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think ShadowBallX does great work, and I hope this continues. Unfortunately, their answer to question five is enough alone to oppose. A4 does not relate to references or evidence of claims in the article, all that is required is a credible claim of significance to pass the criterion. Further information of the use of this criterion can be found in the link above. Thank you for volunteering, --IWI (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose adminship isn't a status to achieve. I don't believe adminship should be a goal or a plan. It should be an organic progression of the work an editor is already doing. The answer to Q.5 below is also concerning. I think your edits are very helpful and are absolutely encouraged and appreciated. However, your focus shouldn't be achieving adminship, it should be building an encyclopedia, and adminship should only be an extension of encyclopedia building. Thanks for your hard work. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Between Weak oppose and Oppose You do great work around here, and the answers to questions 1-4 were good. However, question 5 wasn't. Also, I'm a little concerned about your nomination statement saying that adminship is a status. As Auntof6 says below, adminship is more of a responsbility than a status. For now, I am going to oppose.
   I am sure you are trying to help, but I don't think that you should be an admin at this time. However, keep up the great work you're doing. You don't have to be an admin to be a helpful member of the community and I'm sure maybe with some more experience you can be an admin in the future. :) —Belwine (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose Per answer to Belwine's Q5 and per Djsasso. Please don't feel bad about this RFA, but take this as a Friendly Feedback, and re-apply in a 6 months to a year. Best, --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

   • That is actually why I posted the RfA. Mainly for feedback, and ideas on where I need to improve (clearly looking deeper at QD A4 is one of them). ShadowBallX (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

   • It should be noted that it is explicitly stated that RfAs shouldn't be used for feedback alone. You could have carried out an editor review on Simple Talk if this is what you were looking for. Best, --IWI (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Questions from Belwine

• Hi, ShadowBallX. Thank you for volunteering. I'd like you to answer a few questions. Whilst they are not mandatory, I would appreciate you answering them.

1. How do you think you will be able to help the Simple English Wikipedia by being an administrator?
2. An IP is vandalising Wikipedia after their final warning. A user is vandalising Wikipedia after their final warning and has no constructive edits. How long would you block the IP and user for?
3. Two semi-confirmed users are edit-warring over the content in a page and have 5 reverts each, obviously breaking WP:3RR. The content is not vandalism and the edit-warring is seriously just pointless, it's over one word in a sentence. What do you do?
4. If an editor who is quite well-respected in the community is blocked for socking appeals their block saying the evidence is completely wrong, can you accept the unblock request?
5. Finally, if a page is requested to be quickly deleted under A4 obviously isn't notable, but says "John Doe is a very famous singer", can the page be deleted as A4?

These are questions I think an admin should be able to answer correctly. I look forward to your response. Best regards, —Belwine (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hello, and thank you for asking.

1. I intend on trying to help mainly with QD requests, and helping to fight vandalism. (I always have a New Changes tab opened on my laptop for me to check whenever I get bored with something else, or I have free time with nothing to do)
2. Pending if it is a first offence, I would block the IP for 31 hours. However, I would indef block the user
3. If it is over just 1 word, than I would block both users, with the length of the block varying based on if they have previously been blocked
4. This is an interesting question. I would first request a checkuser with the suspected sockmaster (I don't actually know the exact term, but sockmaster will do), and would accept or deny based on the things revealed from that checkuser.
5. The page could be deleted under A4, if there is no reference or evidence to back up the claim.

ShadowBallX (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to consider this, but for now I'll just say that this user looking at adminship as "one of the highest statuses on this wiki" is troubling. Adminship is more a set of responsibilities than a status. IMO, admins shouldn't look at themselves as having any special status. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Question from Tsugaru

1. Hi. Let's say An article about Chain of Supermarkets in Japan is created on this Wikipedia. It exists only on the Japanese Wikipedia, and there is a tag on the article calling for more sources at the Japanese Wikipedia. However, it was deemed notable at the Japanese Wikipedia. After it is created here, it is sent to RFD and both keep and delete consensus are good. An additional Reliable Source was published during the RFD of the article, but since nobody knew it was not brought up. You then see it when closing the RFD, are you going to delete or keep the article? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hello. This is actually an interesting question. I would close the RfD as Keep under no consensus, pending if it would be considered notable under rules here (this is the rules for company notability on enwiki). Sorry for the late response, and have a good day. ShadowBallX (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawing Nomination

• I believe I am ready to withdraw my nomination. Thank you everyone for voting, as well as letting me know where I need to improve. ShadowBallX (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2021 (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.