Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sro23: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (24/0/1); Scheduled to end 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Sro23 (talk · contribs) – Hello community, I am Sro23 and you may know me from my work as a sockpuppet investigations clerk. For a while now, SPI has been suffering from severe backlogs and not enough admin clerks. I enjoy supporting the encyclopedia in a behind-the-scenes manner, and me having the tools would lessen the burden on other administrators. I have been asked to consider RfA before, and I hesitated because I had such little faith in myself. However, in the past half year or so, I believe I've improved as an editor, and as a result, my confidence has grown. Now, I feel I'm ready. Sro23 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Currently I feel I'm not much help when a case involves deleted evidence that I can't see; the ability to see deleted content would help me immensely at WP:SPI, as would the ability to merge SPI case histories when necessary, and the ability to block sockpuppets. I also intend to assist with the backlogs at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. My plan is to take things slow, and if I ever feel unsure, ask a more experienced admin for advice.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: The majority of my article creations are humble stubs/start class, but I'm proud of every one and had fun writing them, too. If I had to pick a personal favorite of my contributions, it would probably have to be my work on Death Note (2017 film) back when it was still in draftspace. I think my most valuable contributions are my removals of BLP-violating content, which left alone could have the potential to cause real life harm. Knowing that I helped someone else gives me a sense of satisfaction.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes. I wonder if it's even possible to be an active editor without experiencing wikistress or finding yourself in a conflict at least once. Of course when emotions run high, it's difficult to think clearly and the temptation to revert instead of discuss arises. I will use the dispute I was in with another user at Talk:Lake Mungo (film) as an example. Even something as minor as an article's punctuation can lead to heated debate. Taking a "cool off" period of a couple of hours/days and then returning to the discussion when I'm calm has worked very well in the past. After all, there is no deadline. It was a little stressful when my edits were being challenged, but I decided to be receptive to what the other editor had to say. We were able to discuss the situation and came to an agreement.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

4. As "required to disclose" can you please state whether you have ever edited for pay or any other form of compensation.

A: No, I have never been paid for my contributions or compensated in any way.

Additional question from Neovu79

5. Thank you for applying. I don't have too many criteria in what I look for in an admin, but if you were to be elected as an admin, would you support a system of reconfirmation of your admin privileges in order for you to remain an admin? Thanks again and good luck in your RfA.

A: Yes, if elected I would consider being open to recall. In my opinion the current desysoping process via Arbitration requests is time consuming and energy draining. If I ever started abusing the tools, I wouldn't want to put the community in that kind of position.

Additional question from Dolotta

6. What are your biggest weaknesses?

A: When I first started editing, I was a bit of an edit warrior. I feel I've matured since then. In addition, I have no FAs, GAs or DYKs to my name.

Additional question from Jbhunley

7. In April of last year the logs show you created the article Great W hore of Wikipedia. The log for that article indicates that it was deleted WP:CSD#G10; an attack page in violation of the policy on biographies of living persons. Can you please explain the circumstances of this?

A: Oh dear. It might look like I created that page but I didn't, I was reverting page-move vandalism. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sro23 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: I don't know about the appropriateness of commenting here, but I would like to clear this up as I can see the deleted content. Sro is telling the truth, they did not create an attack page, they moved it from that title to LINK REDACTED, therefore resulting in a redirect, which they then nominated themselves as G3. The ed17 decided to delete it as G10, however. This is definitely not Sro committing vandalism, rather them reversing it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23 and TheSandDoctor: Thank you. I figured it was something like that. Jbh ^Talk 04:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that we were able to resolve that. The move details were revdel'd in order to not link it by the looks, which I just fudged up...--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted link. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I cleaned up the wording on the question so someone just skimming the page will not get the wrong idea. Jbh ^Talk 04:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Hhkohh

If you’re admin,

8. Can you example 3 cases in WP:RPP or WP:AIV to show how you deal with it?

A:

9. What do you think of User talk:Sro23#Misuse of WP:Rollback Rights?

A:

Additional questions from Thinker78

10. If an anonymous IP changes a section called "Czech Republic" to "Czechia" in an article (for example changing a section titled "History of the Czech Republic" to "History of Czechia"), would you issue a warning template and if so, which?

A:

11. If a user challenges your findings and tries to engage in a debate with you about an issue, would you answer him, when would you stop answering him, to what extent would you try to convince him—if at all—and would you admit you were wrong if he is able to prove it, even after a protracted discussion? (Note: substitute "him" with the custom pronoun.)

A:

• Links for Sro23: Sro23 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Sro23 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

1. Trusted user, make sure you visit WP:AIV frequently since there is HUGE backlog everyday. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Competent, experienced, and can be trusted with the tools. -- œ^™ 02:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Seems like a solid candidate with an appropriate history. Monty₈₄₅ 03:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support and don't forget RFPP where there is also a permanent backlog. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support one of the few editors who focuses on vandal fighting that I would trust with the block button. I’m probably the most lax admin when it comes to reviewing AIV because I often find the players of Huggle the video game more disruptive than the people they revert. Sro23 is one of the few editors in this area whom once I see a report, I instantly trust it. He’s familiar with LTAs and is an SPI clerk who works seamlessly with patrolling admins. I have no problem supporting this self-nom and would have gladly nom’d myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Per TonyBallioni, has always been actively fighting the good fight — IVORK _Discuss 03:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7. Between adminship really not being a big deal, and nothing sticking out that would make me believe that Sro23 would abuse the tools - I see no reason not to Support. SQL^{Query me!} 03:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support per SQL, and a clear net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support per TonyBallioni and SQL. Royalbroil 03:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support based on the candidate's SPI/LTA work. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support--Superb SPI work and is highly clue-full cum productive.So, why not?∯WBG^converse 04:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
13. Obviously. Hhkohh (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Hopefully this’ll get 300 supports, because you deserve that. Hell yes.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 04:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Excellent work w/ SPI/LTA. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 04:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. (edit conflict) I know that it is cliche, but my honest first reaction to seeing this was "I thought they were one already". Like SQL, I do not see any problem with this. Adminship isnt supposed to be a big deal and a need for the tools has been demonstrated. Good luck! :) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - good work at SPI, where they will use the sysop bit well. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support all of my observations of this editor around the project indicate they have sufficient clue to make good use of the tools. Their work at SPI shows good judgment, familiarity with our policies and a willingness to deal with sometimes sticky matters.
    I am a bit concerned about the lack of AfD participation and the comments on the ones I looked at are brief and do not give any insight into their understanding of our inclusion criteria. Since their focus seems to be SPI and anti-vandal work I do not see this as disqualifying nor do I see any indication they would go wading into an area they are unfamiliar with. Jbh ^Talk 04:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support – obvious need for the tools, good vandal/sock-fighter, no complaints or issues. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I have come across this user many a time at SPI and admired their work. I was thinking just the other day that they should be an administrator.--5 albert square (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
21. Stephen 04:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Yeoman work as SPI clerk, all my interactions have been positive; if this is a desired promotion, great. TonyBallioni & Jbh summed up my feelings well. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Very deserving of the tools. -- Dolotta (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support I can't recall sharing a workspace with this editor, so I am basing my support primarily upon the answers to the inquiries above, a shallow review of editorial history, and the general sense of collegial support I am seeing from others who are commenting as to the candidate's work in quasi-administrative to date. Overall, I see enough positive indications to be comfortable supporting, especially as Sro23 seems keen to parley their previous experience at SPI into easing the backlog there. Best of luck with the mop. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. It has happened that he didn't evaluated behavioral evidence.[1] In one instance he didn't observed that the sockmaster was under a topic ban and nearly 40% of the block length was yet to be over, however he termed the connection with a sock as "joe job" and "doesn't really make sense".[2] While I understand that you can't satisfy everyone, these instances were pretty obvious that socking occurred and if he was an admin then the things would be deemed differently. I would like to know a bit from Sro23 about these concerns before opposing or supporting the RfA. Lorstaking (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   In the first case, that is one of the single hardest UPE SPI cases to evaluate, and I can’t fault his actions there (and I don’t think anyone would accuse me of being soft on commercial editing.) The second case is actually a reason to support: admins should always ask second opinions when they are unsure, especially in sock cases in South Asia which are notoriously difficult to sort out. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]