Project:Requests for adminship/RiggedMint

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

• Result: Unsuccessful (1/9). --BRP ^ever 12:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

RiggedMint

RiggedMint (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 11:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello people, I will be self-nominating and would like to volunteer as admin. Over the past 2 days I've thought about nominating myself for admin, it was hard for me to decide, but now I am confident that I want to volunteer for it. While I am not as active, I will be trying to get more active (due to the school year). I am also very familiar with the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, and I have always learnt from my mistakes over the past 4 years, I can take criticism of my work and try to improve based on it. I know the responsibilities and duties of admins, it’s honestly quite a big role to leap in. I hope to tackle some few points that aren’t as looked-at on by admins as of current, and those points are:

• Anti-Vandalism, specifically at noon-afternoon, I've noticed admins aren’t as active during those hours (especially in my timezone, which is UTC -06:00.)
• Midnight-Early morning work (11 PM-4 AM). This also relates to the anti-vandalism work as said above.
• RfDs, I’ve noticed there’s been a bit of a backlog of deletion requests that needed to be closed weeks ago.
• General help to others, I also want to help others edit and build a good encyclopedia, I also want to help them avoid certain things (like edit warring, CoI, etc.); generally, I want to be a good mentor, like others that have been a (pretty much) mentor to me.

Overall, I want to volunteer due to simplewiki needing more admins. I want to say that I am pretty productive in my work, I have done thousands of edits pertaining to anti-vandalism work, I have also improved a lot of articles and made a lot of articles. (Though I have not made as much as others did), I can answer any question you all would like to ask. Thanks, RiggedMint 11:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination. RiggedMint 11:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. File:Symbol support vote.svg Support good candidate. BZPN (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC) _{Changed to oppose. BZPN (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}
2. One of the easiest File:Symbol support vote.svg Supports in my life.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
3. File:Symbol support vote.svg Support File:Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support If there is more admins in Wikipedia, it will be much good work in Wikipedia. And for that, I will choose strong support. thetree284 (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
4. File:Symbol support vote.svg Support Experienced Editor Raayaan9911 01:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
5. File:Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 01:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Changed to weak oppose Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 12:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. File:Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but I have to change my vote after your reply. You are undoubtedly a good candidate in many aspects, but your answer to my question is not satisfactory (from an experienced user, I expected a slightly different answer). BZPN (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   I also see that you are not very involved in creating new articles. You only have 23 articles created, several of which have problems. Also, as a patroller, you only marked 14 pages as reviewed. BZPN (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   I did clarify in the actual nomination message that I had not made as many articles as others did. I will say that I am more involved in anti-vandalism. RiggedMint 23:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   That's right, but don't you think an admin should be versatile? Fighting vandalism is an extremely important job, but an administrator is expected to know the basics and participate in the regular editoral activities. Each administrator has at least several dozen articles and also participates in regular editoral activities. I think that it is simply a contribution without which it is difficult to go further. But anyway, good luck with this RfA. You will surely be a good admin. BZPN (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   An admin should be versatile, yes. I absolutely think so, and I am improving and I've been more focused on creating and improving articles. But thank you for the insight. RiggedMint 00:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

2. File:Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This wiki has a rather tenacious history with QD A4 in particular (1, 2, 3, 4, most likely many more in our ST and AN archives), and unfortunately the understanding of the QD policy below was incorrect. While I admit that RfDs with long/in-depth discussions are comparatively rare (especially on a small wiki like this), which means less reference material, after looking at the answers given below (especially to Griff's questions) I don't think that you are quite ready for that step yet. I recommend reading through the archives of Wikipedia:Deletion review, particularly those from 2022 onwards. Chenzw  Talk  01:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

   I see, so A4 is based on how if they claim to be notable or not? And also, thank you for the insight, I will try to improve on that matter. RiggedMint 01:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

3. File:Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An admin requires somewhat more experience than the other editors. RiggedMint has so far created only 25 articles. However, this user has actively played a role in preventing vandalism on this wiki. Zjui3r (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
4. File:Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because they incorrect QD policy, Unfortunately i changed support to oppose in this vote. Not experience editor yet Raayaan9911 14:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
5. File:Weak Oppose.svg Weak oppose sorry, but you need a better understanding at creating articles and QD policies. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 07:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

   But I know how to create articles? It's just that I hadn't created enough articles yet, which is what BZPN critiqued. RiggedMint 15:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

   what i meant was more experience (gives better understanding) Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

6. File:Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, not a trusted editor. ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
7. File:Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose fr33kman 17:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
8. File:Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not entirely happy with the answers to the questions (was expecting more if I'm honest) and I personally wouldn't say the A4 answer is correct either, That aside I'm disappointed with the low article creation - I appreciate article creation isn't the be all and end all of adminship but having articles under your belt shows you're knowledgeable with policies and as someone pointed out above it shows you're versatile too. In short I believe this nomination is TOOSOON. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
9. File:Weak Oppose.svg Weak oppose The nomination is too soon, I mean you are pretty experienced in editing, but a lot more ways to go before nominating for adminship, even I have a lot more ways to go before all of the permissions and all of that. So I oppose this as a weak oppose, I mean you are experienced, its just too soon for you. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 ^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼)} 17:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Hi! Thanks for volunteering. I don't know if we've interacted before (if we have, I apologise). Could I ask what your best contributions are to the Simple Wiki? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello! My best contributions towards this wiki, I would say, would be anti-vandalism. I have done a bit of article work too (for example, getting Earth to GA status). RiggedMint 21:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. I honestly was not very aware of your contributions to this project, but through my research I have been very impressed with your work in vandalism cleanup. A few questions relating to that work:

• Quick deletions
  • What sort of articles are eligible for deletion as A1?
  • When considering a A4 deletion, what would you consider in deciding whether to delete
• RFDs
  • How do you determine notability when deciding whether an article should be kept or not?
  • How would you approach the closure of this RFD?
  • Is it appropriate to close a RFD in which the majority of commenters disagree with the outcome? If so, when?
• Nominating statement - In your statement, you mention that as a UTC-6 administrator that is frequently active, you would help fill in the gaps of coverage. We have recently added two UTC-6 administrators, and looking at your activity, it has been infrequent. Why do you feel your life circumstances have changed to allow the community to trust that you will actively volunteer in your role?
• LTAs - A LTA is using multiple IPs to vandalise the article on griffins. What action would you take as the responding administrator?

Thank you for all your work on the project and good luck! Griff (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

To answer your questions,

1. I would define A1 articles as "Articles that don't qualify as a stub"; for example, the creator is talking about something else that does not relate to the article.

2. I consider A4 deletions as "Subjects that aren't even notable or just not notable for RfD"; for example, a person who creates an article about themself.

3. Onto RfDs, I determine the notability of the subject through the actual sources themselves, other existing Wikipedia articles (if there even is one), and some searches on the web. If the articles notable enough, I would

keep that certain article.

4. I would approach it with the artist himself, is he notable first? A quick search and a flipthrough of other wikis would say he's notable. Now onto the articles and the artworks, are they notable? And it would look like most of the artworks are pretty notable, but not notable enough to be seperated articles. I would close it as merge to the artist, because of the reasoning listed, and because most of the consensus voted merge.

5. If the article is outright very notable. Or if the article just needs improvement and is notable.

6. If I can't fulfill the role then I can't, but if you saw my total edits per year, 2024 has been my most active year, and I hope to continue it and try to be active. It's just that I've been stuck with the problem of school, in which I hope to work around. I also didn't know they were UTC-6, that's a mistake on my part.

7. Rollback or Undo the Article to the latest non-vandalized revision. It also depends on what the LTA is on; if it's a proxy, VPN, or a created user, then it should be a indefinite block. But if it's a normal IP address, then it should be blocked up to a few days or sometimes weeks. They also should be ignored and not to be interacted with. RiggedMint 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You are also welcome, I hope to do more for years to come. RiggedMint 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying on question #2, after reviewing deletion requests, my oppose votes, and other stuff, I'll redefine A4 as "Something that has no claim to be notable, like adverts, jokes (should be labeled as A3 anyways for that one), and fake dompanies, products, people, or media." If that article does have a source, but it's suspicious to if it's actually notable, then it should be sent off to RfD. For example, there was an influx of entrepeneur articles from Asia way back in 2022-2023 (some examples here, here and here) most were written like adverts, but still had sources. RiggedMint 10:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

With regards to the use of A4, the basis for QD is whether or not a claim of notability has been made. Whether the subject is notable or not is for RfD to decide if a claim has been made. fr33kman 17:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to ask you a question about permission requests: what criteria would you use to consider a patroller request, and what criteria would you use to consider a rollback request? When would you grant these permissions without a request? Thank you for your time. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The Criteria for Rollbacker and Patroller is you have to be an active member of Wikipedia, particularly with experience in those lines of work on Wikipedia (Like Anti-vandalism and Articles). For granting them without a request? I actually had never seen it done so I can use it as an example. The closest thing to that would be getting nominated for admin. RiggedMint 19:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to ask a follow-up question based on your previous answers to Griff's questions - assuming that there is no RfD in progress, how does an editor judge/determine the notability of a subject? In particular, how do we judge/determine notability of a person vs a movie? Would there be any differences? Chenzw  Talk  16:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

People, living or dead, has to be determined notable based on how well-known they are in-general, how well-known their awards are (if any), and how historically significant his/her achievements are and were and other criteria. Movies are to be notable based on how well-known they are, if they were historically notable, if they had a major notable award awarded to the movie... etc. But still, both would have to follow WP:GNG. RiggedMint 19:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@RiggedMint I suggest taking your time going through policies closely related to admin bits, observing the processes, and gaining few more months of experience and reapplying on a later date. If you have any questions in the meanwhile, you can always ask the admins or at simple talk. BRP ^ever 14:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright then, i'd like to know where those resources are, if you could link them. RiggedMint 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines lists a fair bit of them. I sometimes go through the discussions related to policies too just to know the circumstances those policies are made for. BRP ^ever 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Sorry about this, but after reading your response to the questions I have to retract my support. I am not exactly impressed with some of the responses (like A4) and concerns relating to understanding of policies mean I unfortunately can't really support your adminship anymore.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:55, 14 January 2025 (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.