Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/EggRoll97

< Wikipedia:Administrator elections | October 2024 | Candidates
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of an administrator election candidacy that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (146/220/250); See official results (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer Alt (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

edit

EggRoll97 (talk · contribs · they/them) – Hey everyone! I'm EggRoll97, and I joined in 2018. My activity back then was somewhat sparse, dropping off somewhat due to current world events and simply being busy outside of Wikipedia. I've made something of a comeback since about 2023 or so, and have been gnoming in the background since, finding myself doing a variety of different things, including editing filters here as an edit filter manager since April and helping out with false positives globally with the global version of EFH since a few months ago, and am fairly active in the ACC process as well. I have no alternative accounts, have never edited while logged out, and I have never edited for pay. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I'm mainly asking for the mop to view deleted revisions. Within edit filters, some vandalism is in deleted revisions, and being able to access that without needing to ask an administrator to email a copy would be helpful. I also plan to help in the AIV queue and continue doing what I'm already doing as an editor without the mop.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would say I'm particularly proud of being able to establish WP:EFM as policy, which of course was always a collaborative effort, but I'm proud to say I took part in it.
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: I would not say I've been in any significant conflict with anyone. On the occasion that I do find myself in opposition with someone else, I've tried to make the best attempt I can to explain myself in a logical manner.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from Trainsandotherthings

4. Your editing appears to mostly involve edit filters and gnoming, including semi-automated edits. Have you made any edits to create or substantially improve articles?
A: I did create Contraband Police (though it really is overdue for some expansion). Outside of that, no. I've added a few citations here and there, a few typo fixes if I run across them, but the rest of the pages Xtools says I have "created" are as a result of edit filter false positives or moves. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Thryduulf

5. Why did you choose to seek adminship via election rather than via a standard RFA?
A: I wasn't really sure about going for adminship at all, personally. I've considered it a few times, but just never really had the motivation to run the gauntlet. I noticed administrator elections being discussed, and after a day or so of second-guessing myself, decided to put myself up as a candidate. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Ganesha811

6. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?
A: Certainly. The encyclopedia's back-end alone is massive (see Template:Noticeboards, the numerous venues for requesting things like moves, deletions, undeletions, and many more). It would be entirely unrealistic of me to want to jump into areas without at least taking a silent look through what goes on (and more importantly, how the process works) before trying to participate. With the admin tools, it becomes increasingly more dangerous to just jump in, because there's a lot of buttons that admins can press that those without the bit don't have the technical ability to press, and I see it as important to be cognizant of that. I may not have answered the first bit in specifics, but the first place that comes to mind that I would be unfamiliar with is categories for discussion. I looked through it a bit at one point, and while I do have the page mover permission and could therefore feasibly move a category, I can't say I really found myself confident enough to leap in at the time. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from BeanieFan11

7. Your only content contribution is a stub which mainly cites Twitter. Do you think having experience in content creation is important to being an administrator? Why or why not?
A: I'll say I was a bit surprised to see Twitter links had been added as references. It certainly didn't start that way (for reference they appear to have been added in April, certainly not by my design). As for your actual question, though, I think content creation is a type of experience that one can bring to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a lot of people contributing, all with varied interests and skillsets. So I don't think content creation is the only way to show fitness for the bit. I think it's moreso one way that one could show that competence, not the only way to do so. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. You state that the main reason you want to become an administrator is to view deleted revisions. Within edit filters, some vandalism is in deleted revisions, and being able to access that without needing to ask an administrator to email a copy would be helpful. Could you give some examples of what you'd use the deleted revisions for, or why you think it will be helpful to see deleted vandalism?
A: A lot of revisions by LTAs end up hidden under RD2/RD3 (and it's a good thing they do, some of them are really vile), as does some disruptive vandalism. While I can get copies of these revisions by emailing an administrator, it's not necessarily the most efficient process. When trying to craft or add to/remove from a filter, it's generally necessary to have a diff to test the filter against (used to input into the test interface (EFH/EFM/sysop only) or into SOY's FilterDebugger to verify syntax). EggRoll97 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Asilvering

9. Ritchie333 has pointed out that you've had a lot of G5 declines. Can you tell us about your current understanding of how G5 works?
A: Sure. As for the actual answer to your question, from a reading of G5, it applies to pages created as a result of block/ban evasion after the time when the block or ban was imposed. The general use of G5 is regarding sockpuppetry where someone has created sockpuppets following their original block for abusing multiple accounts, and then has continued the problematic behavior, thus making their creations via the sockpuppet accounts eligible for G5. For the context of my G5s, a lot of those G5s are around the same time period and I had mostly run into one user banned as a sock, then just G5ed any other pages they had in the NPP redirect queue as unpatrolled. This was a misunderstanding of how G5 worked, and I was working under the assumption at the time that it did apply to pages created as a result of a redirect, and I would like to thank Explicit for pointing out that it, in fact, does not. There is one of those G5s that I will defend, though I am not able to speak on it publicly. Admins can see 1319 (hist · log) for context on the one I am referring to. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

edit

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

AfD record: 50.00% match rate, n of 18. 5 keep !votes to 14 delete !votes. Mildly subjective comment: Well, it's not terribly subjective to call this a "poor" AfD record. But most of these are from a while ago - the two that were in the last year both matched the result. The candidate also hasn't expressed any interest in deletion processes. So while this AfD record obviously isn't cause to recommend the candidate, it doesn't really seem like a reason for concern either. -- asilvering (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8,320 total edits since 2018 according to xTools. The majority of their edits have come since May 2023. An almost even division between Mainspace, Wikipedia, User Talk, and Wiki talk spaces. Their most edited main space pages are TV Guide (Canada) and Amy Adams, each with seven edits. Much of their recent work on Wikipedia is in the Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard and related areas. Nothing jumping out at me good or bad in their editing. <silly>Though plant-based villains will want to send minions to destroy EggRoll97 for their lack of plant article editing. And, no, editing the Green Green Grass disambiguation page does not count. Face our predictably arbitrary and irrational wrath!</silly> 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAN & FAC notes. I took a look at EggRoll97's GA record; they have done three reviews, six years ago. All rather checklist reviews, which is discouraged these days though not back then. The accompanying comments make it clear they were evaluating the article more thoroughly than it might appear from the checklist. No nominations, so a net contributor to the GAN project. No activity at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedies

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The G5s are the same misunderstanding repeated many times, so the large number of cases isn't as intimidating as it seems. Hopefully they've learned that rule of G5 now. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling with this one more than most. I think normally I would want to see deeper experience from a prospective admin, and a bit more content work. GAs and FAs are nice, but anything that shows that you understand how core policies are applied is good; better still if you've had to make and defend an editorial decision. On the other hand, EggRoll wants the tools for a fairly niche purpose where they're unlikely to be asked to weigh in on content matters so the risk is low. I'll have to give this one some more thought. Ultimately, the answers to the questions are quite brief and superficial so my gut says "maybe not quite yet". If there was guaranteed to be another admin election in six months' time, I might oppose and encourage them to aim for that. As it is, I don't know where I'll land. Possibly neutral. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen EggRoll97 around the project. Seems like a solid editor. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2024 (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 the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Candidates/EggRoll97&oldid=1259332700"