Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/NoobThreePointOh

Nomination

NoobThreePointOh (talk · contribs · he/him) – Hi, everybody. I'm NoobThreePointOh, and I joined Wikipedia in January 2021 after originally editing as an IP in 2020 and a short-lived account in the later portion of the year before moving on to this one. Initially, most of my edits involved making some tiny changes, such as typo fixing, sentence brushing, etc. Later on, I moved to vandalism fighting, which I still do a bit today, and eventually ended up trying to improve some articles by adding citations and lots of information. I've never edited or worked for pay, and outside of the account which I mentioned above (I don't use it anymore), I do not own any other accounts. Feel free to ask me questions below, and I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability. Fire away. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 most interested in becoming an administrator so that I can help clear the backlogs of some admin-specific areas, such as AIV, UAA, and ANI. Sure, it's not too much work to do, but I feel that administrators are really needed to help complete cases of checking accounts in terms of suspiciousness, solving problems between editors, and figuring out if the usernames of these editors really violate Wikipedia's username policy. If I were to become an administrator, I'd be able to solve these issues somewhat quickly. Also, I'm pretty good at spotting vandalism edits and reverting them.

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

A: While I don't necessarily have any good articles, I did help improve the Interstate 85 in North Carolina article from what was originally looking almost like a low-quality C-class article to a somewhat decent article that seems like it is within grounds for becoming a good article. In fact, this article was originally a good article from May to July of this year, but it eventually got delisted because the citations didn't conform to the statements of the article. After having learnt my lesson on that, I got to work to try and fix the issues mentioned in the reassessment page by modifying certain sentences and removing citations that seemed like self-published sources. At present, the article looks like it could use a bit more improvement, but overall I think it's quite pleasant to read.

My other contributions include creating 4 other articles, which are U.S. Route 30 in Wyoming, U.S. Route 83 in South Dakota, Interstate 59 in Louisiana, and Interstate 59 in Mississippi. These don't have as much polish as the article I mentioned above, but I tried my best to help bring these articles up to standards to try and comply with the GNG for the site. They're not my best contributions, but it's not easy trying to bring an article so that it can fit readers' needs. It did take me a few days to try and carefully craft the route description and history sections for these articles. In future, I may go back to fix up the history section for all of these articles. There's still more to do.

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: When I think about it, the chances of a candidate going through a successful RFA without having at least one conflict in their reign of editing Wikipedia are almost nil. And I'm certainly no exception to that. When I first edited on the aforementioned older account, Death Brushing (which I once again no longer use) in late 2020, I was edit-warring by adding redundant information to the infobox on the Pac-Man Championship Edition and Pac-Man Championship Edition DX pages. Another user, Namcokid47 (who also isn't active on Wikipedia), reverted my edits and told me to stop adding the things back. Eventually, it got out of hand to the point where the pages actually had to be semi-protected due to edit-warring. I expected to actually be blocked for doing so, but to my surprise, I wasn't. This was unusual too, because I thought that people get blocked for edit-warring. But I was genuinely glad I didn't get blocked. From that point on, I never wanted to edit war (even though I partially did later on below).

In February, though, I did make a lot of mistakes which did indeed lead to me almost getting blocked for them, but I will be listing the most egregious ones here. In early February, I reported a user to ANI for edit-warring on the Sydney Sweeney page for adding another image. Granted, the image that the other user added was copyrighted, but I should have never done that, and Bbb23 said that I should also be blocked in addition to that user. He's not wrong, either. Even if 3RRNO applied to me, really, edit-warring wasn't the right thing to do. Instead, I should have just taken the issue to the talk page for consensus. I admitted fault for it and this time, I have not had a single edit war so far (hope I don't jinx it). So in the future, if I tend to get close to an edit war with someone else, I need to sort this out on the talk page of that article that we are edit-warring on and come to a consensus.

In late February, right before the beginning of March, when I was reverting vandalism through AntiVandal, I noticed an IP remove information on the Wendy Zukerman article, and without thinking, I reverted it, as seen here. And you might be asking, "Why is that a wrong edit? It seems legitimate." Well, that was not the problem. The problem was when I wrote a comment on the IP's talk page saying that the information removed should not be because it was "vital" for us to understand the person's early years and what family they have. Man, that was truly the wrong thing to say on my part. I ended up getting a talk page message from Daniel, who said it was a violation of WP:BLP. I really felt bad about it because editors are usually supposed to treat each other with respect, even if someone is an IP. So I immediately went back to the IP's talk page and wrote a comment of apology to them and now, I've understood that I need to be more careful when reverting certain types of edits. In future, I may try to go slower and steadier as per the famous saying.

So these are some pretty severe mistakes I made. I understand being an administrator has a lot of responsibility, and from these mistakes, I hope that I can learn from them and not be hindered.

---

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.

Discussion

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

---

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