Commons:Administrators/Requests/Ratekreel 2

 Support = 27;  Oppose = 2;  Neutral = 2 – 93%. Result: Successful. --Krd 16:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Ratekreel 2

Related requests:

• Administrators/Requests/Ratekreel
• Administrators/Requests/Ratekreel 2

Vote

Ratekreel (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 12:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am Ratekreel. I am reapplying for adminship on Commons (see previous request). Since my last request, I have continued to contribute actively in the same areas as before, including license review, deletion requests, file renaming and tagging files for SD. If I'm promoted, I plan to focus on patrolling speedy deletion requests and closing DRs. Additionally, as a VRT permissions agent, I often encounter cases where permissions are received after a file has already been deleted. In such cases, the tools would come handy.

I believe I have a better understanding of Commons policies and will always ask for advice when I'm unsure. I believe I am more prepared now to take on this responsibility, have the required experience and a fair understanding of copyright laws.

The concerns in my first request were that I was inactive and that I changed username 4 times in 2 years. However, I've been active on Commons before and my last username change was in 2022 and it has been three years since then. It was also stated in my first request by many users that if I apply in two or three months, they'll support.

Thank you for considering my request. Ratekreel (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Votes

•  Oppose Still no explanation of 4 username changes since 2021. Taivo (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Taivo, I'm sorry. I thought I sufficiently mentioned it in my nomination. My first username was my real name which I was not comfortable with online, and I didn't like the second and third. It was the time when I was still learning about Wikipedia and Commons. As I said in my nomination, my last rename was in 2022 and it has been 3 three years since then and I've stayed with this one and do not think of changing it further. Ratekreel (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support I do not see any problem with the renames --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support No issue as far as I can tell. Yann (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• I  supported the last one Queen of Hearts (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support I believe there is some seriousness now, but it'd have been better if this RfA was initiated a few months later from now. But, I don't have any other concerns right now apart from the mobile unfriendly userpage which makes it difficult to navigate. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 18:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support They're a good candidate, so this time I will support. Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support go - but please, no renamings in the next years. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support looks good to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for volunteering! All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 05:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Mateus2019 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support sounds good to me! Ternera (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose At Iwaqarhashmi RfA Ratekreel false accused him of w:en:Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system and passed it off as "I don't mean it literally". Also no effort to fix the user page on mobile before starting the RfA and the writing looks like AI enhanced  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  999real, I have nothing to say on your argument regarding Waqar other than that I apologise (which I did) if my !vote would have hurt him or if you believe it was reproving behaviour from me–I would be more than happy to apologise again.

  Regarding my userpage, I've plans to fix it soon. For the writing part of your argument, I think my English is good enough to the extent that I can write a nomination statement. Ratekreel (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  @999real ,regarding the nomination statement, LLM's (like chatGPT) currently have similar patterns to non-native english speakers, (like Ratekreel) not the other way around. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  You already said you will fix the user page, it's about not bothering to do it before starting RfA. I didn't say anything about English skills, to me the nomination looks like when someone asks AI to summarize because short sentences with "Additionally", "In such cases" etc. Maybe my English is the problem, to me "I second what someone else said" seems like a pretty terrible apology. In any case it's not about apology but that I don't think someone who falsely accuse a contributor of gaming the system just over a month ago should be administrator.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that I should've fixed my userpage earlier. Nevertheless, it's fixed now. I've been using the words which you've mentioned since my childhood, during schooling, in conversations, and in college. Perhaps you're a native English speaker that's why you perceive it this way but I think everyone in India uses such words. With regards to my apology, I should've written it clearly to rule out any possibility of it being insufficient but alas! However, I think it conveyed my intended sincerity. Ratekreel (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't like your response. Every English speaker uses these words, maybe the problem is me but I thought it was clear I am talking about phrasing of sentences. And I don't understand how anyone in any language can think "I'll second" is a sincere apology. I am new here, if Iwaqarhashmi did something that made saying he was w:en:Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system appropriate, I would like to be informed so I could correct my statements and vote.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was referring to the use of these words as well as their phrasing in sentences like I've used in my nomination statement, sorry for the misunderstanding. I really have nothing else to say on Waqar—I apologized to him and already acknowledged your view that I should've been more clear in my apology. --Ratekreel (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  @999real: The Commons search tool does not find the phrase ‘I second what someone else said’ anywhere else (besides this discussion). If you still think the candidate’s writing looks AI-generated, can you give more specific evidence? Brianjd (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  I used the quotes wrong, it was "I'll second what Queen of Hearts said above" on User talk:Iwaqarhashmi#Thank you (To be clear I don't think Queen of Hearts did anything wrong which is another reason this apology is so terrible). And I said AI enhanced but I don't really think or care about it anymore. I said it because I compare the nomination to comments from Ratekreel like on Iwaqarhashmi RfA the latter which seems more natural and even like first language to me.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  @999real: We should focus on the real issues, which seem to be the candidate’s reference to ‘gaming the system’ (at the Iwaqarhashmi RfA) and their subsequent apology (which I should have seen earlier). I agree that both were poorly worded.

  The ‘gaming the system’ reference, despite being poorly worded, seems to hard to criticize: that whole RfA is a mess (literally, with struck out comments everywhere) and includes objections from admins I respect. Even so, the candidate seems to have acknowledged that it was poorly worded.

  Regarding the apology, we may compare it with one of the candidate’s most recent comments, which does contain a straightforward apology:

  I was referring to the use of these words as well as their phrasing in sentences like I've used in my nomination statement, sorry for the misunderstanding.

  This suggests that there is no ongoing language issue here at all, but rather an unwillingness to sincerely apologise for, well, whatever that apology is supposed to be for. The ever-changing contexts make it unclear, and even Queen of Heart’s apology was qualified (I'm sorry if I implied otherwise).

  Despite this, you have repeatedly suggested that there is a language issue, and have not withdrawn your comments (despite saying that you don't really think or care about it anymore). Therefore, I also address those comments below.

  This nomination’s writing style seems natural enough to me. The candidate’s comments at the Iwaqarhashmi RfA are OK too, but not perfect (at least two sentences are not proper sentences and at least one sentence mixes up ‘is’ and ‘are’).

  You did say AI enhanced, but given the way current ‘AI’ works, that seems the same as ‘AI-generated’. Brianjd (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hang on, you actually said: In any case it's not about apology but that I don't think someone who falsely accuse a contributor of gaming the system just over a month ago should be administrator.

  So it seems that the sole issue here is a withdrawn comment that could get lost amongst a long list of other withdrawn comments.

  And here history repeats itself, as the real issue in the current RfA gets lost among a long list of irrelevant comments. Brianjd (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support No concerns.--Bjelica (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Seems like a good candidate. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Neutral i feel neutral. because this request not looks well cooked for me. but i also dont wanna oppose, because we need more admins(always) and community leans to support. so, good luck. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 00:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not enthusiastic, given the 999real concern which is perfectly valid, but I think we need some admins and I believe Ratekreel has more in favour than against. --Bedivere (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support, Ratekreel's adminship will be beneficial for Commons. As Ratekreel is a VRT personnel, this shows that Ratekreel is a trusted user. --Kadı Message 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Good for me Kyah117 ^{[Let's talk about it!]} 11:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support Some mistakes should not ban someone to upgrading. On the contrary, I prefer to trust people that have made mistakes so they know how to behave in the future. Moreover, they would then have a better understanding of the community which is everything but perfect. Finally, I think that the VRT argument is a good one. Wikisquack (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Neutral per Modern primat. I tend to consider it something like impudent to apply again after less than three months where the previous application ended quite bad as it did. I still think consistent activity over a relevant time scale has still not been shown. On the other hand, speaking up against the mainstream regarding Waqar, and apologising even when being fully at the right page, IMO was a stong decision and earns respect. I'd normally ask how many admin requests the candidate has filed regarding their VRT duty, as a proof of need for the tools in this area, but I think I skip this today. --Krd 07:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comment, Krd. One thing that I would want to add regarding the time period between my RfAs is that it is based on the suggestion by some users in my first RfA that I'll pass if I applied in few months in future. Another thing to add here is that I disagree that my first RfA ended "quite bad" but of course it is purely subjective and perceptions can vary–so, I agree to disagree. It was more like "no consensus" rather than anything "negative" to me the way I saw it. Ratekreel (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Weak support I appreciate it that you explained now regarding the user renames. Would still have been better, if you did this already in the previous nom, after the question was raised. --A.Savin 10:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support 茅野ふたば (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support They tick more boxes than they (maybe) don't. The primary concerns I see till now are the problems with userpage (now fixed), comments on Waqar (apologised), also everyone learns a thing or two by mistakes which I believe RK has. The last one, frequent name changes in the past which RK explained, also the last one was in 2022 and they say they will stick to this. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you for volunteering. Fit India 00:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Having seen many good contributions by this user, I hope Ratekreel will be a good and helpful admin. – Aristeas (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support per Aafi. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Good luck! --RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mohammed Qays  🗣 10:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Some concerns were raised in their first request, but I think those concerns should be sufficiently addressed by now. Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Good luck! --Pimpinellus(D) • MUC•K•T 20:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

1. Thanks for re-applying. As I asked in your previous RfA, have you tried making your userpage mobile-friendly? I have often had trouble whenever I am on mobile. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

   Hi Aafi, thanks for bringing this up (again!). I'm really sorry for the inconvenience. I've this in my mind and I'm thinking of re-designing my userpage entirely or to the extent which solves this issue and shows correctly in mobile view. I'll do it soon. Ratekreel (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)