Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oanabay04

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Oanabay04

[edit]

Final (5/20/10); ended 12:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC) per WP:SNOW -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Oanabay04 (talk · contribs) – I have known Paul (Oanabay04) for about three years now working at the Southampton, PA Railroad station and in general on the Newtown Branch. A train aficionado like myself, he has worked tirelessly on Wikipedia to make many articles better with his incredible wealth of information. In addition, he previously served as Secretary on the board of directors of the Southampton Railroad Station Society. He is also an avid film digitizer and collected, and his contributions in this field, especially with his uploads have provided immense benefit to the community. In addition, Paul consistently demonstrates accurate knowledge of copyright, citation, and fair use as demonstrated time and time again by his almost 40,000 edits, many of which are substantial and significant contributions. He has also provided significant contributions to featured articles, one of which being Steamtown, U.S.A.. AndrewrpTally-ho! 18:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you, Andrewrp. I accept the nomination for Adminship. Oanabay04 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2014 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will continue to clean up articles in terms of grammar, tighter text and adding references. I will also tag articles that need significant work using proper Wiki format.
Admittedly, I did not answer these questions with great detail and I did not believe that was what was needed to make a proper determination. I will address that know. I have been on Wiki since 2005 and have been mainly a WP:GNOME. I was better at cleaning and smoothing over poorly written articles and made them sound more succient and tight. I admit that it has only been in the last 2-3 years that I have taken a much closer look at the Wiki tool and have tried to cite them whenever relevant and to help the User who made the original edit.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my best contributions are filling out and completing article stubs and adding valid sources.
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: Not on a large scale, no. There have been instances whenre my edits were questioned, usually by an overzealous user who was too subjective and took offense. I hav tried to make it a habit to utilize Talk Pages more than I do at present.
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
4. What is your view of Process is important?
A:
5. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
A:
Additional question from Epicgenius
6. When, if ever, do you think edit summaries should be used on Wikipedia?
A:
Additional question from BrownHairedGirl
7. What do you is the best example of your ability to help build a consensus which resolved a dispute between editors?
A:

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
If your knee continues to jerk, there might be a pill for that. (See your doctor.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Smartest thing I've read in WP space for awhile. (Will the candidate benefit from continuation?! I doubt it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Strong Support As the nominator for this RFA, I feel, as outlined above, that Paul has the capability, willingness, and knowledge to serve Wikipedia as an Administrator. I give him my full support. AndrewrpTally-ho!
  2. The user's edits are 92.80% in the mainspace. This is amazing to me and there is no conceivable reason for them to not have the tools. -- John Reaves 21:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this may be the first time I've seen a comment at an RfA discussion which indicates a belief that a lack of experience in administration-related work is an advantage for an administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support – The editor can probably handle the tools. Epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. We have plenty of idiots as admins. This user is probably no worse than current ones. jni (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ...seriously? smithers - talk 19:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support: Give it a little time, then try again. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose per answer to Question 1, and the lack of detail in the first three questions. Copy editing does not require a mop. --AdmrBoltz 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The expanded answer to Q1 doesn't change my mind. WP:NOTYET. --AdmrBoltz 22:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Hardly any activity outside mainspace. Response to question one strongly indicates someone who would not make much use of the tools. Should get more familiar with admin areas before requesting the tools.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding on to my oppose, Oana's primary activity outside mainspace is in filespace uploading NFC images and it seems a very large portion of those uploads were deleted as orphaned fair use. Just browse through the editor's talk page history for evidence. Whatever the reason for the large number of orphaned fair use images being deleted, this is the only noteworthy activity outside mainspace and such repeated violations are not desirable in an admin candidate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just kind of a note: orphaned fair use just means that the image was no longer used, and shouldn't per se reflect against the uploader. I have a number of images to my name that were deleted as orphaned fair use, often in the case of company logos that were orphaned after the company had changed their logo design and another user uploaded a different one. I would certainly disagree with an assessment that those were violations, and in fact that allowing them to be deleted without, say, arguing that an article should retain them for historical purposes could be considered a sign of understanding the NFCC. Not saying that's the case here, but the observation that there are many deleted orphaned fair use images isn't, without more, a fair one. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - the confrontational behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Ed (Season 1) in September 2013 and the copyvio at Copper Range Railroad in October 2013 are reasons enough. --Stfg (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Image/NFCC issues stretching back to 2011. Candidate also lacks policy knowledge and application, and also lacks the temperament, attitude, and cool head necessary to wield the mop. Cloudchased (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NFCC violations at File:WODsystemmap.jpg and File:Gretathyssenpublicity.jpg,
    incorrect licensing at File:ABCmap.jpg
    copyright problems at Copper Range Railroad,
    confrontational attitude at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Ed (Season 1),
    policy misinterpretation at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 December 6#File:Fp7souderton.jpg,
    lack of policy knowledge, understanding, and application: see User talk:Oanabay04/Archive 4#Re: Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line,
    disruptive removal of deletion tags: see User talk:Oanabay04/Archive 4#August 2011.
  5. Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Ed (Season 1) and, in addition, answers to questions above demonstrate that this user has not much clue what adminship is about. --Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose .... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Ed (Season 1) and above answers doesn't fill one with confidence whatsoever!, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Cloudchased and answers to questions don't make it sound like the user is interested in any actual admin work. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Sorry, but I really don't feel that you are qualified enough at this time for the rights. You are a good editor, don't get me wrong, but the above issues are worrying. We do need more gnome administrators, but we also need good administrators, so I would encourage you to start branching out more in the community and gaining some more experience on what goes on here, including knowing when to tone down rhetoric, as happened in the aforementioned AFDs. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. regretful oppose 38,000 edits is a lot. User is at times civil and polite, but comes across here as pedantic and non responsive. This is troubling in regards Answer 3. However The recently introduced a copyvio concerns me. Even though it was quickly corrected, it should not have been created. I see no tagging for CSD, so cannot gauge understanding in that area. I believe the only AfD has involved articles created by user, so there may be a question about understanding WP:GNG. Don't know what became of the dispute involving breaking up a featured article, so need more input. I echo The Devil's Advocate's concerns. Have not looked at the other issues presented above. Dlohcierekim 00:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral Support but I have to regretfully Oppose. I'll try to say this as politely as I can. Your work with articles is impressive, and I applaud you for your work with them. With that said, you don't have enough experience to gain my trust in areas that administrator tools are used in (i.e. deletions, vandalism fighting, etc.) and I can't support you at this time.. I would keep doing what you are experienced with in the article mainspace unless you seriously want to become an administrator and start exploring those areas of work here. smithers - talk 01:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's generally considered bad form to link to NOTNOW on the RfA of an experienced user, as explained further down that page. benmoore 10:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link. smithers - talk 19:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Attitude problem. Ready to label anyone in his way a WP:DIVA. This user is a gnome and has obvious issues with spelling?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I find this answer, "There have been instances whenre my edits were questioned, usually by an overzealous user who was too subjective and took offense" to be opposite of the attitude and demeanour expected of sysops when handling conflicts. The answer to question 1 does not indicate why this editor needs the tools -- which isn't a major issue for me except for the fact that this editor has done little show why they are asking for them now. In addition, despite a focus on grammar, there are spelling and grammatical mistakes in nearly every sentence. Mkdwtalk 03:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Ed (Season 1) it leaves a bad impression of incorrectly applied policies and WP:ATA. Mkdwtalk 07:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per above cyrfaw (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose regretfully, but I agree with the majority of statements by my colleagues above. -- Ϫ 11:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. As soon as I started reading this page, the answers to questions struck me as amounting to "I don't actually know what being an administrator entails, so I'll just say some things that I hope will make a good impression". I don't think it would be at all helpful to have an administrator who has so little idea of what being an administrator actually means. Next, the approach to other editors exhibited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Ed (Season 1) is totally inappropriate for anyone who may be acting as an administrator. Next, I am concerned at the number of copyright problems there have been with this editor. An administrator who does not have even a basic grasp of what copyright means is not a good idea. It is true that (so far as I know) there have been no such problems for quite a few weeks now, so maybe Oanabay04 has learnt at last, but the problems were continuing too recently for me to have confidence that is so. Also, I find a significant number of remarkable failures to understand how things work, such as changing links in an AfD template because the article had been moved, apparently not realising that those links point to the AfD discussion, which had not been moved. That is in itself a minor mistake, and I certainly would not oppose just because of that, but when I see a whole string of such misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works, they all add up a clear picture of an editor who really does not have enough clarity about how things work to be let loose on the admin tools. Add that to the other reasons for concern, and I'm afraid it has to be a very definite "no". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - too many issues and areas of concern have been raised, sorry. GiantSnowman 13:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. No activity in admin-related areas. Little interaction on talk pages. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose No apparent need for the tools and sufficient examples cited by others to indicate that the user's temperament at this time is not suited for them in any case. Intothatdarkness 23:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Sorry, but I see little engagement in admin-related processes, and I do see some worrying signs of lack of awareness of policy and technique. There are many signs of poor skills at handling consensus-forming discussions, so I see no reason to believe that Oana would be an accountable admin willing and able to "respond promptly and civilly" to queries about their conduct and use of the tools.
    Oanabay04 is clearly a very committed editor, which is great, and I would be happy to reconsider a future nomination in which Oanabay04 could show how they have satisfied these concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - The user's temperament is concerning enough, but his answers to the questions are quite insufficient in my opinion as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Oanabay04: Would you mind expanding the standard three questions so that they are more comprehensive? — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 20:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Ditto. This RfA is now live. The answer to question 1 in particular should demonstrate a need for administrative tools , and how you plan to use them. At first glance, it's apparent that the candidate has not edited significantly within the Wikipedia namespace. Additionally, some red links on the user pages appear to have been there for more than a year , so that ought to be addressed. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Reworded need/experience, per Pedro's comment. Apologies for the misguided wording. However, it's clear that editors expect admins to have a fair idea of what they're getting themselves into, and this isn't apparent at the moment. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I think your better of as a normal editor. The lack of edits towards the Wikipedia namespace (as candidates should be involved in the community) and the lack of edit summaries on the user's contributions is something to look at. ///EuroCarGT 21:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral for now - note we are unable to see your edit stats as you have not opted-in - see https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=Oanabay04&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia for more information.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Researching although I'm very inclined to support at first glance, and not just due the Pedro Effect. I do believe that any person who has done this for a long time and has avoided any serious problems should have access to the tools. The AFD doesn't phase me a bit. If you want admin that never get on a soapbox every now and then, you would have to desysop the lot of us, myself included. He did manage to bludgeon without personal attacks, which is better than a goodly portion of the admin currently serving. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown: are we looking at different AfDs? How is "Your talkpage and excessive Barnstar awards suggest that you lack the ability to WP:DISENGAGE and are bordering on WP:DIVA" not a personal attack? And this is only the most clear-cut. There are plenty more there. --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's over the top and undesirable but that isn't the same thing as calling someone an "asshat". We all push the boundaries from time to time (including me), but this wouldn't have even warranted a warning from an admin. If this months old comment is the most stark example, then I'm not overly concerned. I don't expect admins to be saints, just to use good judgement the vast majority of time and not abuse the tools. My criteria isn't whether I think he "needs" the tools, nor is "perfect for the job", it is whether or not he can be trusted to use the tools with equity. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a lot worse than calling someone an "asshat". That's just childish name-calling. The one I quoted accused the person he addressed of specific personality defects. If admins won't even warn for that, then too bad for admins. And no, I don't think that someone who would make that attack on the personality of someone they are disagreeing with in an AFD "can be trusted to use the tools with equity". Dennis, I don't care how you !vote, but you did say "He did manage to bludgeon without personal attacks", and that just ain't true. --Stfg (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral: One's candidacy for adminship is likely to be the only time when the community will evaluate said candidate's ability to use the tools, and whether he or she has the responsibility to do so properly. As such, I personally consider it grounds for doubting a candidate's seriousness about adminship when his or her responses to standard questions are terse, non-responsive, or poorly crafted. Would you apply for a job without polishing your resume and cover letter until it gleamed? Then why should you not do the same when running for adminship? I would be willing to reconsider this position should the candidate supply more adequate responses to the questions. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Usually no qualms giving the tools to someone with lengthy editing experience, even if they haven't ticked the usual admin boxes, but it's unclear how deep a knowledge of policies and guidelines the candidate has. Additionally Q1 seems to have been misunderstood, as it doesn't necessarily list any administrative work and the expanded answer contains a disappointing amount of spelling and grammatical errors. benmoore 10:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral for now Makes Sarek look verbose... I'm not sure about a need for the tools, and there is definitely something in an answer here that's worrying me, coming from someone who tidies up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peridon (talk • contribs) 12:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral: I am reluctant to oppose a candidate who has 34 thousand plus and 92%+ of all edits in mainspace. But I can't support either. Tito☸Dutta 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral - just not to pile on. I think there is a sufficient number of well expressed oppose votes already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2014 (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 either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Oanabay04&oldid=1151017689"