Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ohnoitsjamie

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.

Ohnoitsjamie[edit]

final (14/10/5) ending 02:29 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) – Ohnoitsjamie has shown admin potential since he was first welcomed to Wikipedia back in October 2005. I told him on November 5, that he would make a good admin, and I still believe it. He has made over 3,000 edits, he is good at RC patrol, his edit summaries are good, he is helpful to new users, I have never seen him get into a conflict and I believe he will use admin tools well. Francs2000 01:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination. OhnoitsJamieTalk 02:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. I was going to nominate her soon support Excellent user --Jaranda wat's sup 02:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support In my experience with her on the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy page...well let's just say I thought she already was one! — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Terence Ong 03:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've seen her around, and I'm a bit surprised she isn't an admin. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I've seen him around and I've only seen good things - and good job clarifying your gender on your user page, James.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 11:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support don't care if they are a he or she, he still gets my support. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Apart from the fact that he marks all of his edits minor, I think that he'll be a great asset to the Wikipedia administration.SoothingR 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as nominator. Sorry for not doing so sooner, I was called into work and was unable to get to a computer sooner. -- Francs2000 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Great editor, does not take any credit at all deserves adminship for honesty --64.230.115.252 01:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, no anon votes. NSLE (T+C) 01:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. King of All the Franks 03:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, expanded answer to question 1 swayed me. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. — FireFox • T • 18:55, 23 January 2006
  14. Support - Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs

Oppose

  1. Good editor, but unfortunately I think you're too new. Compared to CS,CWEM, I've hardly encountered you at WP:AIV, where most RC patrollers report persistent vandals, and I've not interacted with you enough. Therefore, I have to respectfully oppose this nomination at this time. NSLE (T+C) 05:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not trying to sway your vote, but I did want to clarify something; I was in the habit of reporting persistent vandalism to the Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/IP_Moderate page, which has now been deprecated. I've only used the new page a few times. OhnoitsJamieTalk 07:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Too new...great work, but not been around long enough. Pschemp | Talk 06:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose User needs more experience; marks too many edits minor. Xoloz 16:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, you're a good editor with good intentions, but I have to agree with the above: you need a little more experience and you need to learn a little more about Wikipedia policies and procedures. Also, your answer to question 1 suggests that you don't really know what admins do: the things you propose to do as an admin can already be done by non-admins. --Deathphoenix 20:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose- no offense intended, but based on your question answers you seem to be unfarmiliar with a lot of wikipedia's policies and structure.--Urthogie 00:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Per Urthogie. Those are not sysop chores, although they are necessary.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Actual active time is really rather short. The answers to the questions do seem to show some considerably unfamiliarity with the fairly important details of various things. Even the expanded answer to Q1 is weak. One does not need admin powers to be able to deal effectively with vandalism alone. I think some more time spent swimming around in more pools and doing more things will allow a better demonstration of the editor's good judgement and may also show the editor various, important, things that he hasn't come across yet. -Splashtalk 04:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - too new CDThieme 00:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Urthogie. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose nothing against this editor, just too new. i've seen an awful lot of nominations lately for folks with just a few months experience. i don't understand it, as we don't seem to be really short of admins. in my opinion, it takes more time than that to get to know this place well. Derex 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Upon looking at Ohnoitsjamie's contributions, I see a lot of good contributions to Wikipedia. Pretty active on AFD, but lacks any voting on RFA's and other places. Concerns to how Ohnoitsjamie's been fully active as he's only been contributing heavily since November. It's the same situation with a similar RFA as you are great contributor but have hardly enough time here on Wikipedia to consider you admin material..yet. I think you would feel more comfortable with the admin tools in a couple of months, in which I will support then. Don't let this vote discourage you though, I think your still valuable to Wikipedia. — Moe ε 04:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral The answer to question 1 doesn't help, can't non-admins Wikify and Expand articles? How are they admin chores? --pgk(talk) 10:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the clarification, I'm not greatly impressed, the problem wasn't that you didn't list vandalism related admin chores, it was that you didn't list any admin chores. Staying neutral for now. --pgk(talk) 22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Looking at the user's talk page I see a lot of flippant and sarcastic replies to vandals or to people questioning reversions, etc. (I can provide diffs if needed but go from the bottom up, you'll see quite a few). It's my view that it is best to always try to be friendly, even when delivering a message that the recepient may not like. Excessive flippancy or sarcasm in an administrator is not a trait I think is good. So for now I suspend judgement (but am interested in what others think... is my view valid?) I'm also not so keen on the answer to question 7.... coverage does not need to be roughly the same, it needs to be proportionate and appropriate. That may make dealing with NPOV questions harder. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per all above Neutral votes (or whatever people want to call them). --nihon 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral still seems a bit new, although no reason to oppose given time └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I'd be glad to help out with Articles that need to be wikified, Articles that need to be expanded, and Pages needing attention. I tend to wander into NPOV_Disputes as it is. I'd like to spend a little more time on the aforementioned activities versus simple vandalism reverts.
Clarification It didn't occur to me to list vandalism-related admin chores (blocking, using administrator revert tool, etc), but as member of the CVP I'd obviously be doing that. I've been voting in afd debates on-and-off and looking for copyright violations; I'd have no problem helping out with the expanded adminstrator duties in those areas as well. OhnoitsJamieTalk 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The majority of my edits have been vandalism reverts. I like to think that when vandalism is reverted within ten seconds, the vandal will realize that it's a pointless endeavor and find something better to do. I've started spending more time trying to resolve NPOV disputes. I think I'm a fairly good mediator, in that I can keep my own opinions separated, but I'd welcome advice from other admins who've had more experience in NPOV dispute mediation. I'm always happy to offer advice and tips to new users.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. In most of the content disputes I've been involved with, I've stepped in as a neutral third party. For the most part, I don't sweat the insults or vandalism of my user page by disgruntled vandals or POV-pushers. There have been two anonymous editors who've repeatedly left insulting comments on my page, to which I eventually responded in a playfully mocking manner (on my own page, not on theirs). In the future, I'll do my best to not feed the trolls.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 03:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. Actually, this is the first time I've seen {{bv}}. Now that I'm aware of it, I would tend to use that in cases where profanity was added or sneaky edits were made. I'd stick with test1 for the "wow, is it really going to let me change this?" types of edits.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. I'd try to resolve the issue via the user's talk page first; how exactly would depend on whether or not the issue was already well hashed-out on the article talk page. A lot of it would depend on whether (1) the user was just being hard-headed or (2) there was a particularly sticky POV issue in which the answer was not clear cut.
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. I base it on whether or not the author makes a reasonable attempt to assert notability (though I disagree with that assertion).
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A. I try to fairly represent both (or all) positions; i.e., each position should have roughly the same amount of content devoted to it's description. If possible, try to balance external links/references as well.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A. As it increases in popularity, there seems to be an increasingly number of vandals who are seeking ways to subtly vandalize or subvert; e.g., sneaky factual edits that might go unnoticed, creating accounts so that their edits are more likely to slip under the radar of recent change patrolling. At the same time, the increased attention also means increased scrutiny regarding the reliability of the information.
9. See neutral comment #3, would you please comment on flippant replies in more detail? They are a matter of some concern to me as they seem to violate WP:BITE which, as a newbie with not much more than 6 months and 1000 edits, I feel rather strongly about. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 07:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. As far as I can remember, there have been two occasions (both recent) where I posted flippant replies on my own talk page/edit summaries. Both were cases in which the other party was uncivil and made assertions that I was a poor editor/writer, which "pushed one of my buttons." Now that I'm aware of that button, I'm confident that I won't repeat that mistake. OhnoitsJamieTalk 16:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ohnoitsjamie&oldid=1140200534"