Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ohnoitsjamie 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Ohnoitsjamie

Final (96/0/0) ended 20:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) – Ohnoitsjamie has contributed greatly to Wikipedia since October 2005, and he has helped to revert vandalism and participated in AFD discussions. He now has almost 10000 edits, and he uses edit summaries well and communicates with other users frequently, and so is very unlikely to abuse admin tools. On his last unsuccessful RfA, others have suggested that more time on the project could help, and now he has it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to co-nominate Ohnoitsjamie. Aside from the edit summary usage, he is always polite and genial in his interactions with others, regardless of the situation he is put under by often disgruntled spammers or suspect autobiographers and the like. He has been around longer than six months, and since I became an admin, he has kept me busy on AIV and CSD quite a lot through his work on NPP and RCP. Also, his AfD contributions show a dedication to debate, rather than straight voting, which tells us that he would preside over AfD debates with a good degree of wisdom, which is needed in non-clear cut cases. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, and thank King of Hearts and Blnguyen for the votes of confidence. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. OhNoitsaSupport, user has shown a great deal of improvement from his first RfA. He shows increased familiarity with Wikipedia policies, and a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. I opposed last time, but am pleased to offer my support now. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support and I like this guy. Haven't seen him around, but that's probably because I haven't been vandalising and spamming. :) He makes good use of edit summaries, warns vandals and spammers consistently, and I see that he has defused several situations where irate spammers questioned his reverts. See this for example. Aguerriero (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per nom and co-nom. Kimchi.sg 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, doing good stuff, will do better stuff with tools. BD2412 T 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support. looks good from here.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong support. In fact, I had already offered Jamie to nominate him a few weeks ago, and he preferred to be patient and give it more time. My interactions with him have demonstrated me his top-notch personal quality and his talent as an editor. A true asset to the project. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support; I've had excellent experiences working with him, and greatly appreciate his efforts at keeping town and city articles NPOV, even in the face of determined and unreasonable opposition. Definitely needs admin tools. Antandrus (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support. God yes, this user is by far one of our best. Adminship is threefold: janitor duties, setting an example, and playing a role in the site's evolution. I'm sure this user will balance all three. — Deckiller 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. -- Very good editor - will make an excellent admin. -- No Guru 21:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Very satisfactorily meets my admin criteria. Great behind-the-scenes contribution. Grandmasterka 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
11. "Oh yeah" Support - OhNoHesRussianAndHesCrazy 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Yanksox ^(talk) 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Cliche Support ON WHEELS!!! Thought for sure he was an admin, and surprised he's relatively new around here. Good choice though. Will become dangerous with vandal tools. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
14. OhNoKingOfHeartsIsSupportingAsANominatorOnWheels! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support long time user, looks busy with tackling vandalism. Seems suitable for the job.--Andeh 21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Twice edit conflicted Strong Support - seems to be a great user who would further help Wikipedia with the extra tools hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Looking at his edits gives me the impression that he's likely to be more "productive" with buttons than without them. Having a sense of humour is an additional advantage. Good luck. --Vildricianus 21:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support That's a lot of project edits. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Supporting My favourite AIV regular :) -Obli (Talk)^? 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, well-balanced vandal fighter (and more). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Support per nominations and civility on talk page. Seems to ruffle a few feathers with linkspammers, which is good -- sometimes, feathers need to be ruffled. --Elkman 22:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, but sig could be smaller. I suggest making the "itsJamie" link to the talk, which would take out almost half a line. If you don't want to, then at least make it be "<b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|^Talk]]</b>," (OhNoitsJamie ^Talk) which is the same exact thing but half a line shorter, putting it onto one line. --Rory096 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
23. More candidates like this one please!™ Support ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Invokes cliché #1. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Support a great wikipedian —Mets501 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Strong support great vandal fighter. —Khoikhoi 23:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support about time. A wise and dedicated user who understands what is needed to fight vandals and improve Wikipedia. Gwernol 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Pepsidrinka supports. 23:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
29. I'll have to Support this one. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Strong Support - utterly patient and polite with even the oddest of characters. He is a model of how to respectfully deal with all editors and still clean up inappropriate additions. Kuru ^talk 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Good editor, deserves the promotion. DVD+ R/W 00:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Though I've never dealth with this editor in person, I have only heard tales of patience and wisdom. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Strong Support per nom. Heehee.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support per last time Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. The number of edits outweighs my 'a year of experience' concerns. SushiGeek 01:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Strong Support Excellent user, see above comments. Eluchil404 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Much improved in editing from last RFA. Yes. NSLE 01:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Support, absolutely. Deizio talk 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. We need more people helping out with these admin backlogs. Roy A.A. 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Support - per Tawker's Support Criteria and all above -- Tawker 03:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Strong Support Very civil and helpful user; seen him around and was impressed. <insert evil RFA cliches here>. He even let me design his userpage. :D Master of Puppets ^{Giant Enemy Crab!} 03:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support per most of above. --HResearcher 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. An experienced, dedicated editor. Zaxem 04:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. I keep bumping into his trail. Leaves good tracks. Shenme 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Strong Support excellent vandal fighter and good editor abakharev 05:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. DarthVader 07:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Merovingian {T C @} 08:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Definite Support I've seen this user editting around. Will make a great admin. Passes my RFA criteria. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support Little doubt that this person would be handy with a mop and bucket.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Smart, mature, humble, not a dick. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support, great user. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Pile on. Textbook candidate. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support for all the above reasons. Just zis Guy you know? 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. per nom Anger22 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. Excellent and trustworthy editor. Xoloz 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support Per reasons stated above & excellent answers given below. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support --Jay(Reply) 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support I like the edit count :-), to me it shows he'd dedicated. That, and he didn't leave even when he got blocked. MichaelBillington 04:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support Great user and will make good use of the tools. TigerShark 09:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support get to moppin' — xaosflux ^Talk 14:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support per above. --TeaDrinker 17:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Oh-yes-it's-Support: He helped out a little with CBMII, an article I have yet to put a star on. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support per nomination --Mhking 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
65. OMG I'm late so sorry! Support How did I miss this for so long? Of course he deserves it. Wonderful editior, does good things in stressful situations. I whole-heartedly support. pschemp | talk 02:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Support RFA seems overdue. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Support per nom --Deville (Talk) 05:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
68. OhNoIForgotToSupportBefore Werdna (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
69. Support - I have seen him do good work on reverting vandalism -- Lost 11:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Support - Everything ok. Afonso Silva 12:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Support--Jusjih 23:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support. Excellent user. — TheKMan^talk 16:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Support, good confidence in this person to be an administrator. Yamaguchi先生 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Support, was going to nom a little while ago myself. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Pile on support! per both noms, answers to questions....is there a reason this user shouldn't have a mop?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Support - Richardcavell 00:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Support I'm not kidding when I say i though Ohnoitsjamie was an admin. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Pile-on support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
79. Support. Definitely. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
80. Support looking good, bonne chance :-) Gryffindor 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Support - another mop here please! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
82. Support. Awesome editor, good person, knows policy. · rodii · 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
83. Support Satisfies my criteria, and exceeds them in a number of areas. --Wisden17 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
84. Support --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
85. Ditto. Λυδαcιτγ 04:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
86. Support -- valuable editor. - Longhair 08:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
87. Support. Better late than Never. --Bhadani 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
88. Support Joe I 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
89. Support. See no issues.Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
90. Support. AnnH ♫ 01:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
91. Strong Support. As It mentioned above, I should support him to be admin because He demonstrates kindness, and being nice in Wikipedia. *~Daniel~* 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
92. We need more admin mediators. Ashibaka tock 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
93. Support Will use the tools well. --Alf ^melmac 07:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
94. Support Experienced and constructive editor --Brownlee 12:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
95. Support Andy _t 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
96. Support per nominator. Polonium 19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Consider using the minor edit marker. Mathbot went through like 5000 edits before finding 150 minor ones. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Life is ironic. On his last rfa, he was opposed by some for marking "all" his edits "minor." Probly the 150 minor edits in last 5000 edits is actually a correct indication? --Gurubrahma 07:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I need to get in the habit of marking vandalism reverts and spam removals as minor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• See Ohnoitsjamie's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

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: My major focus on Wikipedia is maintaining its overall quality. I revert a lot of vandalism, quickly, and followup with warnings or WP:AIV listings when appropriate. I clean up link spam (and occasionally discuss the WP:SPAM policies with well-meaning editors). I occasionally clean up articles (adding templateboxes, categories, wikifying, spelling, grammar, wording) and ensure that WP:NPOV guidelines are followed. As an admin, I'd be able to more efficiently deal with persistent vandals and spammers via blocks. I'd check the list of speedy deletion candidates list periodically and delete articles/images if appropriate. I'd (conservatively) semi-protect pages when necessary, and unprotect them in a reasonable amount of time. I'd keep an eye on the admin's noticeboard and assist in afd closures. I'd like to get more involved with policy discussions and proposals (for now, I do my best to abide by existing policies and guidelines).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: While there have been a few articles that I've brought out from stub status or otherwise cleaned up Mike_Aguirre,Montour_Trail, I don't think any of those efforts are worth bragging about. I like to think that my biggest contribution is my dedication to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, following its policies and guidelines, and maintaining a strictly neutral stance on issues. I don't have any infoboxes on my userpage indicating philosophies, ideologies, etc.; it's my goal that you shouldn't be able to discern any personal philosophies via my edits. I'm equally happy to revert vandalism and or NPOV content at Ann Coulter or to Bill Clinton. There are frequently situations where NPOV is quite difficult establish; when I've been involved in NPOV conflicts or mediation, I can maintain a cool head and am amenable changing my mind if good arguments are presented. It's not unusual for me to change my stance on an AFD if good arguments are put forth. While my vandalism-approach tends to be fast and business-like, I will try to work with new users who are obviously trying to make good-faith contributions but whose efforts are uninformed.

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: Receiving a block for a 3RR was my most stressful moment at Wikipedia. While it was only for three hours, I felt that it was unjustified and was upset about the prospect of it appearing on my "permanent record." It felt like a slap-in-the face after many many hours of diligent work on a project I really cared about; I briefly considered leaving Wikipedia, but decided ultimately that it was not worth losing sleep over (it also helped that several other fellow editors came to my defense without being asked to). Other than that, I generally don't get too stressed about disputes. It can be frustrating to get stuck in NPOV battles where the two sides dig into intractable positions, but that situations can usually be ameliorated by getting other non-partisan parties involved.

Through watching the talk pages of friends who became admins in the last year, I can see that the execution of administrative duties is bound to bring more complaints to an admin's talkpage, as many decisions are not black-and-white and are bound to create discord. I'm confident that I can keep my cool in such situations; I can comfortably stand by my positions if I'm reasonabley confident in their basis, but I'm not so stubborn that I'm unwilling to yield in the face of good arguments.

Optional Questions from Nobleeagle (Talk) Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?

I don't have any major problems with the way Wikipedia currently operates. Sometimes it's frustrating to deal with serial vandalism from anonymous IPs; especially AOL proxies and schools. I know some people are reluctant to block school IPs, but I wonder if a long block might prompt officials at the school to do something about the problem. (In one severe case, I contacted the network admin at a school where a lot of vandalism and disruption was emanating from; the problem stopped the next day).

Handling undue weight issues on controversial articles can be tiring, but that's inevitable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Q: Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?

It was fun to hit the 10k mark (kind of like watching the speedometer roll over on an old car), but I don't focus on those numbers too much. Obviously, a lot of the article and user talk edits are vandalism reverts and warnings. I'd like to boost my Wikipedia namespace numbers a bit. And what was my one category edit? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Q: Lastly, do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.

I look for at least 6 months or so of activity, and more importantly, evidence that the individual demonstrates a strong working knowledge of "the ropes." I look for level-headed and friendly discussions on the users talk page to confirm that the user is reasonably nice and civil. If other editors voice concerns in the oppose section, I consider those arguments as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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.