Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ocatecir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Ocatecir

Final (43/0/2); Ended Sun, 27 May 2007 13:42:43 (UTC)

Ocatecir (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Ocatecir for adminship. This is my first nomination, and I believe it's been worth waiting for. I first came across Ocatecir working on CKY articles some time ago, and was impressed with his early edits. Since then he has reached 5500 edits and contributed to the project across a wide range of areas. His talents include starting a WikiProject, being an excellent vandal fighter (uses Twinkle, politely and civilly advises vandals of their errors, reports at AIV), welcoming new users and patrolling recent changes. With regard to admin responsibilities, he has displayed an excellent working knowledge of policy and practice with regard to speedy and conventional deletion and user conduct, and I am constantly impressed with the patience and civility with which he treats inexperienced users questioning deletion notices or reversion on their creations and edits. I first brought up the possibility of nominating him some time ago, at which point he declined with the intention of gaining more experience. I believe he now has that experience in spades and would be an asset to the project as an administrator. Deiz talk 12:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —Ocatecir Talk 18:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: With the extra tools I intend to continue the work I currently do: Recent Changes patrol, New page patrol, and deletion discussion. I would also help monitor and remove any backlog over at AIV, UAA, CSD, RPP, and AFD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: While I am proud of my vandal fighting, my favorite thing to do on Wikipedia is research for articles. One of my best is when I saved The Mikey Show from deletion by reworking the entire article and finding sources to prove notability, which can be seen here. By removing all the extraneous, unsourced information about radio bits and callers and replacing it with sourced information about the controversy surrounding the show I was able to have the nomination withdrawn and I even received my first barnstar from the nominator. I am most proud of this because I do not listen to the show (though I am aware of it) and did it for the betterment of the project.
I am also proud of all the sources I add to the articles I create. I have access to Lexis Nexis and spend many hours searching for news articles that aren't often available through a google search. I recently wrote an article on environmentalist Robert Wilder and with the help of lexis nexis I found way more information and sources than a google search would yield. I think my research is one of my best contributions.
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: I think I had the normal wiki-learning curve of being a little impatient in the beginning and then learning that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. In the beginning I had a few drawn out discussion with other editors where I might not have been as amicable as I could have been, but I have learned since those and now try to be as civil as possible. I know that a lot of arguments stem from a breakdown in communication and have become more careful in conveying my point so that discussions do not lose their focus and the betterment of the encyclopedia is the paramount interest, not “winning” an argument.
Being a vandal fighter I receive the normal amount of four letter expletives hurled my way, but I usually have a policy of not engaging them directly, instead relying on the standard vandalism templates so that I don't incite further vandalism. I recently received a large amount of vandalism and cyber-stalking stemming from a nomination to AFD I made of an unsourced web forum article. The members of that forum perceived the nomination as an attack and proceeded to vandalize my user pages, cyberstalk me, and send me harassing e-mails. Rather than openly engage these people, possibly encouraging rather than deterring their actions, I opened up an e-mail dialogue with the owner of the web forum explaining wikipedia’s policies and even offering to help rewrite the article if wikipedia’s standards could be met. That seemed to put an end to the situation.
Optional question from VegaDark
4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block an IP address?
A: In short, almost never. Because IP addresses tend to be dynamic (even static IPs are reassigned from time to time) an indefinite block would not be warranted as it would not prevent the user responsible from vandalizing the next time his or her IP address would cycle through and it could prevent other people from editing who happen to be assigned that IP at a later time. Long term blocks could be used in extreme cases, but indefinite blocks of IP addresses would not be appropriate.
Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)
5. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
While my understanding of NPA is based on the main page and not the discussions surrounding it, your question has prompted me to read about the controversy. I don't see the usefulness in linking to sites that attack other editors, as the project should be about the verified information the articles present, not the editors adding them. Also nobody should feel intimidated from editing wikipedia. I have had people trying to intimidate me because of my editing on wikipedia (the web forum I mentioned in question 3 did their best to mine any personal information they could about me and post in on their forum) so i can see how sites trying to out editors who wish to remain anonymous can be nonconstructive. In short, protecting editors from harassment should be an important goal of wikipedia, but not at the expense of the project. A balance should be struck between protecting our editors and avoiding a paranoid censorship frenzy. I trust our community to find that balance and I will enforce whatever policy they decide on.
Optional question from KillerChihuahua
6. I notice that early in your time on Wikipedia, you created the article Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, which was tagged for speedy deletion, resulting in an edit war with you and the tagger (you removing the tag, he replacing.) How do you think he could have handled the situation better with you, or you with him?
That was early in my wiki career admittedly before I was familiar with wikipedia's policies, especially the notability criteria, speedy delete criteria, 3RR, and other policies I might have violated (as I am sure many others have violated as well when they were new to wikipedia). Had the situation occurred today it would have never happened. The article would not have been created in the first place (I had created it to support another article, so it wasn't spam, but it still wasn't notable). I also would have left a {{hangon}} tag while I improved the article and would have waited for an administrator to take a look at the article and leave it up to him to remove the speedy delete tag or delete the article. In the end I attribute most of my early edits and errors to inexperience and a lack of understanding on how the project functions. The more I involved myself with the project, the better my understanding became of the policies that we should abide by.
Yes, I saw (and note) that it was early on - perhaps I phrased my question poorly. How could the other editor have handled you, as a newbie, better? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ocatecir before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support - looks like I got here before the nominator. :-) Walton Need some help? 18:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Looks like a good user to me. Captain panda 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support After reviewing recent edits, I see no problem with this user having the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 19:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support just browsed through your contributions. User is a dedicated vandal fighter who can be of great help with the tools. —Anas talk? 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Looks good, can use the tools and appears to know what we're here for, GDonato (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support: Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, why not. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support as nom. Damn these time zones :) Deiz talk 23:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support this is a good user who has given decent answers. Acalamari 01:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - Be warned, the Wikipedia space edit count (less then 600) could get you hurt, considering your 5000+ total edits. G1ggy! 02:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    Say what? 600 Wikispace edits is pretty decent, especially since they're a mix of AIV reports and AfD participation. Sure, there are people opposing RfAs based on editcount but I don't think there are too many who would say that a year+ of service and 600 Wikispace edits are absolutely insufficient. Pascal.Tesson 02:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    Just commenting on what I've seen. And I changed to regular support. G1ggy! 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Can't say I know Ocatecir but reviewing his contribs and answers above, I believe he'll be a responsible admin. Pascal.Tesson 03:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support I like polite editors :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Wikipedia edits doesn't matter because his mainspace is over 3000 and that works for me....----Cometstyles 04:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Joe I 05:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support -- LeCourT:C 05:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 06:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Seems everything is in order...Jmlk17 07:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Got a lot going for you. Dfrg.msc 08:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Looks like a good, responsible user. Dave101→talk  10:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Terence 14:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support per below. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support While I disagree personally that direct communication should always be second to templates when dealing with vandals, I see no reason why this user would not be a great admin. —METS501 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support per below. VegaDark (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, very dedicated editor, and has experience in many areas of the project. *Cremepuff222* 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support without a shade of doubt. Good editor, will help improve the project :) PeaceNT 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. It seems that any questions regarding Ocatecir's understanding of user tools are being answered satisfactorily. Ocatecir will use the admin tools for the greater good! --Edwin Herdman 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. support fine user knows a lot about wikipedia active lets give him a shotOo7565 08:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. Good user, no problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 11:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - no problems I can see. Looks fine - Alison ☺ 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support per all of the above. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support per contributions history and responses to the questions. The issue of welcoming User:FROGPOO seems to me to be a unique incident and an accidental oversight. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support but please consider shortening your signature! – Riana ⁂ 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support right mind right heart. Manderiko 22:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support No reason will not make a good admin. Davewild 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support --Húsönd 01:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support - Meets my criteria. --Random Say it here! 03:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Sarah 10:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  39. Late support. AW 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support 600 WPspace edits are fine with the amount of quality mainspace edits. TewfikTalk 20:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support inasmuch as the candidate seems possessed of the sound judgment, deliberative temperament (which temperament is evidenced in his answer to question four, which, as VegaDark observes, perhaps imperfect factually but quite fine in principle), and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, such that I think one can conclude with a great deal of certainty that the net effect on the project of Ocatecir's being sysopped should be positive. Joe 23:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support - The Transhumanist   
  43. Support, seems pretty much ok. —AldeBaer 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral You say you would like to help out at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, well you recently welcomed User:FROGPOO, this username is clearly a violation of the username policy so this leads me to slightly doubt your judgement when deciding whether a block would be appropriate. Apart from that I see you as a capable editor and could make good use of the tools. Good luck though! — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Is that a huge deal? I read frogpoo's name first as "frogpod", as Ocatecir might not have noticed the little distinction. Evilclown93 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    You are right, I was mass welcoming people and I guess I was not giving it full attention. I caught a few but not that one. I will be more careful in the future. —Ocatecir Talk 02:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    To my mind, even had your welcome been offered other-than-perfunctorily (that is, had you been aware of the username and its probably being disfavored), it would have been quite fine; I am not at all sure that a username block without discussion was appropriate here, and, in any event, where a username is not plainly disruptive (or intended to disrupt)—it is far from clear that the user created this name in bad faith—a new user should probably be offered a welcome alongside a {{username blocked}}. In any case, I trust that, qua admin, Ocatceir will act with restraint and in consideration of nuance when dealing with UAA; there is surely a consensus of the community for such an understanding of USERNAME. Joe 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral – Ocatecir's response to question #4 worries me. I feel it demonstrates a lack of understanding of how IP addresses are assigned, which is important knowledge for an administrator who is going to have access to Special:Blockip. While many IP addresses are indeed dynamic, it's fallacious and defeatist to assume that just because a majority are dynamic, an indefinite block of any given IP address will have no worth. Many IP addresses are assigned semi-permanently (by that I mean for five years or more), especially to corporations and schools, and given blatant and malicious violation of Wikipedia's policies, an indefinite block of an IP address should always be an option in order to lighten the workload on our already overtaxed vandal- and spam-fighters. (As an example, what else should be done with a corporation determined to advertise its site or services on as many articles as possible or to deface the articles of its competitors?) Indefinite does not mean permanent, and users can be given the option to create an account and edit normally. An anonymous user who wishes to stay anonymous can always request an unblock later should they be an innocent affected by the ban, and luckily, we have active, friendly administrators who are willing to make that process as pleasant as possible. Please reconsider your stance. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think the note of caution sounded by Ocatecir in how he would approach this is quite reasonable. This is also a long-term issue that most admins get to grips with over time, rather than one they will be forced to deal with immediately, and it's unlikely a new admin could harm the project if they decide not to indefinitely block IP's as soon as they get the buttons. If Ocatecir agreed to seek advice from more experienced admins at first in such cases would that ease your mind? Deiz talk 14:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    It would indeed. I appreciate the response, and let me clarify that I certainly don't feel that administrators should indefinitely block IPs "as soon as they get the buttons". I've reviewed the candidate's contributions, and I'm impressed with the maturity of his reasoning in the reply below, though I still may not agree with his position. Again, an indefinite block is an indefinite block, not a permanent block. I do agree that "[A] permanent block does not give a user room to maybe mature over time and learn to contribute rather than harm the project." I may just be more cynical than he in the belief that some blatant vandals and malefactors can in fact mature and become useful contributors. In any case, he has my support. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    I asked the question because lately I have seen a couple administrators incorrectly indefinitely block IP's for run-of-the-mill vandalism. While there are occasionally legitimate reasons to indefinitely block IP's, in general you shouldn't have a reason to. While the answer wasn't 100% accurate, It was still reasonable as it shows the user will err on the side of caution with the tools, which is important for new admins. VegaDark (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    While I appreciate your concern, I do stand by my original position as it falls in line with WP:IP, which makes the same points I do about IP addresses. Now if an IP has become so troublesome that such a drastic step could be considered it would be something I would bring up at ANI. Those IP addresses you mentioned that are assigned semi-permanently (corporations, schools) are also shared, so by permanently blocking those addresses we could be preventing numerous people from contributing to our open encyclopedia. If the vandalism was so terrible an indefinite block was warranted of an entire school or corporation, it is definitely something that would need to be brought to the attention of other administrators and even the Communications Committee. I would just like to note I have no qualms about indefinitely blocking usernames. One thing I would also like to add to my original answer is a permanent block does not give a user room to maybe mature over time and learn to contribute rather than harm the project. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. —Ocatecir Talk 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral because the user created Image:Cky.gif which I believe to be a derivative work of the copyrighted logo of the band. This is a fairly complex case and I believe Ocatecir's efforts to be in the right place but I can not support because of this but I don't think this is enough (due to the complexity of the issue) to oppose, even if the image is declared a derivative and deleted. MECU≈talk 18:04, 24 May 2007 (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.