Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ohmpandya

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.

Contents

[edit] Ohmpandya

(11/28/4); Scheduled to end 19:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Ohmpandya (talk · contribs) - I have made over 2000 edits. I have made 3 good articles, where 1 has been merged, and other have been complemented by other people. I hope to become an admin, and make many more edits to Wikipedia. Ohmpandya (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn. I hope to run again in a few months.


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to stop 'sock puppeting' and I will also work on stopping vandals, and vandalism. Further, if an article meets deletion guidelines, I will go ahead and delete it. In the Main Page, I do see mistakes sometimes. As an Admin, I plan on fixing that.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are probably:
          *Tamerlane Empire
          *1963 Boston Patriots season

In these two articles I have been complemented, many times. I worked very hard on them, and I was glad to see a reward.

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: Other users have not caused me stress. I have not been in any edit conflicts, but rather find myself addicted to Wikipedia. If other users do cause me stress, in the future, I will ask an admin, on what further action to take.

Optional questions from John254

4. What is consensus, and how can one ascertain whether it exists?
A: This is a pretty big part of wikipedia. It is the ability if someone wants to/doesn't want to change a page -- there decision to leave it as it is, or to make edits to it.
5. How should an administrator determine whether an account should be blocked as an abusive sockpuppet?
A: You would first create a report on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Next you should have your evidence. You should know: Is that sock puppet account already blocked? Has it already been reported?
6. What are the requirements of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as they relate to editing, reversion, blocking, page protection, and deletion?
A: Original Research will not be accepted, NPOV, and Verifiability. In blocking if an editor keeps adding info. that is unsourced, vandalized, etc., then he may be blocked.


Optional questions from EJF

7. What is the difference between a ban and an indefinite block?
A:
8. Let's say you found added to an article on a school by a new account with no previous contributions: i think this is the worst school in the whole world. Would you consider this vandalism and why? What action would you take?
A: Yes this would be vandalism. It would be a kind of personal attack. I would delete that sentence, and anything else which is irrelevant in the article. Next, I would contact the account/i.p. (By looking at history in the article to see who did it) and if they did not have any warnings yet, I would give them one.
9. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using any other accounts?
A: No, why would I? I want my contributions to count up on one account, and one account only. I once made a couple of edits without logging it, but thats it.
10. What would you do if a user reverted an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours (thus obeying WP:3RR)?
A: I would block him from editing (if it is his/her first time) for 24 hrs.

Optional question from User:Corvus cornix

11. If your RfA is approved, will you add yourself to the "Admins open to recall" category? Corvus cornixtalk 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Optional question from User:Whitstable

12. Under what circumstances, if any, should a sockpuppet account be allowed? Whitstable (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
A: Yes. Many, many people have bots, and having a bot is not considered a sock puppet. Another reason, if you totally create a new account, and never edit with the old one. A third reason, is a Segregation account. For example, I love football. I would create a new account to make contributions to only areas of football. Another reason, if you go to... the library often, and you use the computer there often, to avoid someone stealing your main account, you would avoid this, by creating a new one solely for the library. There are also other reasons.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ohmpandya before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Not our most active user, but waht the heck, he's been here a year and knows his stuff, he deserves adminship.--Phoenix-wiki 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    I would argue that nobody "deserves" adminship, but rather is given the mop due to a willingness to do the menial administrative (and often boring) tasks of required of sysops. But that's just my opinion. --Sharkface217 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Might want to add stressful to that assessment, PW. :-P miranda 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Very weak support - I view self noms as prima facie evidence of being bold. However, I would like more use of edit summaries and more edits especially in the Wikipedia-space. I also would have liked months of solid contributions instead of one large fest. But good luck--EJF (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    My support is further weakened by the regrettable copyvios, I hope you have learned from this. EJF (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Moral Support I'll be honest / blunt. This RfA will not pass. Although you have been here a while one months actual contributions are not enough to convince most editors I'm afraid. However I'd wager that you spend a lot of time actually reading this work (and my boring old mantra goes here - editing is not the number one thing on Wikipedia - our readership is) and that helps far more than can be proved by counting edits. Your desire to help further is deeply appreciated, and I look forward to a full support in the not to distant future. I'd also suggest turning on forced edit summary (via your preferences tab). Please don't be discouraged. Very Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I think people should stop with these "moral supports" (and writing them in the 'Support' section). There's no point, and if there are any, the points raised are nothing what can not be discussed elsewhere. Right now, this RfA - according to Tangobot - is going swell with a tally of 2/0/0. Dlae│here 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Further Comment And I think you should look at the numerous incidents of editors leaving after a failed RfA, the numerous discussions at WT:RFA about not piling on opposes, and the general feeling that RfA comments should be constructive, particularly when an RfA is unlikely to pass. And if you are so desperate to comment on my comments at RfA perhaps you'd also be kind enough to learn to format them properly. Oh and WP:AGF please both to me and the candidate. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    If they leave after failed RfAs, then they were probably power-hungry, thoughtless users who would do anything for an admin position. Moreover, what were the odds of them cutting it as an admin if they start crying when others present their views and judgement (which the candidate requested/accepted)? I'll strike the latter half of what you wrote, don't know why you said that. Dlae│here 21:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Addendum: To reiterate what I said prior; your "moral support" prose could be placed under 'Oppose', 'Neutral', 'Discussion', talkpages...hey, the list goes on. There's no point in blinding everyone (candidate, observers and Tangobot) into thinking this is a successful RfA.Dlae│here 21:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Feel free to strike out my comments if you think striking comments by another editor is a good idea. The formatting issue is here. Why not just support or oppose this RfA??? If you've got issues with me, use my talk page please, not this candidates RfA.Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support Would rather have an admin who hadn't raced to get as many edits as possible in as short amount of time as possible just to please the counters than one who has done that. Would the tools be abused? No Whitstable (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Switched to Oppose
  4. Moral Support - You seem like you are on the right track. Stick around, make more edits, participate in a Wikiproject, as well as participation in adopt-a-user. Good luck. miranda 22:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    The user informed me that he participated in Wikiprojects. [1] Yet, I still hold my support. I advise this user to go through admin coaching for a successful RFA. miranda 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Moral support, as it appears this nomination is not going to be successful. You are a good user, definitely on the right track, but just not ready for the tools, yet :) Qst 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support per answer to question 10. I dislike cut and paste questions, but this one line answer is probably the best one I've seen to this question so far. User:Krator (t c) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. You know what, this guy has been here for over a year, has written some good articles, and is always constructive. I don't see any reason why this RFA should not pass. To me, Wikipedia is a community organization, and as long as you are not disruptive, do not cause problems, and work hard to make constructive edits, then you should be granted adminship. This is an easy "accept" for me.--DS2434 (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support per Kurt Weber. Give it another couple of months contributing at the rate you have been, and you should be in like Flynn (although you could stand to use edit summaries a little more). Lankiveil (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
  9. Support--n1yaNt(~Cpt. Obvious~) 07:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - appears trustworthy. The Transhumanist 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - good user.   jj137 ♠ 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose Sorry, but while it is true he has been here for a year, all but a very, very few of his edits are this month; and less than two thirds have edit summaries. I also see very little evidence of experience in admin-related topics. I admire this users enthusiasm, and hope to be able to support in two or three months time. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as above. You're a conscientious, hard-working, confident user who'll do great next time around when you've had experience. Good luck anyway. Rt. 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose He's here since 499 days and did in this time just 2077 edits. In my opinion that's not enough in such a long time. Never seen him in recent changes patrolling. Sorry. :( —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    I feel it is rather unfair to allege that this candidate is power-hungry. The prima facie evidence appears to suggest that the candidate wishes to help the project in good faith, even if the attempt is somewhat naive. At this stage it appears the RfA will not pass so could all opposers please give constructive criticism (by the way, I'm not saying that the above opposer isn't) Cheers! EJF (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Kurt always makes this exact oppose comment for self-noms. Don't worry about it. Usually his oppose votes cause more people to support the candidate as many people are against Kurt's oppose reason. Timmehcontribs 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    The RfA system allows for self nominations and it has proven to promote good administrators, i fell that each candidate needs to be looked at to see if they are indeed "power hungry", and should not be accused without having evidence to support the accusation. Cheers!Tiptoety talk 21:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I'm sorry but lack of experience is a real problem here, one month simply isn't enough time. Harland1 (t/c) 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Sorry, but at one month of active editing, you have nowhere near enough experience. Add to that the fact that just six days ago you uploaded an image which has since been deleted, for a lack of a source from the look of your talk page, I'm afraid it just shows that you don't have enough experience. Finally, your low use of edit summaries is not great (easy to cure, though - set your preferences to force you to add one). I would probably suggest withdrawing this RfA, as, with all due respect, with one month's experience, this will never go in your favour. WP:SNOW and all that... Sorry. TheIslander 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. oppose insufficient experience, one month's experience, needs more time at the coal face. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong oppose with moral support - This user is very good at article work, and has shown it, but if feel that they have not yet demonstrated knowledge of wikipedia's core policies that help an administrator make a educated decision. With only 46 edits to Wikipedia mainspace this user shows little experience with the processes that are used by administrators every day. This user has never filed a report on AIV. This user has very rarely engaged in any anti-vandal work, has made no contributions to AN/I. After looking over this users edit history he shows a lack of experience creating articles and expanding upon them, most of his edits are those that constitue a wikignome, not to say that is bad, but not quite the qualities looked for in a admin hopeful. This user also lacks the use of edit summary's. I know that this users intentions are good, and i do not think they would abuse the tools, but i just do not think it is time. I recommendbecoming more active in admin related areas, such as WP:AFD, WP:ANI, and many others. If you do that and try again in 4 months or so i would be willing to vote support. (I recommend that you withdrawal at this time, WP:SNOW.) Cheers!Tiptoety talk 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please do not get discouraged if this does not pass, these things happen the the best of us. I hope to see another RfA for you in the future. Tiptoety talk 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Only one month of experience, poor edit summary usage, and doesn't seem to have a good understanding of many policies. However, I see lots of activity at WP:AFD and in the month he's been editing, many edits. I suggest waiting a few months, learn the policies a little better, and try providing more edit summaries. Timmehcontribs 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually all of this users contributions to WP:AFD have been very recently and there are only 4. Tiptoety talk 03:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oh..whoops. But he/she is not ready for adminship either way. Timmehcontribs 20:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Little experience on Mainspace and Wikipedia pages (over 95% of the contributions in December), 40% edit summary in minor edits and relatively short answers for the three essential RFA questions.--JForget 02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, primarily due to communication issues. Especially in the above answers, this user's English comes across as stilted and somewhat awkward. Considering that this is an Encyclopedia - an online Encyclopedia, at that! - and that admins are oftentimes called upon to communicate potentially-touchy subjects at a moment's notice, a more workable grasp of the written language would be ideal. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Lack of perfect English is not a valid reason to oppose an RfA, language can be cleaned up if nessacary. In fact, having a language other than English as a native could prove to be beneficial for translation and whatnot. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Odd, I don't see it listed here. In my eyes, language skills are absolutely a valid reason to oppose an admin, considering that a) poor language skills can result in a misunderstanding just as easily as poor knowledge of admin policies, and b) like it or not, admins are often seen as the "face" of Wikipedia, and I believe it reflects poorly if their communication skills are not tip-top. Nothing personal intended towards anyone. I wouldn't employ a person who was allergic to dogs at a pet store, and I wouldn't want someone who was poor at communication to work in a communication-intensive position. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per the above concerns. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 03:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose: Per lack of experience and other noted concerns above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose as above. More experience, more mainspace work, and above all more consistency demonstrating maturity, and I will support your next RfA. docboat (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose The edit count is lower than I'd like to see. In addition, I wasn't really satisfied with the answers. They seem to convey a lack of understanding of the necessary policies for an admin. Keep editing and working and try again in the future. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Per answers to question 1 and 12. RuneWiki777 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Strong oppose. According to your deleted contribs and talk page, you created a copyvio at air flow. You uploaded Image:Linkin-park-sepia-5000875.jpg as GFDL - is this actually GFDL? All of your other uploads appear to be just as questionable. I really hope there aren't any more copyvios in your contrib history. --- RockMFR 19:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Switched from Support. Incorrect tagging and copyvios are inexcusable and a real threat to the project Whitstable (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, copyvio issues and lack of experience. Contribute for a couple more months, learn more about Wikipedia and copyrights, and other administrative functions and policies such as AfD and I'll likely support. Best of luck, Mr Senseless (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. OpposePer above statements. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose at this time does not seem quite ready. Best wishes. --VS talk 22:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose not ready yet. feydey (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Per tagging as orphan when not, and this. ChetblongTalkSign 02:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    In Ohmpandya's defense, the {{orphan}} tag does say "few or no other articles"... --Badger Drink (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose - needs more time as lacking in experience. Sting_au Talk 05:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. I was on the fence, but RockMFR's diffs put me on this end. Wizardman 16:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. Really sorry, but WP:SNOW comes to mind a bit here. 3 GA's is good work, but I think that 2000 edits is definitely too little for an administrator. Try again in 3 or 4 months. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.• 16:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Regretful Oppose - I HATE opposing (did I spell that correctly), but I personally feel that your answers were a little too short. I just didn't feel you understood the full grasp of it. But keep doing what you're doing. Good luck!Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 17:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral I don't really like self-noms very much. --Sharkface217 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Whether you like self-nom or not, the system allows self-nom. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Then Sharkface217 doesn't really like the system very much, and neither do a lot of others, and the system allow this. –Pomte 13:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    I really think that self-noms should not be frowned upon. They are allowed under the guidelines, and as such should be valued the same as noms. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.• 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral You're on the right track, but I feel that you need to gain more experience than just one month. It would also help you out next time if your answers were a bit more detailed. Keep going at it for a little while, and I'll be glad to support next time. Icestorm815 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. You are a good editor, but adminship doesn't seem right for you. First, you need more than one month of solid editing. Next, you need to think of your answers a little bit more, and make them more detailed. It would also be nice if you contributed more to Admin-like tasks such as WP:AFD and WP:RFA. You are, however, on the right track. I see that you were just approved to use the Autowiki browser, and have some great tasks for article building on your to-do list. After a few more months of editing, and some work on the Projectspace, I would be more than happy to support! Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:15, 1 January 2008 (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.