Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Osbus

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.

[edit] Osbus

Final (9/27/5) ended 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Osbus (talk · contribs) – I've been around for a few months and have amassed about 1500 edits (for those of you who think that thats the most important thing in RfA). Before registering, I contributed as an anon and read through some WP policies due to curiosity of the Wikipedia project. Since registering, I have contributed to all parts of WP and have decided the main areas in which I contribute can benefit from my having certain capabilities. Thus, I feel I can further WP goals and scopes with some admin tools. Btw, I'm an admin over at a site called Philowiki, so I've had experience deleting, doing rollback, and blocking users for repeated vandalism.Osbus 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nom. --Osbus 16:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, did I ever get a sex change? --Osbus 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you swap names with User:Demi. Everyone assumes he's a girl. And it's your own fault, wouldn't have been an issue if someone else had nominated you :P The Land 19:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak support. Would prefer more experience, but likely won't abuse the tools. RadioKirk talk to me 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support meets my criteria. ShortJason 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Participates his share into Concordia, seems an unlikely guy to abuse his position. JRA WestyQld2 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Meets my criteria. DarthVader 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Not likely to abuse his broom. Mostly Rainy 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Moral Support Give it a month --Mahogany 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Active member in the community and unlike to abuse admin tools. SCHZMO ✍ 20:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Strong Support. Xoloz 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    This vote was by the impostor account User:XoIoz. RadioKirk talk to me 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support. --Froggy 14:48, 1 June 2006
    Vote made by an IP. Struck out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support because its no big deal. Babylon5 15:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    User has never voted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support Reggae Sanderz 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Marked as ppossible sockpuppet. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support per Babylon5 RFAvotebot33 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Note: this is the user's first edit. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    So? What's your point? RFAvotebot33 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    What the hell? Username block, anyone? --Rory096 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    And done, good. Indenting this vote.--Rory096 21:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Of course.  :) Vitriouxc 19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    User's 6th edit, userpage says he "signed up for the polls." --Rory096 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Ignored. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support per Babylon5 --t ALL IN c 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, too few edits to the article namespace. Naconkantari 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: With all due respect, I wasn't satisfied with answers below. Doesn't prove a thorough enough knowledge of Wikipedia. Maybe try again some other time down the road, after you've had more experience with edit conflicts and whatnot. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 17:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. I am indefinably uneasy about your answers to the questions (in particular, the lack of any stressful interactions; all users will come across a few, and the number increases exponentially once you become an admin and other editors start to think you should solve all their problems for them). That's not in itself enough for me to oppose, but combine it with your involvement with Concordia and I'm far from sold on this idea. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 17:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The answer to Tawker's first question might have been enough. Why wouldn't you report it to WP:RCU? Also, isn't AfD a debate not a ballot? Yanksox 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Same as other users. Not enough article namespace edits, and I am not satisfied at all with the answers below. Support next time maybe. ForestH2
  6. Oppose I was prepared to support, albeit weakly, believing the user unlikely to abuse the tools, but I am not at all confident, in view of the question answers given (by which I am troubled in the same fashion as are Mark, Yank, and Forest), that the user would use the mop, etc., properly; even as I don't think he/she would be intentionally disruptive, I can conceive of situations in which his/her misunderstanding of policy might be problematic. Joe 20:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - my question 1 troubles me a bit, I'd like to see some attempts at communication first, I'm also concerned about burnout. Adminship does not really increase one's productivity (it actually decreases it, you get stuck in admin tasks and no real editing :-o ) -- Tawker 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per most of the above, and question 5, and edit summary usage. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Opposewould block vandals, but I found no vandal warnings or reports to AIV. I would like to see more experience in doing that. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Has a decent amount of experience & edits, but his answer to Tawker's first question scared me. I got the impression that he might block first and ask questions later, which is never a good thing. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the comment. Yes, I would block, but during the probation period, I'd try to talk to the user. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Btw, a block for a week is pretty lenient for doing abusive sockpuppetry when one clearly knows it is wrong. --Osbus 22:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    But that is why WP:RCU is for. It is so that you can have suspicions verified. Yanksox 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, but in this theoretical situation, my suspicions are verified. (or at least, I thought they were).--Osbus 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Opppose. Very good user, but the relatively limited areas of contributions and the short answers to questions make me question your practical policy knowledge at the minute. Try again in a few months, the extra experience will do you the world of good. The Land 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. The answers to Tawker questions 1, 5 and 6 are very wrong. Especially the punitive parts of the answer to #1, the entirety of the answer to #5 and the use of the word "majority" in #6. Given #5 and #6, the answer to the very first question is dubious, since it claims the candidate is well-versed in AfD, when the converse is true. Evidently, the candidate needs substantially more experience of the practises, process and policies involved in some very basic parts of being an admin. Take several months to look around, read around generally "be" around and come back then. -Splashtalk 22:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the comments...however, what are the "right" answers? Remember, I'm here to learn. --Osbus 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, lacks of experience and edits. --Terence Ong 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, answers don't convince me. Might support in the future. Also, that's a fair use image on your user page. Garion96 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose heart in the right place, but needs more grasp of the nitty gritty to stop suspected sockpuppets from determining an outcome, and take that fair use image off your user page please. Wiki doesn't consider that to be fair use!!! Tyrenius 06:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Neutral Oppose overall a good contributor, however the low amount of minor edits to the main space (could be increased by looking and tagging articles that need improvment, cleanup, or to be wikified) is a tad concerning. Answer to 1) does concern me a little. I also dislike (although it is likely not the candidates fault) the public spamming on WT:CCD (which I have reverted), and the notes on user talk pages to people who have interacted with him. Sorry. Ian13/talk 10:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to oppose because of the answer to Twakers first question, I think talking with the user and checkuser (if they are well liked and have contributed positively) would be a better course of action (at least). Ah yes, and the fair use image, a prospective admin should have corrected that before coming here, and be aware of such policies. Ian13/talk 10:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Naconkantar. --Andeh 11:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Needs more experience.--Jusjih 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Clearly needs more experience. Has a fair use image on his/her user page, even though I had reminded him/her of it earlier. [1], [2]. S/he clearly does not understand copyrights. He/She is indeed a good user but inexperienced. --Andy123 candy? 15:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose, too few mainspace edits. --digital_me(t/c) 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose experience — ßottesiηi (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Needs more experience. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose A "few months" isn't long enough for admin in my oppinion.--Andeh 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC) duplicate vote - Tangotango 07:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    One oppose vote wasnt enough for you? ;) --Osbus 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Seems like a nice user. Will make a good admin in not too long. Keep up the good work --Samir धर्म 19:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose for now. You seem like you have a level head, but you just need some more experience. -- DakPowers (Talk) 03:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose nothing bad I see, but need more experience. Come back after some more (main) namespace edits. -Goldom (t) (Review) 04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral I am troubled by the answer to question 1 (which had it's language recently altered). Yanksox 17:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I have problems saying what I mean the first time. :) --Osbus 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral concerning to see more WP edits than Article. Also, the fact you only have 3 minor edits in the mainspace is concerning. Sorry mate, 3 months and I'll support. Computerjoe's talk 18:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 18:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral but he did provide helpful commentary through the peer review process for an article I was working on and it was most appreciated. That's really the only encounter I've had with this editor to my recollection, however. --Strothra 22:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Some experience comes with time. Royboycrashfan 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak Neutral Has enough experience and edits, and sounds like he knows what an admin does. But the first question from Tawker makes me feel weird, and doesn't use edit summaries enough. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 16:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username Osbus
Total edits 1538
Distinct pages edited 606
Average edits/page 2.538
First edit 19:19, January 20, 2006
 
(main) 214
Talk 16
User 184
User talk 265
Image 3
Template 42
Template talk 7
Category 2
Wikipedia 458
Wikipedia talk 235
Portal 103
Portal talk 9
 G.He 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 
--Viewing contribution data for user Osbus (over the 1537 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 131 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 29, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 20, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 42.83% Minor edits: 90%
Article edit summary use (last 179 edits) : Major article edits: 76.4% Minor article edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 15.87 (for last 500 edit(s))
Marked notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.07% (1)
Unique pages edited: 593 | Average edits per page: 2.59 | Edits on top: 10.41%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 19.19% (295 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 3.64% (56 edit(s))
Marked reverts: 8.13% (125 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 69.03% (1061 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 13.92% (214) | Article talk: 1.04% (16)
User: 12.23% (188) | User talk: 17.24% (265)
Wikipedia: 29.47% (453) | Wikipedia talk: 15.29% (235)
Image: 0.2% (3)
Template: 2.73% (42)
Category: 0.13% (2)
Portal: 6.7% (103)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.04% (16)

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:To be truthful, the only tools I'd use is the delete button and rollback, as I participate mainly in AfD, MfD, and do same RC and Recent Pages Patrolling.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: This is one of the places where all the oppose votes will come from, but I'll still say now I'm proud of Concordia. It wasn't easy overcoming criticism, doing the advertising, or trying to convince fellow Concordians of the views I held. I'm just happy with everything I've done for Wikipedia and hope to improve it further.
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: No, I have not.
Well, now that I think of it, I did have a stressful morning involving me, my computer's filter, and Dijxtra. As I was editing on a laptop I usually didn't use, I didn't know that it had a content filter. Therefore, when I edited an article, I would edit out other people's comments and unintentionally vandalize. When Dijxtra left me vandalism warnings, I was one frightened n00b and asked Dijxtra of where I had vandalized. Having gotten no response and more vandalism warnings, the situation was resolved with civil discussion. --Osbus 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Question from Yanksox (opitional)

4. I noticed that you reverted this edit of yours [3], can you still explain it? Also, how would you respond to comments that think that you are only interesting in using admin powers to enforce beliefs and not do other important tasks? Yanksox 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I reverted that since it was an incivil statement that didn't need to be said...I apologize if it offended anyone. As for the second question, I am planning to use admin tools to enforce my beliefs- my beliefs that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore should not contain unencyclopedic material (vandalism, nn articles, etc). --Osbus 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I also looked up Philiowiki, exactly how old is that site and what admin duties do you do there? Yanksox 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure exactly how old it is, but its been around for about a year or so. I joined early April, and during that time have redesigned the main page, blocked users, and have done rollbacks. --Osbus 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A question from HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs)

5. Could you say more about your involvement with Concordia? Can you point us to a particular achievement of yours within Concordia? Can you point us to something particular that Concordia achieved that you were proud to be part of? --16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and that is Concordia's major improvemnt from Community Justice. As the name and logos differed from the goals we had in mind, I and a few other councillors advocated a change. At first, there was quite some opposition, but through discussion and some determination, changes have been made. Concordia, although far from perfect, is improving. --Osbus 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
OK so far, but other than its name change can you point us to something positive that Concordia/CJ has done for Wikipedia? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm still not sure about you, below is my optional set of questions, these usually help me decide one way or another -- 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A I would first indefinitely block the various sockpuppets and tag them. I'd also block the user for a week or so. After the block, I'd put the user on probation.
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A I would talk to the other admin, and if I am convinced, then I will respect his/her decisions. If I am not, I would follow up with mediation. If I eventually go to ArbCom and they reject my case, I would then use my judgement to solve it myself.
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A I would eliminate the use of Trivia sections (note: the header, not the info itself) in all articles.
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A User:AllAmericansDeserveToBeCrappedon who posts the address, phone #, school, and age of a non-consenting user and makes personal attacks on that user.
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A I'd keep, and no, I wouldn't answer any differently b/c as far as I know, those votes were legit. --Osbus 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A Well, there has to be enough for a majority...so, at least 3.
  7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A Yes.
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A To increase my productivity on Wikipedia.
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A Technical.
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.