Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oven Fresh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Oven Fresh

final (20/5/1) ending 01:47 28 May 2005 (UTC) Extended 48 hours by Raul654.

Hi. I've been here since November, 2004, and have accumulated, according to Kate's Tools, 4077 edits; though many of these are minor so that count is "inflated". I'd like to request administrator access on en so I am able to do things for myself; for example, a while back, I got into patrolling Special:Newpages, but eventually "dropped out" because it seemed pointless to slap {{delete}} on articles when someone with a higher access level can easily use the delete function, without having to worry about depending on others. I would also like to help with deletion and restoration related tasks. If Wikipedians feel that I can be trusted with adminship, then I would like adminship. This is also an interesting experience for some user peer-review! Thanks. :) ✏ OvenFresh2 01:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I nominated myself. ✏ OvenFresh2 01:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Absolutely, glad to be the first to support. Also, your username makes me think of the Pillsbury Doughboy — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 01:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support, keep up the good work. --W(t) 02:56, 2005 May 19 (UTC) Vote temporarily suspended, I'd like to see a response to Raul's question too. --W(t) 16:20, 2005 May 26 (UTC) Right, that works for me. Support again. --W(t) 18:36, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  3. Support. I know the feeling when it comes to those new pages. --Canderson7 03:01, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:41, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  5. PedanticallySpeaking 17:51, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. RickK 22:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Seems level-headed to me. David | Talk 22:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. utcursch | talk 06:55, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Fine user. Sjakkalle 13:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. I love the sound of an admin who will actively delete rubbishy new articles and nonsense. I spend a lot of my time policing things for WP:SD, and would appreciate an admin who could reduce my workload there. Harro5 04:21, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Merovingian (t) (c) 08:42, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support- JCarriker 09:55, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support- I've seen some of his edits, extremely dedicated wiki Flcelloguy 13:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  14. support - on the condition that he talks to WP:WSS first before creating any more stub templates! :) Grutness...wha? 01:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  15. support--Jondel 04:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support--MikeJ9919 05:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  17. I've had nothing but positive experiences with Oven Fresh. —Korath (Talk) 19:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  18. SUPPORT. Kingturtle 02:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  19. I'm satisfied with the responses he gave to my questions. →Raul654 20:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  20. I am positively impressed with how calm OF has been throughout this process, and with the humility, grace, and honest introspection he has exhibited here. El_C 21:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I'm afraid I must oppose. There are just too many things, minor on their own, which together make him an unsuitable candidate, for now at least. Despite being here for a respectable amount of time, he seems not to have fully got the hang of how things work here (he has an inflated edit count by his own admission). Look through his talk page archive and just about every other message indicates a failure to work well with others, or a failure to follow policy. Not suitable for adminship at the present time. I would consider supporting a nomination sometime in the future, but not yet. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. CDThieme 22:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose. I am just not comfortable with the tone of some of Oven Fresh's interactions with other editors. I think that he is still on the steep slope of the learning curve and gaining speed so I expect to be happy to support a few months from now. This sentence is a speculation so should be regarded as such: I think that the source of the discomforting behaviour may be impulsiveness. --Theo (Talk) 10:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agree with Trilobite. Jonathunder 07:10, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  5. Oppose for now. Some overly sardonic edit summaries like "rollback buttons piss me off" [1] and "Removed bitching, added reply" (it was on his talk page, I don't feel like finding it right now). There was also a weird exchange with User:ExplorerCDT which you can see mainly on this diff, this one, this one, and probably several others. So, maybe another time. Andre (talk) 00:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah. Those edits — besides the rollback one — were from when I was just getting used to Wikipedia. Sorry about that.
    Also, I really do hate rollback buttons when they are used to revert non-vandal edits. ✏ OvenFresh² 01:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    In fact, the flame exchange occured in Oven Fresh's first hundred edits, when he had only been a logged-in user for ten days. Furthermore, I note that through the whole course of the exchange with ExplorerCDT, ExplorerCDT did nothing to attempt to correct Oven Fresh's misperception of ExplorerCDT's statements; instead, his initial response was a potentially provocative comment. The blame here does not lay entirely with Oven Fresh, and I'm certainly willing to ascribe Oven Fresh's transgressions to his being a sensitive newbie. →Iñgōlemo← talk 02:16, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
    Abuse of the rollback button should be discouraged. Nothing wrong with that. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 07:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    I appreciate your response, and I don't think you're a bad guy, but I'm going to have to stay with oppose this time around. Maybe next time. Andre (talk) 20:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Unless/until a very satisfactory answer is given to Raul654's question below. Well I'll go neutral now. I would like to think that it wouldn't have taken that long for you to reallize personal attacks aren't ok on a user page, but we live and learn. Having no other interactions with you keeps me from having a ground to support from, but it looks like you'll be fine, next time if not now. Keep up the good work. - Taxman 15:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • RfA is indeed one of the best chances for peer review of user behaviour that there is. JuntungWu 15:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to support this user, I totally approve of the self-nom and don't have any trouble with the occasional sardonic tone of edits—only superhuman editors always resist the old sardonic tone—but I think s/he might take a little more trouble over the standard questions. It's fine to be brief, but you "don't play favourites" (?), and you can't remember about stress or what you'd do about it? Those are real questions. Do you think they're dumb? Are you too busy?--Bishonen | talk 01:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    No, I'm not too busy, and I do not think the questions are dumb. I am not particularily most-proud of any specific contribution of mine, though (I'm more happy with the articles I've created than my various minor edits) -- so I don't really have an answer to that question that could help the reader in deciding. I suppose I should have spent more time answering these questions, though, so I will add to them. ✏ OvenFresh² 15:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Any sysop janitorial tasks that are in need of helping; in particular, deletion, restoration, and protection.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. (I've modified this by the suggestion of Bishonen) Although I can not point to any specific contribution of mine, I am, of course, more proud of the articles I have created than minor or cleanup edits. That's not to say I'm not proud of my contributions, though -- I just do not have a favourite one..
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. Most recently I got in a conflict with User:JillandJack (DW) over the placement of NPOV tags on Canadian biographical articles. In my first few hundred edits to Wikipedia, I also got in a conflict with ExplorerCDT which I probably did not handle to the best of my ability.
4: On Lir's userpage, starting in February and continuing through March, you have repeatedly reverted others first to restore his anti-wikipedia rant on his userpage, and later to have a link to his (even longer, nastier, and more personal) anti-wikipedia rant on his website (despite being told that Wikipedia is not a webhost). I'd like to know why you did this before I voice an opinion on this nomination. →Raul654 05:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
At the time, I did not see anything wrong -- or anything stating that Lir should not be allowed to have a link (or a rant) on his userpage. I also couldn't find anything about what distinguishments in userpage privileges should be made between banned users and active contributors. I now, however, understand that Lir's rant -- and link -- should have been removed because the contained personal attacks. I also see that Lir has now (occasionally) resorted to vandalising, which is even more intolerable than his previous activities. I no longer have the same opinions on the issue. ✏ OvenFresh² 18:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
So it was only when you noticed some relatively recent vandalism that it occurred to you that Lir might not be such a great guy? Did you think he was pretty harmless all the time you were defending him? 81.155.94.254 18:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I was not defending Lir -- at the time, I just didn't see a problem with his rant (though I have, as I said above, since realised that it shouldn't be there). I do not have any real opinion on Lir as I have never communicated with him her?). ✏ OvenFresh² 18:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
It's well-known that Lir is a "paragon of womanhood" and a "superhot internet female" etc. However, this is all an elaborate facade. His real name is Adam Rinkleff, and he is almost certainly male. 81.155.94.254 19:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

First, just for the record, according to Lir's friends page, this is him (if you brighten that pic in photoshop, you can see he is obviously male). Second, as a follow up to my previous question to Oven Fresh - if you had to do it all over again, what (if anything) would you do differently? →Raul654 19:24, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, although I wouldn't do it all over again, a conversation on the talk page (or village pump, mailing list, etc.) would have been a much wiser decision. From now on I will take my problems to the community rather than engaging in a revert war. ✏ OvenFresh² 19:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'm satisfied with your response. →Raul654 20:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
First, just for the record, according to Lir's friends page, this is him[...] If anyone here plans on attending a Wikipedfia convention, I would watch out for Raul654's evil twin! Image:Meh.gif El_C 21:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)