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

OhanaUnited[edit]

Final (79/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) - I'm sure many of you have seen OhanaUnited roaming around the encyclopedia: he has worked extensively for Wikiproject Environment, Wikiproject Biography, and Wikiproject Good Articles. He assists in closing nominations in Featured Portal Candidates, and helps translates from Chinese to English. He helped promote Octopus card and Stanley Cup to Featured Article status; Portal:Environment and Portal:Sustainable development to Featured Portal status; and no less than five articles to Good Article status (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Ohana has over 7,000 edits, with over 1,600 of these to mainspace; bear in mind that most of his edits to mainspace are improving articles, which take far more time and effort than AWB or huggle edits. He isn't a complete stranger to vandalism either: I asked him by e-mail to list a few users on WP:AIV that should be blocked, and to tell me for how long they should be blocked. He answered all but one correctly, and I blocked the others exactly as he suggested. In short, I think Ohana is a well rounded user, who would make an excellent addition to the cabal. · AndonicO Hail! 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination by Rudget - I am very pleased to nominate OhanaUnited for adminship, and I've felt that way for a long time now. Co-operating with Ohana in respect to the GA project he plays a major part in and the portal namespace, where his contributions reflect his dedication, show me that Ohana is well overdue the extra buttons. His work has been consistently brilliant and his constructive and friendly attitude and approach he takes to the work here on en.wp is a big plus, especially when you can get some rather unfriendly characters. I believe he will make a great addition to the team, using that term loosely in consideration that there is no cables <sarchasm>, and would gratefully welcome his opinion on any actions across the wiki. And by the way, I was supposed to add this a few days ago, but was down in London. :) Rudget. 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks you, AndonicO and Rudget. I accept your nomination. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 plan to help combat the backlog of images which are uploaded to commons. According to CSD I8, identical images can be deleted after 7 days. However, I found that the backlog is much longer than 7 days. Take a look at Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 7 February 2008, there are plenty of images uploaded to commons that require deletion, and more in following days. Other than deleting duplicate images, I will continue to keep an eye on Gaming Articles to make sure editors cannot push POV in these articles (e.g. [1] and [2]) or purely here to vandalize (e.g. [3]) I will block them if they received enough warnings and persistent in POV-pushing/vandalizing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I proposed to revamp the featured portal candidate process. The result was immediate. The promotion process became much more smoothly and efficient. In less than 2 months, 13 portals were promoted. (Normally it would take about 4 to 5 months to achieve this.) In addition to what AndonicO pointed out, I also helped Winston Churchill to GA. I am also a "sweeper" for GA Sweeps. I go around a list of articles and check if they continue to remain in GA quality or not after promoted to GA.
And some of you may have noticed, I started writing for Signpost starting last week. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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: Since my last RfA (which took place in October/November), I hadn't got into any major conflicts. There were several minor conflicts or something that caused me stress. One of them took place in one of the gaming article called Runescape. The community established a consensus to have only a number of fansites but some people keeps adding their own (or their favourite) fansite to the list. The main conflict revolves around the 2 fansites that are in the article through consensus. They used to contain viruses/keyloggers/rootkit (as experienced by me and another editor) so I was being bold and removed those 2 sites off the list. I felt the need to remove these sites because they could compromise anyone who clicked on them. At the end, the discussion was stalled because the person who restored the links, Yialanliu, did not revisit the talk page to continue the discussion. I didn't go remove it again to avoid esculating the situation into a full-fledged edit war. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4."I will block them if they received enough warnings and persistent in POV-pushing/vandalizing" (from your Q1). - You've said you'll keep an eye on said articles; to you, does this mean that you may be involved in these POV-disputes? If so, will you block? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I was involved in an POV-dispute in Runescape and MapleStory. Take a look at my previous RfA Q#3. An editor created multiple sockpuppets and used them to push his POV in those 2 articles (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive107#Abusive sockpuppets for details). At the end, a request for checkuser was made and subquently blocked all the sockpuppet's accounts. If the POV is obvious (such as the first 2 links that I provided in Q1) or it's clearly against the community's consensus (such as the sockpuppet's case), I will block them. If i was involved in a dispute where the block would be disputable, I would send it to admins noticeboard and let other more experienced admins take care of it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions from GlassCobra

5. What are your thoughts on the "admins open to recall" category? If your nomination is successful, will you add yourself to this category?
A: Admins are no different from other users except they have a few extra features. If the action of the admin is questionable, there should be a chance for the community to ask that particular admin to resign. If my nomination is successful, I will add myself to this category.
6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A block is a mechanism to prevent an IP or editor from disrupting Wikipedia. A ban is given by the community (particularly ArbCom) and is a sanction to restrict/remove editing privileges. Blocks are used to enfoce bans when applicable.
7. If another admin deletes an article or removes information due to BLP concerns, but you believe that the information does not violate BLP and should be restored, what would you do?
A. I will post my concern at BLP noticeboard and get consensus.
8. When would you delete an article on the basis of A7? When would you not?
A. If the subject is a person, website or an organization and doesn't state why it's important (NOT because of notability) to have an article, then A7 can be used to speedy delete. If the subject something created by these people, websites, or organizations then A7 cannot be used.
9. How do you interpret WP:IAR?
A: As editors, we have to use common sense. There are times where we have to be bold and ignore the rules to improve Wikipedia. It's a case-by-case situation and hard to describe unless a scenario is given.
10. You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What do you do?
A: Communicate with that admin to see what his/her rationale for the block.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. As nominator. · AndonicO Hail! 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support - Everything looks up to snuff here. I would have liked to see more mainspace contributions, not that they are particularly low really, but overall this is only a minor quirk for me. I think he deserves the buttons. I like the user's honest response to question 3. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Yes. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Sure, why not - looks good to me. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 06:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support I supported before and I'm supporting again as nominee has only improved since the last time. Very impressed by what the talk page says about this editor. Enjoy the mop. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 07:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. I suppose I will support, I don't really have a good reason to oppose, and OU's contributions have been benificial to the encyclopedia as a whole. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Like before. User:Dorftrottel 11:07, February 12, 2008
  8. Support trustworthy editor and featured portal work. Addhoc (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support has made great contributions. SpencerT♦C 11:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. How about noyes? Majorly (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support. Great user, knows policy. Majoreditor (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Respectable amount of good work in the Good Articles domain. I would trust his administrative decisions. Gosgood (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support definitely. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support - I think Ohana has the sufficient amount of clue to deal with being an admin. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support. Most definitely. Good luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support - I've seen this user's work at GA, and it's tremendous. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support A versatile contributor to a number of important areas. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support No problems here. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support Wonderful, wonderful. It's definitely time you're made an admin! нмŵוτнτ 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support, Obama is a good editor, I liked how he welcomed me back.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You meant Ohana, not Obama, right? :P OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support. Per the nom, per the answers to the questions, per great work at WP:FPORTC. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support. Especially if working in the Commons duplicate backlog is something you want to do! Kakofonous (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support - Great editor! Seen everywhere, and active with great edits. Good Luck =) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Naturally.Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Has improved since the last RfA. NHRHS2010 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support Solid contributor and contribs turn up nothing that concerns me. Orderinchaos 03:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. One for the featured portal cabal! ~ Riana ⁂ 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Strong Support A fantastic candidate, should have the mop already. VanTucky 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support I supported last time and see no reason to change. Captain panda 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support Great contributor; spotted around my watchlist all the time. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support - I've seen nothing but good from this editor. The Transhumanist 06:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support because UofT is the place to be...Go UT, Go UT, Go....Go UT, Go UT, Go...woot ...but seriously, a good editor and I would definitely give OhanaUnited the tools. nat.utoronto 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Per Q3. Knowledge of when to block. Now can you un-block my MSN please :) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. 5uppoяг. Period. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support. Neıl ☎ 10:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support. good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support - well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Strong piley on support all the best. Khukri 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support Jon Harald Søby (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. I look forward to being a fellow administrator with OhanaUnited on two different projects. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Strong support --A. B. (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support Húsönd 00:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support As per track.Concerns expressed in previous RFa have been overcame.No concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support - excellent record, good all-rounder. Will make an excellent admin - Alison ❤ 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support - No problems. PookeyMaster (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support Lara❤Love 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support -- Yes. Johnfos (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Well you could've waited.... :) Rudget. 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Strong support - I honestly though he was already an admin, having passed his RfA. Any concern I had back at the end of October 2007 is long gone. Great improvement to mainspace, edit summaries. OhanaUnited will make a great admin. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Unnecessary because it's snowing where I live support (No really. It is. Several inches last night, more today.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support - a name I recognize, and for good reasons. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 19:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support - Why not create a blizzard? :) --ChetblongT C 02:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support Fine editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support Surprised he ain't already an admin. Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support, yet another well-qualified editor. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support. Don't be a tool if elected. --Endless Dan 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support Looks good. Gary King (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support — Zerida 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support - great editor, needs the mop.   jj137 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Overwhelming support. This a great editor, a sensible person, and someone who watches out for what's fair and right. Doczilla RAWR! 07:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support--jwandersTalk 07:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support: Following the footsteps of SlimVirgin :), as also on the merits of the "case" for giving tools to the nominee. --Bhadani (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support Good golly, Miss Molly! Certainly! By all means! Overdue IMHO. Pigman☿ 23:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support - No reason to oppose! Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support :) Midorihana~iidesune? 05:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Resounding support --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support - Have never had any qualms about this editor, earlier or based on his answers above. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. El poder de sí! In other words, I fully support OhanaUnited. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support Not already an admin? --Sharkface217 19:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support - ...was an idiot and forgot about Ohana... - I noticed this user a long while ago when I started out here... There is no doubt in my mind that he will make a great admin :-) Good luck, my friend. ScarianCall me Pat 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Meh. Acalamari 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support Thought I did this a few days ago... Jmlk17 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support - Unequivocally. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support - JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
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.
Category