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

Oshwah[edit]

Final (28/19/5); ended 02:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC) - the candidate has offically withdrawn the request, as noted below. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Oshwah (talk · contribs) – Oshwah may not be the most prolific content creator here on WP. Content creation should not be an important part of adminship, whereas the AFD process is and should be valued more highly by users. However he has done exemplary work in CSD, image copyvios, ACC, and much more. He has also done excellent work in keeping vandals and trolls off the wiki. Therefore, I believe he is ready to become an admin. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk | contribs) test 00:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom[edit]

It is my pleasure to co-nom Oshwah for the mop. He has edited Wikipedia for seven years; although there is a huge inactivity gap between 2009-2013, this still leaves him with nearly two years of active editing, also racking up nearly 24,000 edits. He primarily fights vandals, tags articles for speedy deletion, and creates accounts. Although he probably only wants to work in these two narrow areas (account creation doesn't need admin), more importantly, he does what he does best well, showing excellent knowledge and skill. He has a whopping 6,000 vandalism reversions with more than 300 AIV reports and about 800 CSD taggings with a negligible 1-2% error rate (which is actually barely heard of these days). I therefore believe that Oshwah would make a great addition to the admin corps. Esquivalience t 01:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I happily and humbly will accept the nomination. Eat me, I'm a red bean, Esquivalience - Thank you. I appreciate not only the time you spent to write such kind words, but the fact that trust me enough to put your names forward like this. I'll try not to let you down :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I think it's fair to say that my RfA will not pass at this point. Therefore, I officially withdraw my candidacy. I want to thank everyone for their feedback and for participating. I'll continue what I'm doing, create some content, see where I am in a year from now, and maybe run again. Thanks again, everybody. It's been fun, but I obviously have more work to do. :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: The admin tools are a Swiss army knife; you don't just get a blade on one day and then get the tweezers on another. You're given all of the functionality that it comes with and you have to be trusted to hold and use them properly and when the time is appropriate. Just like being an admin, having a knife is no big deal, but using it inappropriately where it causes harm (even accidentally and in good faith) is absolutely a big deal.
Analogies aside and with that being said, I intend to use a subset of the tools at the beginning, and then slowly expand my tool use as I become proficient with the role. I will begin by using the tools to expand my role in vandal fighting. I will continue to revert vandalism and tag articles as before, but I will also be able to extend how I counter vandalism by performing blocks when appropriate, performing revision deletion on extreme and gross violations (according to criteria of course), assisting with the AIV and WP:UAA noticeboards, as well evaluate and process page protection and protection reduction reqests.
Once I'm absolutely comfortable with this increase in responsibilities, I'll branch out into the administrative backlog; I'll start by evaluating CSD and page move requests, and eventually become proficient in keeping the administrative backlog as caught-up as possible. I will eventually branch out into the AFD category and assist in closing discussions there, but after I've completely familiarized myself with the basic areas first.
It's important to share exactly what I'll be using the tools for (you obviously need to demonstrate the need for them), but also address the fact that the admin role enables many different tools and responsibilities that absolutely must be used with care. It's easy to say "Hey, look at all the things I'll do!"; it's crucial to also share where I plan to start, how I plan to familiarize myself and become proficient with the responsibilities, and what areas I'll expand to as I transition into this role. Quality over quantity.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been WikiGnome-based. I've reverted a lot of vandalism over the years that I've volunteered to the project, as well as created many reports to AIV and UAA, tagged many articles for speedy deletion for advertising, spam, and copyright violations, and kept an eye out for sockpuppetry symptoms, conflicts of interest, and BLP violations and edits that require oversighting or revision deletion.
I've also contributed extensively in the ACC process. To date, I've created exactly 700 accounts and denied 328 requests. By best contribution to the ACC project was the complete overhauls that I made to the ACC Guide, the ACC project page, and the Username Policy template. Before these edits, the ACC Guide was ambiguous, disorganized, and very hard to follow. It made a lot of new tool users afraid to participate due to the way that the guide was formatted, and it allowed for potential mistakes to occur that could have been very high-risk. I uploaded a new flow chart image for tool users to follow when addressing requests for usernames that were similar to others, and eliminated the ambiguity that was present before. I also redesigned the ACC project page and template to reduce the many requests that we'd receive that were not supposed to be filed there, as well as answered more common questions and addressed more situations in advance so that the team could process more requests with less time spent addressing problematic ones.
I also contributed to some of our backlogs, one if which being CAT:SHADOW. I've performed file moves in order to address the issue of file names existing in Wikipedia that have the same name as a different file that exists in the Wikimedia Commons. These moves allowed for the local images to continue to exist, while allowing for images that belong on the Wikimedia Commons to be used in articles here. I've also contributed to the AFD backlog, and it's a place that I need to (and plan to) participate more in.
My talk page has also expanded exponentially over the years with questions about Wikipedia policies and proper edits and expansion to Wikipedia articles, as well as requests for assistance. In the past, I've been able to get away with archiving my old discussions by year; lately I've been having archive them by month. It's been an absolute pleasure to meet the many different people that I have, address conflicts, answer their questions, and (most importantly) help new users in ways that will encourage them to become long-term contributors here (which over the years has been on the decline).
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: Absolutely. Reverting the amount of vandalism that I do typically generates questions and heated replies on my talk page almost daily (minus all the threats, insults, and vandalism that is made to my user and talk space as a result). I've always responded by treating everyone with respect, answering their questions so that they can contribute positively, and offering my assistance to help fix the article if they feel that they're still not sure how to address their concerns. The concept that many editors fail to remember is that IP's are people too, they deserve the same respect and courtesy as registered users do, and I've done my best to do just that. It's important to know that you just can't solve every problem. Not even administrators can. When you're in a conflict with another editor, you just need to recognize that there are some will just never get the point no matter how many different ways you try to explain. You should always assume good faith, explain the issue and cite relevant policies and guidelines, and (most importantly) offer to help - but you should also know when it's time to walk away. Don't worry; if they're going to continue to be disruptive or violate policy without care, they'll most certainly be back.
Edits in the past have certainly caused some stress. In fact, a typical situation that can be somewhat annoying occurred just the other day. An IP was causing vandalism to BLP articles, reverting my edits to restore the vandalism back, it kept going on for over half an hour, and it occurred often enough that I had to keep a tab open on the IP's contributions and repeatedly press F5 so that I could rollback the next edit as soon as it came in. Was it annoying? Sure. You're tapping your shoe waiting for the AIV to get processed, or hoping for an administrator to stumble into what is happening and block the IP, and you're having to focus your almost-complete attention to that IP while you wait. It occurs somewhat frequently, but that's what comes with fighting vandalism and I'm happy to take on that task instead of having someone else suffer. As an experienced editor, I try my best to emphasize that I'm here to serve you. And I'm happy to take on that pain for you so that you can have fun and contribute to Wikipedia wherever you want to.
How do I deal with such stress? Take a break and do something else for awhile. When I start thinking, "okay, this is starting to not be fun anymore", I'll go somewhere else for a bit. I'll create some accounts, move some files, or participate in some editor help requests or noticeboard discussions. It's most important, above all else, to remain neutral and absolutely keep your cool. Once you leave the realm and start getting sucked into a heated issue or debate and resort to incivility or heated responses, you have just shown them your belly and you have lost any credibility that you've worked to establish with them. It will not solve the issue at hand, and it almost always make the issue continue, if not worse than it was before. Upon taking the role of an administrator, you not only have to have extensively demonstrated professionalism in this area, you now have to take that professionalism and lead by example.
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
4. What is your view of Process is important?
A: I agree that process is important, as it how we standardize how we create, expand, enforce, and maintain Wikipedia. Article deletion, article creation, dispute resolution, request for adminship are examples of areas that all have processes - they consist of accepted standards that must be met in order be sure that each item that goes through that process is examined and processed in a fair and consistent manner, and with the involvement of as many editors as possible so that the best and most appropriate decision can be made. Otherwise, if no process existed, many of these areas would suffer from lose and inconsistent decision-making, and the quality and standards that Wikipedia holds up to as a free encyclopedia wouldn't exist. Deletions would be performed inconsistently and by whatever rules that the decision-maker feels will "work". It would create unfairness in the RfA area; one editor with 200 edits and no experience may gain adminship under one "set of rules", while the request from a different editor who would clearly benefit from the role would fail under another. Articles would be created under one "acceptable standard", and then instantly be reviewed for deletion because their "standards" for deletion are much stricter than those that allow you to create. It would degrade the overall quality of Wikipedia, and we wouldn't be the fifth most visited website in the world. What's even better is that we have policies such as WP:IAR that help try and eliminate the "red tape" effect, and allow us to use common sense and make the most appropriate decisions with "edge cases" (so long as it's used appropriately).
5. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
A: Strict. The speedy deletion process exists to bypass the need for discussion and consensus with articles that obviously do not need to go through such a process. Carelessly tagging an article for CSD as an editor will add unnecessary time and work for administrators, and carelessly deleting an article per the CSD as an administrator will inappropriately bypass discussion and consensus - a founding principle of how Wikipedia operates, and immediately delete content that might just otherwise have needed sources, expanding, or fixing. If there's an "edge case" or if the speedy deletion criterion questionably applies, there's always proposed deletion. And in cases where the article doesn't qualify for either (or if PROD fails), there's always the AFD process.
6. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you give some examples of things that do or don't qualify?
A: It's very important to understand the true meaning of A7 and A9 and how it's supposed to apply. A7 and A9 can't be applied if there's a "claim of significance" in an article, but we're missing an important part here - the "claim of significance" must also be credible. "Credibility" in an article is a test as to whether or not the claim is logically valid and reasonably plausible to occur. "significance" is a test as to whether or not the credible claim would cause the subject mentioned in the article to be notable. Significance does not require any sources or citations; it's simply whether or nor the claim would cause any person, company, etc. to be notable. If the article makes a claim that is both credible and significant, then these CSD tags cannot be applied.
I hope these examples aren't too silly:
"Billy Bob was a person who lived to be 10,000 years old" - Significant? Yes. Credible? No.
"Billy Bob was a person who lived to be 65 years old" - Significant? No. Credible? Yes.
A good essay that also explains this is Credible claim of significance.
7. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A: As I've explained earlier, IAR is an important process on Wikipedia. It allows us to make decisions that would improve or maintain Wikipedia without having it be drowned in red tape, or fail due to the technicality of a rule. It helps enforce the reason behind why you could be blocked for edit warring even though you didn't actually violate 3RR (to name an example) - it's the principal of the rule, not the technicality of the rule, that you'd stand behind if you absolutely needed to block someone for 3RR if it were to prevent damage to Wikipedia. Like the example I just talked about, these invocations would be rare, only applied if the need was absolutely apparent, and be explainable to the community if questioned.
8. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
A: This is something I pretty much already do on a regular basis. Questions appear pretty regularly on my talk page, and I do my best to do this for everyone. I'll typically explain how Wikipedia's policies work, cite the relevant policies and recommend that they review them, let them know that they're welcome to reach out to me if they have any more questions regarding those policies, and offer to help assist them with the specific article that they may be referring to. Communication like this is an absolutely critical habit and skill-set for an administrator to demonstrate, and I absolutely plan on continuing to do so.
Additional questions from Ritchie333
9. You say you want to work in UAA. What would you do about the following usernames:
  • Jane at Companies House
  • Eric H Corbett
  • Sexual mysteries
  • !!!,,,@-@-@-@
  • I Am Not Jimbo
  • WikiTruthTeller
  • 911WasAStitchUp
  • Widget Wonders
A: None of the usernames listed are obvious violations of the username policy and wouldn't be blocked. Edge cases? Sure; some of them. I'd watch a couple just in case, as one is similar to Eric Corbett (an editor on Wikipedia), another looks to be close to a novel series, and another is a hashtag that's used. Other than that, these are not obvious violations that would warrant immediate action.
I'm going to expand on my answer to this question because of the concerns that were expressed. I'm going to assume that none of these accounts have edited before, as the question does not specify such. "Jane at Companies House" doesn't appear concerning. Searching this name didn't come back as anything, and it doesn't imply shared use. "Eric H Corbett", however, is concerning because it appears close to "Eric Corbett", a Wikipedia editor. I'd wait until the user edits. If the account shows signs of making similar edits to the account and "Eric Corbett" does not list it as an alternate, I'd block it as a possible impersonating account. "Sexual mysteries", although not the best name, isn't an obvious violation. Again, I'd wait until the account edits. If it makes vandalism on its first edit, it would be blocked as a VAO. "!!!,,,@-@-@-@" - I've only ever seen usernames like this when they're created only to vandalize Wikipedia. I'd ask this person to rename their account since it consists of a bunch of repeating characters. "I am not Jimbo" and "911WasAStichUp" both look like troll accounts to me. "WikiTruthTeller" can be misleading depending on what it edits, as it could go around and make false edits and fool users unaware into thinking that this account makes fixes to articles. If it starts introducing factual errors, it would be blocked immediately. The last account, "Widget Wonders", comes back as a possible organization or volunteer organization, but also comes back as many different things. I'd wait until the user edits. If it makes any advertising edits, it would be blocked for advertising/promotion.
I want to apologize for my previous answer and explain my thoughts. My first gut feeling was to take action on half of these accounts, and not on others... I let myself get nervous and I thought, "Maybe this is a trick question and that I'd be seen as jumping the gun too quickly", and let myself post that answer without going with my first instinct. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to do by best here. I appreciate the feedback on this answer, and I hope my updated response is better.
Thank you for the expanded answer, which I find much more acceptable than your earlier one. In my own opinion, without of course speaking for Ritchie333, I would say that only "Jane at Compton House" and "I am not Jimbo" would be acceptable, with "Sexual mysteries" as a borderline case -- though an argument could be made that it fails "Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors". In that case I would have suggested waiting to see what there edits were like. The rest all fail various parts of WP:USERNAME, in my non-admin opinion, bu then I tend to take a more hardline position on that policy than some admins do. BMK (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Oshwah. This is actaully almost a trick question in the absence of any info about possible edits. BMK and others who commented on this answer, I deal with reports at UAA fairly often, and i wouldn't block any of these, except maybe "911WasAStichUp", in the absence of edits, although I would mark several for re-checks after some edits come in. DES (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, I have to say that I wish admins patrolling UAA would take a more pro-active stance on usernames, since quite a few I've reported as obvious violations have been rejected due to not having edited yet. In my mind, the creation of the username is, in and of itself the violating act, and there should be no requirement for further editing for action to be taken. In the case of borderline names, I can see waiting, but not for names that are clear-cut obvious violations. "Eric H. Corbett" for instance, doesn't need to make edits imitative of Eric Corbett, the editor should be username blocked, politely told why, and told to go to CHU and change the name. In that case there's no need to establish the intent of the name with additional editing, it's simply too close to an existing name. Analogous arguments can be made for the other names I would have blocked if I were an admin (and you should all rue the day if that ever happens!) BMK (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question wasn't designed for any "right" or "wrong" answer but just to see how Oshwah would work at UAA. I personally would probably block "I Am Not Jimbo" and "911WasAStitchUp" as obvious trolls, I have seen other admins block "Widget Wonders" for being a company name (usually accompanied by an article of the same name as the user deleted per any or all of A7 / G11 / G12), the non-ascii characters sounds WP:POINTY and conforms to the letter of the policy but not really the spirit in my view. The others I'd wait until some edits had been made. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. An IP removes the phrase "who is best known for" from Gerry McAvoy with a summary of "rm pov". A registered editor reverts with a summary of "rvv". The IP re-reverts with a summary "don't revert for no reason; if you can't understand npov policies you are committing core vandalism" The editor reverts with "reverting abusive IP editor". The IP reverts again with a summary of "for fuck's sake what is wrong with retarded twats who don't know anything about writing an encyclopedia". You are first on the scene looking at the article's history at this point - what do you do?
A: I'd check the history first find out if there's more reverts to the article made by the two than what is described in your scenario (let's say that there isn't). The modification by the IP is not vandalism; it seems like a good-faith effort to remove what he/she perceives as a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. The edit, if left, would also leave a grammar error as well, as the sentence would be broken and incomplete. The revert by the registered editor is also fair, and seems to also be in good faith. Nether edit summaries are very good; "rv pov" and "rvv" aren't useful and don't explain any reasoning for either change in-depth. The problem escalates with the IP's edit summary, "don't revert for no reason; if you can't understand npov policies you are committing core vandalism" - minus the fact that the statement about vandalism is incorrect, discussions are something that belongs in the article's talk page as a discussion over the reversion and disagreement. Then the edit summaries become uncivil; "reverting abusive IP editor" isn't appropriate and will only just add fuel to the fire. And obviously "for fuck's sake what is wrong with retarded twats who don't know anything about writing an encyclopedia" isn't either. The action I'd take? Warn both editors about incivility, and to take the discussion to the article's talk page before making any more reverts. No blocks. If the behavior continues, then yes. But not yet. As far as protecting the article goes, this situation would definitely not warrant a change in protection level.
11. On User talk:86.174.68.182, you warned the user for vandalism twice using Twinkle, while I went straight to a block without hesitation. If you had the tools, would you do the same?
A: Yes. The only contributions that this user had made were to the same article (all of which had been reverted), the IP had been warned three total times, and once the IP made this edit - a clear case of blatantly obvious disruption and vandalism and despite those warnings, I would have gone ahead and blocked.


Additional questions from User:DESiegel about speedy deletion examples
12. As an admin, you are patrolling Category:CSD and find an article whose entire content is "In 1979-80 the <organization>, a feminist art center in <Major US City>, issued a nationwide call for lesbian artists to organize exhibitions of the work as part of <Event name>." It has been tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, no context. What do you do?
A: Decline. Just from that sentence alone, I know that the article is about an organization, that it's an art center, where it is located, and that it may have made a nationwide call for cultural involvement that was probably controversial for its time. The article definitely has context, I know the subject of the article, and would not qualify for A1.
13. Recently you tagged Naser Muheyeldin for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio). I (User:DESiegel) removed the tag with the summary "Speedy declined: Seems to have reproduced a list of uncopyrightable facts in chronological order". What are your thoughts on the matter?
A.
14. Recently you encountered this version of Khairallah Assar and tagged it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. An admin removed the tag with the summary "decline speedy, obviously includes an assertion of significance sufficient to defeat A7". What are your thoughts on the matter?
A. It was a great learning experience. After I saw the decline, I was confused. I thought "Surely this might be a mistake! A7's exception is just for schools themselves!" and looked into it. I found that, buried very deep (A7 guideline --> Credible claim of significance essay --> SoWhy's Common A7 mistakes essay), there is an entry, "Is a teacher at a notable university" that is listed as a common A7 mistake. While I may not 100% completely agree that just being a teacher at university is significant, it is accepted as so, I learned from it, and I will honor it.
Additional question from Ritchie333
15. Why did you revert this plot summary as "Not adhering to neutral point of view" and then issue a level 2 warning to the IP who wrote it?
A: Because I saw this edit. What's strange is that I don't recall being warned that there were newer edits since that one and why I rolled back all of the edits by the user. That could have been manually fixed, as well as anything else that were problematic with the paragraph added, instead of all being rolled back. That's interesting... I'm glad you found this... Thank you.
Additional question from Brustopher
16. In your answer to question 3 you mentioned disputes you've had with vandals and inexperienced/IP editors. Have you ever been in a substantial content dispute with an experienced editor?
A:
17. Why is WP:RM an area you're looking to move into once you become more comfortable as an admin? It doesn't seem like you've participated much in request move discussions up to now.
A:
18. What are your views on Administrative recall? Would you be willing to put yourself up for recall, and under what criteria?
A:

Discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support[edit]
  1. Support – Honestly, I'm not seeing any real problems here. Member since 2007 (though with some definite activity "lulls" in there) – but "highly active" (>100 edits per month) for about a year. >10,000 main space edits. AfD (which I don't follow closely) looks pretty good overall. CSD is a more recent pursuit by this editor, but I don't see any problems so far. No articles created (Oshwah gets credited for "creating" one article, but I'm confused on that as it existed before Oshwah's Nov. 2008 "creation" – so is it a histmerge or something?...), but this isn't a "deal breaker" for me. Anyway, I've seen Oshwah helping around ANI some, and I don't recall any issues there either. I suspect this Adminship would be a NETPOSITIVE for the project. So I'm supporting. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say they've been "highly active" for only between two and three months. It's really important for editors to look at this candidate's month-by-month stats. A look at their history shows a giant spike in activity just since July. The bulk of the user's edits are from automated tools like Huggle and Twinkle, so that has be to factored in when interpreting their main space edit count. As this top support comment relies on a rather low threshold for "high" activity, I worry it may set an anchor bias. While the user definitely has clue, this is surely a case where edits stats do not follow typical patterns. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look. The back-of-the-envelop figure I've seen quoted for "active" editing, is >100 edits per month. Oshwah has that over the past year. Perhaps "highly active" is stretching it, so I'll strike the qualifier from the above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as a net positive to the project. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are they "a net positive for the project"? CassiantoTalk 20:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support user has been very proactive in combating vandalism --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support It was not even two days ago when I had asked User:Oshwah if he would be willing to accept an RfA nomination from me over IRC, to which he responded with a 'sure' of some sorts. Despite my (perhaps) lateness to the cause, I will simply translate my nomination to an affirmative vote for this RfA. I agree with the NETPOSITIVE, and it should also be noted that Oshwah has taken an active role in anti-vandalism from my observations, which has been previously stated by the nominator(s). Since the majority of RfAs are dedicated to diffs and broader analysis of project engagement, I'd like to note that on IRC, Oshwah has demonstrated a kind, outreaching tone to those users who may either need help or simply seek for advice. Nonetheless, his responses to user questions and concerns appear to reflect his familiarity and understanding of Wikipedia philosophies, styles, and methodologies. I do agree that article creation should not be the only major factor when considering an RfA, primarily because there are a handful of roles on-wiki that having sysop user rights could certainly compliment. --JustBerry (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I've seen him around a lot fighting vandalism, and it definitely wouldn't hurt for him to have the mop. Datbubblegumdoetalkcontribs 22:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Oshwah has been around a long time. He fights vandals, and in doing so he helps the project. I also think he's a net positive, and giving him admin tools would be helpful. Epic Genius (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I've become familiar with Oshwah's work through the account creations team. From what I've seen, he takes his time to ensure that his work is correct and seeks out additional advice when he's unsure on how to proceed. These characteristics will translate well into the thoughtfulness needed for administrative tasks. Mike V • Talk 00:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Oshwah seems to have exemplary AfD participation and CSD tagging, and also appears to do large amounts of anti-vandalism. Although he did have a considerable gap in his editing history, the reason is of course an understandable one. Clean block log. It is true that he doesn't have much content creation, but I think this is an instance where that can be overlooked. --Biblioworm 00:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support I am developing huge respect for active Administrators who rarely use their Administrative tools. So, those who protect this project from vandals, will delete articles nominated as Speedy Deletion after reviewing the speedy deletion criteria, semi protect pages from disruptive editing, block sockpuppets, review unblock request, and has interest in AIV and ANI should be an administrator. We need such administrators as NeilN and Materialscientist. I wish Oshwah relieves the burden of Administrative backlog. Thanks. Action Hero Shoot! 02:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support I am very happy and have been developing huge support for admins. I do believe that he should become an admin. If he can stop vandalism and trolls he should have the right to the tools. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I really like your answers to the questions, and there's a surprisingly large number of them for so early in an RFA. —Soap— 06:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as this user appears to be a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project. Rubbish computer 11:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I have seen the user's recent involvement in vandal fighting. They seem even-handed, polite and methodical in their work. TigerShark (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Has been a good vandal fighter and deserves the bit. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Jianhui67 T★C 16:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - While I'm tempted to ask whether Beano still kicks butt, I think we can safely consign that 2007 edit to the realm of juvenilia. I'm impressed that you dove from being a new account straight into vandal fighting — strong props for that. Adequate tenure, clean block log, seemingly a need for janitorial tools. Keep up the good work. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - clear net positive. GiantSnowman 18:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Clearly in need for the tools and seems capable enough to handle them with care. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weakish support Answers to the questions are thoughtful, and there's nothing wrong with being more conservative in answering RfA questions than you might be in practice. (I don't hang out at UAA but I wouldn't block any of those without seeing their edits.) I say that enthusiastic but relatively inexperienced nominators who aren't deeply steeped in the internal politics of RfA are a good thing; trying to line up big-name nominators and supporters is one of the less appealing qualities of the modern RfA process. Weakish due to the real weakness in content contributions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support- Don't see any reason to oppose.....and i rarely oppose at RfAs....Experienced editor, good answers, great smile, Male pattern baldness as well...all we need in an admin --Stemoc 01:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Obviously a net positive. Long-term and consistently-active member of the project. Answers to questions demonstrate a high level of clueful grasp of policy. Highly experienced in multiple administrative areas. Responsible, clueful, friendly, trustworthy, reliable. None of the opposers raise any serious issues. The high user talk edit count is only problematic if indicative of using Wikipedia as a forum. That's not the case—it's a result of warning users, a fundamental component of recent changes patrol. As User:Mr. Stradivarius says below, if anything, this is a positive indicator as opposed to a negative. User has contributed far more to the project than many of our content workers. Swarm ♠ 02:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us think a personalised message showing empathy and tact comes across better than just whacking a Twinkle warning on a page - see Q15. Don't bite the newbies. "Even the most well written and helpful deletion template message may seem frightening or unwelcome to new users. Consider writing a personalised message" 09:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talk • contribs)
    I understand and agree to an extent, but when using automated tools to expedite the process of what is primarily vandalism reversion and bad-faith editing, there's not much of a point to type our heartfelt, coddling messages. Swarm ♠ 16:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Most ALWAYS beats me to reverts, and for that reason, I support. eurodyne (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support: I only waited so long to put my own !vote in because I didn't realize that the nominator could also vote. Per reasons outlined in nomination.  Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Unlikely to abuse the tools Pokerkiller (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the sole reason why someone should become an admin. CassiantoTalk 20:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you're wrong. The actual "reasons" for requests are generally presented in nomination statements and in Q1. There's no such burden on supporters to come up with additional reasonings for promotion. Pokerkiller's comment is entirely in line with WP:NETPOS, a widely accepted rationale for supporting requests that is by longstanding convention a valid reason to support a candidate. Swarm ♠ 20:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, great editor, lots of counter vandalism work. Long time member, knows policy, etc. No reason he shouldn't be given the tools. -Euphoria42 (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - I'm not gonna lie the 4 year gap is a bit of a concern but at the end of the day they've made a lot of edits since and there AFD/CSD record is pretty good, All in all they simply seem like a happy person who quite honestly knows Adminship like the palm of there hand, Anyway excellent candidate, No issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 01:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project. While this user is not very prolific in content creation, we must all remember that the mop has absolutely nothing to do with writing articles. If someone has been very active at AFD, been patrolling new pages and knows the deletion policies by heart, works diligently in recent changes patrolling, fights vandalism to the bitter end, reports countless vandals and inappropriate usernames, and basically has been very active in the fields administrators normally work in, declining them is like saying to a great police officer, who is kind, respectful, cheerful, motivated, brave, and has acted correctly in the most difficult of situations, "Well, you're not really good at cleaning the station's toilet stalls so you're not a good fit for police sergeant." --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 01:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I cannot see any past conduct by this user that suggests they are an unreasonable contributor and would thus make an unreasonable admin. —Frosty ☃ 02:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Wow, a whopping 45% of Oshwah's edits are in the "User talk:" namespace, totaling about 10,185 edits. The only other namespace that this editor has edited that comes even close to matching this number is the Article namespace, which only has about 20–30 more edits than the "User talk:" namespace. Edits in the "User talk:" namespace do not prove competency in the use of the administrative toolset since the majority of actions that require a reaction in the "User talk:" namespace are not in response to a task that requires administrative tool use. (The only major exception is blocking notices.) In fact, compared to the Article and User Talk namespaces, in the major namespace where discussions happen that require administrator action, the "Wikipedia:" namespace, Oshwah only has about 900 edits (only 4%). Due to Oshwah's lack of proven experience in areas where administrators are needed the most, Oshwah may state competency of admin tool usage in the questions above, but I just do not see the proof to back up those claims. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite following your reasoning here. While edits to the user talk namespace do not usually require administrative tool use, why should making a lot of these kinds of edits be a reason to oppose a request for adminship? From the first few pages of Oswah's contribs to the user talk namespace, it seems that his edits there are from using Huggle to do recent changes patrolling. While recent changes patrolling may not give us as much insight into the candidate's policy knowledge as things like AfD comments, etc., surely it should count as a positive for the candidate, not a negative? I agree that users having a lack of proven experience in administrative areas is a valid and sensible reason to oppose adminship requests, but having a lot of user talk edits is not the same thing as not having experience in administrative areas. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer the first question, in a nutshell, I feel that it equates to lack of experience in the primary fields where admins are needed, primarily the forums that require consensus-based closes. Steel1943 (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But what if a user has made a lot of consensus-based closes, and also has a lot of edits to the user talk namespace? That's the part I'm confused about. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, realized that I was basically repeating myself. The ratio of user talk space to Wikipedia space edits for this editor is 10 to 1. From this amount, the focus and main experience of the nominee seems to be with notifications, which are not correlated with consensus-based closes. Steel1943 (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose The first nom states "I don't believe that content creation is an important part of adminship, whereas the AFD process is and should be valued more highly". I don't agree as a good understanding of our content seems essential to secondary processes such as AFD. Anyway, a search of articles created indicates that the closest the candidate has come to creating an article is Thermaltake – a page which has been tagged as an advertisement for over 5 years now. I check his contributions for April. This edit looks promising but what seems to be happening here is that a statement of opinion is being slipped in ahead of two citations and those two citations don't seem to support what's being said. This is unacceptable and is the sort of elementary abuse of sources that will get your submissions rejected rapidly when you go through a basic review process such as GA or DYK. If the candidate has no experience of these, then they shouldn't be an admin. Creating lots of account names is not an adequate substitute. Andrew D. (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - lack of content creation. It doesn't need to be necessarily a GA/FA, but there should be at least something that candidate can present.--Staberinde (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Staberinde.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose candidate says that he wants to work in UAA, but the answer to Q9 is terrible. Also says that he wants to work in AfD but less than 20 votes this year, and some weird "red cells" in the stats from last year. Apart from that, zero articles created. (Just for the record: He did not create Thermaltake, although the (bugged?) bot shows it as one of 5 creations, the others are redirects. Thermaltake was created in 2004, Oshwah made three edits in 2008, and it has been tagged as advert since 2010.) And, racked up 15,000 semi-automated (Twinkle) edits this year, which leaves about 2,000 manual edits since his return to activity last year, after several years of inactivity. That's not the tenure I expect from an admin candidate. Not ready for the mop, by far. Kraxler (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose YMMV but the response to the username questions was unsatisfactory. At least half were clear trolling and not going to fly as viable names. Also per Kraxler Spartaz Humbug! 19:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Per Staberinde. You need at least a couple of GAs, and preferably an FA or two, to show you understand what content creators do and the challenges they face. Come back in a few months after building some content and this process should go well for you. RO(talk) 21:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose – Per Steel1943, Andrew D., Staberinde, and Kraxler. A single year of recent activity is not enough to show experience and understanding of the processes. As Steel1943 pointed out, a concerning 45% of the candidates edits are in "user talk" space. Per Kraxler, the candidate has also only had ~2,000 manual edits since returning from inactivity. There's nothing wrong with automated edits, but it shows a lack of at least some effort in content creation. Although they state they'll take it slow when it comes to using the tools and will only branch out when comfortable, an absolute necessity from any candidate in my opinion, the lack of "front line" experience brings to question the candidate's base-line understanding of Wiki policy. This is exemplified by the initial answer to Q9 which showed a glaring lack of understanding of username policy...an area they claim to delve into early on. I totally understand the pressure to be right in this process, I was tripped up during my own RfA (hell, some questions are indeed designed to do that), but with the lesser experience it's a more prominent concern here than would otherwise be. The amendment to the answer is certainly appreciated and noted, however. Given continued activity with more content contributions over the next year, I'd be more comfortable supporting in the future. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lack of content creation. I couldn't disagree more with the second sentence in the first nomination. Townlake (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Several issues come to mind. Over 50% of their total edits are in the last three months, 12,121 of them in fact, so this skews the time of experience. The most edits he has to any one page is 15, and only 6 articles have double digits worth of edits. I didn't check to see how much was automated and how much was manual, as it didn't matter. Same with article talk, the most he has is 3 edits to an article talk page. That tells me he has little to no experience in hammering out consensus or simply communicating in a group when it comes to an article. CSD log is new, AFD is improving, so while both look promising, they are insufficient to feel confident about your understanding of our deletion policy. Next we get to the dreaded "C" word....content. My bar is pretty low here, I had only created 18 articles when I ran for admin and it caused plenty of opposers, so I sympathize. I don't need to see FAs, GAs or DYKs. I don't even require new articles at all. Short of some extraordinary technical skill, I usually expect to see something significant in the way of content, be it simply gnoming, sourcing, expanding, anything is fine as long as you have ~1000 edits doing it and it shows you have modest proficiency in any content type area. Once someone has the admin bit, it is harder to create content, but they are constantly having to mediate disputes about content, determine if content is POV, deal with edit warring (hopefully without a block), and wield the delete button that can silently erase an article with virtually no oversight. These are powerful tools. Since the entire reason Wikipedia exists is to present neutral, quality content to the reader, admin should have more than a passing familiarity with these processes. Your edit count looks high, but that is deceiving here. I think you lack enough basic experience in the right areas at this time. I would be open minded to a run in a year, assuming you broadened your activities to include some manual content related activity, and just continue your path with AFDs and CSDs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, largely per Dennis Brown. Your contributions have been great, but with so many of them coming in the past three months I'm just not convinced that the community has seen enough of your character to grant you the admin toolset at this point. It might be worth another shot 12 months down the line - good luck! — sparklism hey! 18:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Steel1943 and Dennis. Lack of content creation is a big problem for me. CassiantoTalk 20:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Kraxler and Andrew Davidson. shoy (reactions) 20:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak oppose I'm sure that Oshwah will be a net positive to the encyclopedia, but to be an all-rounded admin, some form of content creation is needed. It's all good and well knowing about the rules, guidelines and whatnot in that field, but it's better to have actually shown to the community that one has actually done something in this area, as that's what creates experience and know-how in a person. That doesn't mean it has to be GA or an FA though. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 20:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Dennis Brown has expressed very well the factor that was holding me up from supporting. In a sense, despite the nominee having been here for a while, this is "too soon", because of the frontloading of the bulk of their contributions. BMK (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - per Dennis Brown who lays out the reasoning well. Content creation is a very important factor and Oshwah should work on that area and come back further down the road. Kierzek (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - I truly don't believe this is a bad nomination, in fact Oshwah is always on here reverting vandalism with me on Huggle when I am around. But I know this, there are many content contributors here, some whom have wrote many wonderful featured articles and have shown great effort in contributing here and are not admins. Content creation is the building part of the encyclopedia, and if you create or contribute to 2 or more good articles you are guaranteed to have my support. Best of luck! --CyberWarfare (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per my standard criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 01:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose insufficient content creation. The nominee looks to be a decent person, well-meaning, I would support if there were some solid quality content creation. Right now, there isn't enough. When I read a nominator saying from the rip "Content creation should not be an important part of adminship", I would beg to differ and remind him/her "we are here to build an encyclopaedia"--that's our prime mission: CREATING CONTENT. An admin who doesn't create content or know what content creators go through has the potential to misuse their tools because of that ignorance. Everything else beyond creating content at Wikipedia is ancillary and ends up being used by people seeking acceptance in this masturbatory often-power-mad ego-validating social media fantasy. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything else beyond creating content at Wikipedia is ancillary? I've volunteered at many non-profits, but I've yet to find one that's turned away a volunteer because they didn't personally and directly implement the goal of the organization. You don't have to scoop and serve soup for someone to do accounting at a soup kitchen. You don't have to be an actor or techie to run the box office at a community theater. Strange how this one, unique to the others, turns away volunteers who would otherwise provide infrastructure support. Granted, I'm not coming here to participate in the RFA either way; it's just comments like these baffle me. --slakr\ talk / 02:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Hatting my own comment before this gets out of hand. -dennis
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I almost opposed outright due to the nominator saying "I don't believe that content creation is an important part of adminship". It isn't your place to decide what others judge to be important, and the arrogance in which you show in your nominating statement is foolhardy, as a good number of people DO consider some form of content creation to be important, at least to a degree. I will look around closer before I decide to support or oppose, but wanted to be clear that the nominating statement was one of the most foolish noms I've ever seen, and since the candidate choose you to nominate him, it brings his judgement into question. At the very least, you just shot your candidate in the foot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If he had said "content creation is not an important part of admin work" I could see your point. He's stating HIS belief, not saying what he thinks others should think. Peridon (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the main nomination a bit closer: "Frankly, I don't believe that content creation is an important part of adminship." He treats it as opinion, not fact. Esquivalience t 20:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, candidates usually don't choose nominators, rather the reverse, a nominator offers to nominate a candidate. I might add that I tend to agree with the view. I do a fair amount of content work at the level of rescuing stubs and new articles, helping with drafts, and formatting work on moderate level articles. I do almost nothing on articles at or above B-class, certainly not GAs or FAs. I don't feel this has had any negative impact on my performance of admin tasks. DES (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw what he wrote and I'm quite capable of parsing it on my own. Your reply doesn't help, Esquivalience. I'm not a hardcore "must have $x content" voter by any definition, but to see a nom poke the content creation bears seems foolish. I haven't voted yet, but surprised to see so much reaction to my comment in a neutral section. And yes, candidates DO choose their nominators, no one is forced to run or to allow another to do the nomination. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this is a misunderstanding. I don't think anyone is diminishing the importance of content creation. Administrative tools and content creation should be kept very separate. The sentence "I don't believe that content creation is an important part of adminship" is not an attack on content creators, I think it is pointing out that content creation is not part of the job. I don't think that "content creation" is a part of "admin work" at all. Content creation is something handled by all editors, and administrative work is something else entirely. As an admin I know that when I get involved in content I need to take off my admin hat, and when I act as an admin I need to take off my editor hat. Chillum 21:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I'm not sure I understand the outrage here. Technically it's true: admin actions such as blocks, page protections, page deletions don't create content. At best, they preserve current content. Whether or not content creation experience is necessary for admins to make the right decisions is debatable but that's not how I read the nomination statement. Pichpich (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't outrage, not at all. I am just taken aback by the foolishness of it, and waiting for the problems that will happen because of this statement. He didn't do the candidate any favors. I won't hold it against the candidate (although I think he would have been better with a more experienced nom that doesn't start off with statement that some people will take poorly). I didn't expect all the reaction to my observation, it is simply my observation prior to voting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion like this was bound to happen when the nominator is a user of 3 months tenure and less than 1,000 edits, and thus ineligible for adminship himself. The co-nominator has been around for less than a year, too. Any serious admin candidate wouldn't let himself be nominated by inexperienced users like that, even a self-nomination would garner more respect. Kraxler (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral just for the minute pending answers to questions. The 45% of user talk edits, many of which seem to be automated Twinkle messages, also gives me cause for concern. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to note that the RfA introduction mentions that the candidate intends to use the tools for anti-vandal efforts, which the candidate seems to be active in. If your concern is a lack of personalized messages on user talk pages, that might be a different story all together. It would be helpful if you could give some clarification as to what exactly your concern is, so readers can more easily follow along your train of thought. --JustBerry (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ritchie333/How newbies see templates, User:Ritchie333/Hit and run editors and similar essays of mine should hopefully clarify my position. Using Twinkle per se isn't a crime, though I've personally turned it off recently. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I still can't decide. Q15 is a serious problem - it indicates to me you press buttons on tools without understanding the underlying effects. Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning towards support, pending fuller investigation of candidates editing record and further discussion here. DES (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I'm concerned that the response to the username question (#9) shows fairly poor judgment, but I'd like to give the nominee to a chance to expand on their answer, or to adjust it upon further reflection. BMK (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Still considering all factors. BMK (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC) moved to oppose BMK (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I find the bulk of the oppose section unpersuasive, but your initial answer to the UAA question gave me pause. I'm glad your followup answer was much better, but I don't think I can support at this time. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, leaning towards support. Likely a net positive. The initial answer to Q9 was appalling, though the clarification was much better. I personally do not find the high edit count to the User talk namespace a concern; other successful RFAs (such as this and this) with lower edit counts have succeeded in the past. sstflyer 10:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral The candidate has done a lot of useful wikignoming. From comments above the candidate does not appear to have created articles. I reject any claim that a candidate must have created an ideal article. But an administrator benefits from an understanding of the difficulties of adding content to articles, such as how to include sources without copyvios, and what are and are not reliable sources. I looked back through the candidate's contribution history for examples of copyediting, adding references. or revising and improving articles. Surely there are some.I would appreciate having them pointed out. If not, Oshwah would be a better admin candidate after doing content work, and should spend some time editing/creating/referencing. Edison (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[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