Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Obli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Obli

final (48/2/0) ending 20:38 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Obli (talk · contribs) – I've been editing Wikipedia since February 2004, back then I learned how to do most of the basic stuff, what to do, and what to not do, after that intense Wiki-streak my activity was rather stale until I was flung into the Daniel Brandt case by making the mistake of voting on his afd which at the time already had reached clear consensus. This gave me let's say... a taste for the internal processes of Wikipedia, which I have been concerned with ever since. My main areas as of now involves patrolling Recent changes, new pages, and dead end for speedyable articles and vandalism, particularly copyvios, I see far too many lumps of raw text that gives a Google hit when searched for. This is one of the main reasons I am requesting the mop; I'd like to bypass the db-tagging and go directly for deleting articles, naturally leaving any uncertainties to prod. --Obli (Talk)^? 20:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Aye --Obli (Talk)^? 20:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. First Support Moe ε 21:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Meets my standards (enough experience; no bad behavior) --Cymsdale 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Looks like he'd make a good administrator. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
4. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:32 UTC (2006-03-03)
5. Support--Jusjih 01:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Happy to support — Adrian Lamo ·· 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
7. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Solid user, good edits, it's a go. -- Jbamb 04:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Sure. pschemp | talk 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Fills my requirements. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 06:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Obli-de Obli-da  :) Joe I 07:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Meekly... not a lot of experience and edit summaries need a bit of work. But candidate seems sensible and suitable overall. Celcius
13. Support A good user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 12:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support --Terence Ong 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support-- Articulate, clear thinking in talk pages.Mikereichold 15:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Give him his own mop! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Mjal 21:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support --Latinus 23:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Support TigerShark 02:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Support I see no reason to oppose.--MONGO 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. --Khoikhoi 04:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Support a very good contributor —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-04 08:04Z
25. Support.  Grue  08:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Support good editor --rogerd 11:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, would like to see higher edit summary percentages though. Essexmutant 13:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, good work so far. --Tone 15:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
30. Support nice work, no reason to deny adminship, although I would prefer if this editor had been a little more active, has only seriously edited for 4 months Prodego ^talk 15:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Support -- Eddie, Sunday March 5, 2006 at 03:18
32. Support naturally. Raven4x4x 06:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Support: --Bhadani 08:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. — FireFox • T • 21:34, 5 March 2006

    Support--Eddie, Monday March 6, 2006 at 04:06

35. Support --Ugur Basak 10:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. See no reason for concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Unlikey to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Lots of experiences and great behavior the whole way through! Staxringold 22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
39. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, will make a good admin. JIP | Talk 07:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, but increase your use of edit summaries! Irritated by Esteffects oppose comments, I'm sure no admin is completely clued up on all processess prior to adminship. What's important is that a new admin checks policy pages etc prior to taking actions. If Obli remembers that, I'm sure he'll do fine _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
42. User:Go for it!/Vote Support I'm confident Obli will learn everything needed to be an admin along the way. Will use the tools responsibly - no reason to believe otherwise. I have just three more words for you: --Go for it! 17:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, increase your edit summary usage, though. Gflores ^Talk 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. I like the way your signature reminds me of Lego. Flowerparty■ 23:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Keep it up. --Robert from NY 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
46. Hmmmmm, yeah, Support. BD2412 T 14:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Just-In-Time Support and I'd be happy to newb it up on WP:ANI with you. --Cyde Weys 15:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Late support for a promising candidate. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, because every RFA needs an opposing party. :p Seriously though, Obli earlier today thought 3RR was violated after three reverts (three reverts is, of course, the maximum; Four is a violation). An admin really should know these things - It suggests to me a little, little bit of inexperience with processes admins need to excel at. Still, you should get the adminship easily enough anyway. Seems like a good enough user otherwise. Esteffect 23:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
   1. *blushes*, good thing I didn't have the block button yet, I won't make that mistake again (the name '3RR' is deceiving, though!) :) --Obli (Talk)^? 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
2. oppose. there are plenty of people speedying articles already. why the hurry? why not just put articles through the normal process, or tag them with {{db }} when necessary? Oppose on grounds of no need for adminship. ... aa:talk 21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 77% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 20:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Obli's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• A bit more work on edit summaries for major article edits would be nice. Not a lot, just a bit more. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Mainly speedy deletions, prod, afd and anti-vandalism, but I'm also seeing the opportunity of getting more involved in the other processes as well, as my current editing hasn't gotten me into any conflicts, I'd expect to enter them as an admin instead of a battling party.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I've tended to write about some rather obscure topics, two of my main "trophies" from before my latest Wiki-craze would be Bobbit worm and Brain freeze, watching them grow has been nothing but a delight. My later major contributions would be my adoption of Christopher Polhem (the article, not the person) and my two DYK articles, in which I learned to love the new footnote system (Black slug and Scleroderris canker)

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. There was of course the conflict I got into for voting on Brandt's afd, he found out my name and posted it on his "black list", a little stressful, one might say, this also earned me a place among the enemies of Ashida kim, as any "supporter of the Wiki", as indicated on Brandt's page, is his enemy. This all naturally gave me a distaste for drama, so you can count on me staying out of any unneeded hate mongering in the future.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

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?
   1. While every user should ideally be treated equally, I think it's inaviodable that a little extra effort should be put into making sure it's not an unfortunate coincidence (like an RFA somewhere below, where a nominee's girlfriend had voted at the same poll). If established, block the 'puppets and try to determine how descicions would have been made if the sockpuppet hadn't been corrupting the processes. --Obli (Talk)^? 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
   1. I'd drop a note on the admin's page telling him I'm "upgrading" the article to afd, since I saw a slight possibility that it might have been misjudged, he'll probably understand that the article stands no better chance at afd than as a speedy if it truly is deletion material.--Obli (Talk)^? 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
   1. Give him a short block, then write him an untemplated message (I might consider making a template for this, I've dealt with similar things before), explaining how he can have his articles survive speedy deletions, assuming they can survive it, that is. --Obli (Talk)^? 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would it not be better to explain what he was doing wrong and show him the sabdbox first and then block if that did not work? Thanks.Mikereichold 06:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If he's already been blocked before, there's a chance he's already been introduced to the sandbox in one of his previous warnings, I just assumed that out of the question :) --Obli (Talk)^? 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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.