Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OlEnglish

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

OlEnglish

(93/5/0); ended 04:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

OlEnglish (talk · contribs) – To break the recent drought of RfAs, I'd like to present OlEnglish for consideration to become an administrator. In my opinion, OE is one of the most qualified people we currently have. He has made nearly 20,000 edits, and is a self-proclaimed wikignome. He doesn't have a bunch of FAs or GAs, but he's certainly a productive and knowledgeable editor. Even if he's not adding content, OE is constantly making minor yet very important changes that make editing easier for the rest of us. A quick look at his projectspace edits reveal well thought-out comments in various discussions, accurate XfD votes, and an overall dedication to keeping the place tidy. I'm afraid this is going to be a short nom, since the contributions speak for themselves. In a time when we're losing admins far quicker than we're appointing new ones, I think OE will make an excellent janitor. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- œ^™ 03:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Well, I'll still be doing my normal wikignoming, but while I'm doing my usual rounds if I come across any situations that would require administrative-related tasks then I'm glad I'll have the necessary tools to do what's required. I usually like helping editors and generally working in areas that don't receive much attention, whatever that may be at any given point in time, so I'd see myself patrolling the admin backlog frequently. But I'm being vague aren't I?.. So to name something just off the top of my head, I'd like to grant special requests.. such as edit-protected requests, {{adminhelp}} or granting roll-back. I'll eventually dabble in all administrative areas though and if while doing that I discover something different that I enjoy doing then I'll work at that.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I know this is cliché in RfA's but I sincerely believe that all my contributions are equally important. As I believe it's the little things that matter the most I make mostly minor edits, and the way I look at it, all those edits add up and when combined as a whole go a long way in improving Wikipedia. Although I'm interested in mostly maintenance, I have created a few stub articles that I intend on expanding and I do have plans to eventually improve other articles I've been keeping an eye on and nominate them for GA.

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: I've been in little spats here and there but nothing really worth mentioning here, I honestly don't recall anything that escalated beyond the top three sections of the pyramid. I really try not to let other users cause me stress.. I firmly believe that Wikipedia is not about winning, and I normally just let things go. It's not worth it to get all upset and frustrated over editing.. this is supposed to be a fun hobby, and if the policies of consensus and civility were properly followed then we really shouldn't be getting involved in any disputes in the first place. But I suppose that's just human nature.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

4. What is your attitude to improving rather than deleting articles that have been nominated for speedy delete? Would you for example try to understand the context of an article nominated for a no-context delete? Or click that delete button as hard and as fast as you can to get rid of that trash?

A: Good question, and I hope I can answer it to your satisfaction. I think every new article has potential and if it can be improved then I would support the author provided they use a hangon tag and make an effort to improve it, and I would do what I can to help improve it myself. However if the author just doesn't care or that article doesn't have enough context to help me identify what it's about then there's really not much anyone can do.. but of course I would read it and at least try to understand what the article's about.. I'm not some itchy trigger finger delete-happy fanatic to put it bluntly :)

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

5. What is your opinion on inclusionism and deletionism?

A: Short answer: I consider it a false dichotomy. It's akin to politics, and identifying with one extreme end causes division in the community leading to immature disputes (this is just what I've observed in some editors). Personally I prefer to identify with the more 'middle-of-the-road' mergism and immediatism. But maybe the whole 'Wikimedian philosophy' thing is just played out, our time is better spent focusing on cooperation in building the encyclopedia instead of divisive isms.

Additional optional questions from Tznkai

6. A hypothetical: A post on ANI catches your attention. An IP editor (IP 555.555.555.1) claims that he is part of Sarah Palin's family, and that redlinked user:neutral editor is a democratic staffer vandalizing the article. A check of the history shows these two were edit warring over whether or not to include the line "Sarah Palin quit from the position of governor, giving her a world wide reputation as a quitter"(several cites to blogs and op eds) in the lede of the article. 555.555.555.1 has been reverting with the edit summary "rv:trolling vandal libeler" and user:neutral editor has not used edit summaries at all. In addition, three other users have commented on the ANI thread like so:

• Alaskan's can't write, ignore him.--User:A
  • Block 555.555.555.1, WP:COI. --User:B
    • Block both of the fuckers. --User:C

No one else has responded to the thread in 48 hours. What do you do?

A: Considering blogs generally aren't considered reliable sources and it's a BLP, I would: Ignore the three other users in the thread, temp-full protect the article with the edit summary "Edit-warring", template:Uw-biog1 the redlinked user:neutral editor's talk page, mark the ANI thread as resolved.

Additional optional questions from King of Hearts

7. How would you have closed these two AfDs: Truth in Numbers and Fledgling Jason Steed?

A: Truth in Numbers: No consensus, default to keep. Fledgling Jason Steed: This one's a bit more iffy, as it's a very borderline case. There's problems with the sourcing and the author's notability is questionable but a few of the keep arguments like User:Myosotis Scorpioides and User:Beehold's are quite convincing and raise some good points, along with the FictionReviewer award (beating out Stephenie Meyer of all people! ... although that could also speak to the credibility of the website) and although this book was self-published the author is now signed to Barbara Zitwer Agency apparently as a result of the success of this book, and then there's the film deal. My own personal !vote would be to keep, but that's just because my standards of what constitutes notability aren't set as high as some other editors, (and I note the rewrite on User:Beehold's page with further sources and assertion of notability). On the other hand, the deletes are solid, policy-based (WP:SPS) comments, (Clay Collier's and Admiral Norton's in particular) and are successful in balancing the overall consensus but in my view just are not strong enough to tip the scale in favour of delete, so after careful review and consideration of all the comments I would close this one as no consensus as well. -- œ^™ 18:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from DGG

7. You tagged Allen B. Morse as a copyvio of [1], which it certainly was. Since he was a Michigan Supreme court justice, and the copyied p. was a good source for that, why did you not instead stubbify it? DGG ( talk ) 13:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A: Good question.. that sure would have been a much more productive way to improve the encyclopedia wouldn't it? I don't recall what was going through my mind at that exact moment but best I can guess is laziness? Or more likely a lack of confidence in my ability to write even good stub articles.. I'm not really a content writer, I like doing mindless maintenance tasks, minor additions and corrections, and prefer to leave the writing to the writers. -- œ^™ 16:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

But as you have just seen, carrying out admin tasks cannot be completely divorced from article writing. Since you are quite competent to answer these questions here, you should be able to learn the basics. Now that you know how to do minor corrections, it's an easy step up. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

8. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: Oooh.. I was dreading this question.. :) Because this topic can be so confusing and contradictory sometimes.. like when editors have their own idea of what's notable enough for inclusion, or systemic bias comes into play and an article gets deleted only because the editor "has never heard of it so it must not be notable!" or "it's not on Google so it's not notable!" or even certain bands may be notable to their fans but not to others, and so on, all this can get so aggravating. So I think what it comes down to is just to stick to if it's been published in reliable secondary sources.

Anyways, to answer your questions.. What would I think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Basically I would be happy if every article just stuck to what's laid out in the first pillar.

I do feel that anything meeting WP:GNG should be allowed (of course excluding WP:NOT cases) but as with everything, good editorial judgment should be used in every case. Also a lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia, I believe in preserving information if it has encyclopedic value and usually prefer merging content into its parent article rather than deleting it outright.

Are there any types of articles that I feel are automatically notable? hmm.. that's a bit tougher to answer, I suppose if taking into consideration that Wikipedia is a specialized encyclopedia with gazeteer elements, an example would be articles on small obscure villages or taxonomic-like articles on obscure species.. these don't necessarily have in-depth coverage in multiple sources.. apart from a few scholarly journals maybe, so they would be notable to only a select few, yet these are encyclopedic topics.

Overall I think the notability guideline is definitely necessary to maintain quality and professionalism within Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and everything must be verifiable so naturally notability emerges out of those policies. The only problem I see is sometimes the subject-specific guidelines can conflict with the general notability guidelines. -- œ^™ 06:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

9. While reviewing a CSD backlog, you come across the following article tagged A1:

Edgar Lacey was the starting forward for UCLA from 1964-1966.

How do you proceed?

A: Firstly I would do a Google search for any sources that will allow me to determine notability. (For the sake of this question I did manage to find a book source in which an entire chapter is about this guy (6 results, pgs.131-149): [2] as well as an LA Times article: [3] apparently this guy was a star player, so this would be enough for me to assert notability, it may not be for others.) So I would first decline the speedy (it had enough context it was just lacking notability assertion), I would try to expand it a bit to mention things like his injury or whatever else I can glean from the sources, so that at least it's more than just a one sentence stub.. I would write up the references using citation templates, add a relevant stub tag, and attempt to de-orphan it. Also I would add a WPBio template on the talkpage. -- œ^™ 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Beeblebrox

10. One of the most often misunderstood CSD is "Patent Nonsense." Could you explain in your own words your understanding of what is and is not patent nonsense? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A: Ok.. without looking at the main explanation page, this is how I would explain patent nonsense in the context of CSD.. Gibberish like "grrbrrblaablaboogadoo" is patent nonsense... or incomprehensible, meaningless or random jumble of wording such as "colorless red jumping tree zipper tuba zits" is patent nonsense.. basically, things that just don't make sense any which way are patent nonsense. What is NOT patent nonsense is: content that would appear to be in another language or poorly translated from another language.. or a sentence of misspelled words that would otherwise make sense is not patent nonsense, test pages or a page filled with nothing but badly mis-formatted template code are not patent nonsense, and finally, strange definitions like "David is Sssawesome" are not patent nonsense ;) -- œ^™ 04:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from The ed17

11. Question poached from Lankiveil There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about the practice of putting speedy deletion tags on newly created articles that are just minutes old. How long do you think that users on new page patrol ought to wait before putting an A7 tag on a (technically eligible) newly created article?

A: Yes I've been following the discussion over at WT:Deletion policy#Proposal and I would have to oppose the 2 day wait proposed there.. it's much too long to wait, especially considering a prod already gives it 7 days. And I know I said earlier that I'm not a trigger-happy speedy deletionist but I do tend to adhere to an immediatist philosophy, where "any detracting quality (such as being ill-formatted or containing less than satisfactory material) should be remedied as soon as possible" and that a newly-created article should be as complete as possible BEFORE putting it in the mainspace.. because I care about Wikipedia's image, and when I picture a troll bragging to his buddies that his joke article is "STILL up after TWO days d00d! This is sssawesome!" I can see how it would detract from the professional image of Wikipedia's administrators, about whom it may be said that they're not doing their job properly by deleting that crap ASAP, but also the professionalism of Wikipedia as a whole. But anyways I'm rambling.. to answer your question about waiting to speedy tag it, I would have to say it also depends on the creator of the article and their other contributions, and/or the context of the article. Good judgment and common sense should be used to determine if the article is just incomplete but has potential, and of course if the creator uses a 'hangon' or 'under construction' tag then enough time should be given for the user to use those tags, I would say at least a couple minutes (it doesn't take long to place an under-construction tag). And IF those tags ARE used then I would say definitely wait and see what happens. So to summarize, if the newly-created article is a prod or afd candidate don't wait, if it's a speedy candidate, A7 or anything else, wait at least 2-3 minutes. -- œ^™ 00:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for OlEnglish: OlEnglish (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for OlEnglish can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• I second his nomination, if allowed?MacOfJesus (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To the objectors: Please do assume good faith! (with the mop comes the bucket!)MacOfJesus (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)MacOfJesus (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

--A3RO (mailbox) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Darn it, I was going to nominate him someday. @harej 04:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Prodego ^talk 04:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
3. As nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
4. (edit conflict) I trust Julian to make the right choices for adminship. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 04:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   I appreciate the vote of confidence, but please review the candidate on his own merits. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I have seen OE around and he's a very friendly, helpful, and knowledgeable editor, so that's a support on its own merit. :) Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 04:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Support OlEnglish has been an outstanding help in #wikipedia-en-help on IRC, and his work on wiki has been similarly well executed. Best of luck! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Good editor, giving him the tools will absolutely be a net positive :) ≈ Chamal ^{Avast, landlubber!} ¤ 04:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Support A fine editor, who can certainly be trusted to use the tools positively. ∙ AJCham^(talk) 04:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   Whilst I would usually regard "I sincerely believe that all my contributions are equally important" as something of a red flag, in the case of an editor who is primarily a Gnome, I find this to be more reasonable than it might otherwise be. ∙ AJCham^(talk) 20:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

   I don't necessarily disagree, but what sort of "red flags" would that raise? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

8. Support (edit conflict)*3 With a yo ho ho and a bottle of rum - fantastic candidate, always very helpful, great at explaining things, very cooperative, great policy knowledge, and lots of other good stuff. I really hope this will sail through. Yarrrr!  Chzz  ►  04:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Arr! Yo ho ho, and a bottle of rum. Wait, where's me rum? Cubs197 (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - Knowledgeable user. We need more admin wikignomes (as evidenced by CAT:AB). Killiondude (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Support I thought you already were an admin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Support per excellent wikignoming and an excellent nomination. upstateNYer 05:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. Always cheerful and helpful; the tools will allow him to perform his tasks more easily and be more helpful. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

    Support Somewhat reluctantly based on "I like all my contributions equally" answer. But otherwise candidate looks okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

    Switching to oppose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

14. Provisional support I have had some minor disagreements w/ this candidate and I feel that audited content is somewhat important but plenty of areas where I have seen the candidate their work has been positive. Protonk (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
15. Yarr! Tis be a fine us-arr, I bin tinkin of askin them meself why they not be an admin already. Cannot see arr reason not to be supportin this fine scurvy sea dog even if they be a ninja. Avast! SoArr! ^{Let go plunderin!} 08:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
16. Yo ho ho Support. Yarr I thinks hell be a goodon this one. Man I am useless at this! :D Anyway, seems a decent candidate with good gnoming and the like. Net positive. AtheWeatherman 08:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
17. Great user, will be an asset.--Patton123 (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Positive interactions + enough clue ƒ(Δ)² 09:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
19. The wikignomery and #wikipedia-en-help work do it for me. A safe bet. - Dank (push to talk) 09:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
20. Arghh!Pmlineditor^Talk 10:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - based on my interactions with him, this is another Closedmouth, in that the first thought is "why isn't he already an admin"? Ironholds (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
22. Support - I've never had any bad interactions with this user. No reason to believe they will misuse the tools. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Need more sysops. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
24. Support- I wish to support OIEnglish. 1. He respondes, 2. He corrects, 3. He is cool, but firm. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - Very good editor, would make a great admin. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Support I've found OE's comments, especially at AfDs and talk pages, to be really quite thoughtful and well-grounded, in addition to almost always being very helpful and friendly. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 12:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - as per Cyclonenim and BritishWatcher Shinerunner (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Per Cycloneim.--Giants27(c|s) 12:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
29. The epitome of a gnome. ceranthor 13:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - I have no problems wit' th' candidate. No reason to believe they gunna misuse th' admin tools. Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum!--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
31. Weak Support - After looking through some contributions of his, tends to be civil and good for the project. No reason why not! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

    While looking at the oppose reason is a slight reason to worry, OlEnglish states that he will perform administrative actions in other areas than primarily CSD, and I am still at the support stage for this reason - will be a good administrator :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

32. Master&Expert (Talk) 14:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
33. Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
34. Support. I've seen lots of "good" from this editor, no "bad", and nothing that indicates he'd be incompetent or unsuited as an admin. JamieS93 14:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
35. Support - per what JamieS93 said above. AdjustShift (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
36. Support No qualms here. hmwith☮ 14:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Trust is key, and OlEnglish has earned it. Good luck! =) America69 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Clueful, reasonable, fully qualified. iMatthew ^talk at 14:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. OlEnglish is a wonderful editor, and would make an excellent admin. I have no concerns at all about twiddling this bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
40. SupportI've got nothing but good impression from the user's activities. The user could be a good asset for Wikipedia with the bit. (By the way, I've always assumed the candidate would be "she")-Caspian blue 16:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I have met OlEnglish many times, and have seen nothing but good from him. warrior4321 17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
42. Support, I honestly would have figured this guy already was an admin. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
43. Obviously.  GARDEN  18:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
44. Yarr.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
45. Support, I have to agree with Irbisgreif on his comment. I sincerely that OlEnglish was already an admin. He was very polite and professional when he commented on my edits to a disambiguation page. After overviewing his contributions, my computer froze at the fifth page of 500 edits. This guy truly deserves to be an admin. Enough said. Congrats OlEnglish, hope you get the job. Best regards. Krazycev 13 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
46. Support It looks as if OE is here to improve the encyclopedia. I have not seen someone have so many userpages before (across many projects), but what else could you expect from a wikignome! Anyway I look forward to yo doing history mergers, and old revisions of fair use images deletion - the behind the scenes admin gnome work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
47. Strong support. By what I've seen, I consider OE a very trustworthy editor that would make a fine sssawesome admin. I'm kind of disappointed about the answer to Q1, because I would like to see the candidate work at XfD, where they're always a voice of reason. I see I'm not the only one who thought that OE was already an admin. Helpful to new users, doesn't cause drama, and no problems with speedy deletion tagging that I could find. Definitely a net positive. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
48. Support BrianY (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

    Support I can see no issues with this candidate and think he would make a fine admin.Moved to oppose ArcAngel (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

49. Support No problems here. Razorflame 04:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
50. Support - A nice and knowledgeable user whom I have seen many times around the wiki. OlEnglish is definitely fit to become an administrator. Airplaneman ^talk 04:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
51. Support per nom. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
52. Cliche I thought you already were one Support. An excellent candidate for the mop! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Good luck. --A3RO (mailbox) 11:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
54. Support. Seems good editor, good answers to Q3-5 in particular show clue. By the way, I am unworried by Balloonman's oppose. Martinp (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
55. Support, great contributions, great attitude, and some very clued-up answers to some nasty questions. I'm not concerned to any great extent by Balloonman's speedy-criteria oppose: I've opposed myself before based on poor speedy work, but in this case I find the main error being made is trying too hard to fit things that are clearly vandalism (and hence G3) into another criterion. While erring in the other direction (tagging good-faith crap articles as vandalism) is clearly unwelcoming and bitey, trying hard to interpret things as something other than vandalism is not a grave error in my view. ~ mazca ^talk 12:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
56. Support, no reason not to. --Aqwis (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
57. Weak support. I remember the incident mentioned by decltype, below. I do not, however, think it justifies an oppose. Hypertechnical CSD distinctions do not concern me, but I don't think the first example Balloonman cited fall under any CSDs. Hence the weak support. Tim Song (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

    I'm very impressed. OE will definitely be a sssawesome admin. Tim Song (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

58. Support - trustworthy editor. The occasional mistake isn't enough to worry me, and I concur with Tim Song about hypertechnical speedy tagging distinctions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Imagining this candidate with the mop fails to strike fear into my heart. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
60. Support I haven't run into you here, but you look alright to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
61. Support I've seen him around, and it looks like he'll be a good admin. Timmeh (review me) 00:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
62. Support no apparent issues to worry about here. --candle•wicke 02:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
63. Support No issues that I consider relevant.--Res2216firestar 02:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
64. Support, don't see any issues. Wizardman 04:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
65.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, OlEnglish. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
66. Support I've seen the editor around quite a bit, and even worked with him on a thing or two. Always clue-filled, polite, and helpful. I think this would be a great choice for allowing a couple extra functions. No reservations on my end. — Ched :  ?  14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
67. Support My !vote is based primary on the user's response to my hypothetical question. For my complete views on it, see WT:RFA OlEnglish dealt with the main presented problem (BLP related edit war) well. I would have however, preferred a more complete answer that dealt with the other problems as well. An admin can do a fair amount of good in correcting bad behavior, even just by pointing it out by commenting in a thread instead of ignoring it, and marking it "resolved" after only addressing the main issue is slightly troubling, but I think OlEnglish is dedicated to use admin tools as the proper means to the right ends.--Tznkai (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
68. Support My vote is that OE is nominated because he knows what he edits about. I think he'll do a great job as an admin.Arcangel Viveros 19:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Looks pretty good to me. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
70. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
71. Support  Overall contributions are positive, and editor is polite and works to build the encyclopedia. --StaniStani  23:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
72. Support civil and useful editor, I think he'll do well with the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 14:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
73. I'll happily support. AGK 16:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - The answers to a couple of the questions aren't ideal (I share some concerns about the "all articles have potential" comment) but I have very good personal experiences with OE. Since RfA is primarily about whether or not to trust an editor with the tools, and I personally trust OE, I have to support. -- Atama頭 17:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
75. Support. I've had one interaction with this user. They disagreed with me but was clear concise and civil in explaining where they percieved me to be wrong. I find these valuable qualities within an admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
76. Weak support. I agree with ChildofMidnight's and Balloonman's concerns, and it seems to me this RfA is a bit premature. However, candidate is not afraid to admit mistakes, so I trust that they will learn from them. There may be a few bumps initially, but we'll be fine eventually. — Sebastian 21:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
77. Support in spite of the problems. First, because I think he shows a genuine willingness to learn--unlike so many admin candidates , who are quite sure they know everything and will defend any answer here, right or wrong. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
78. Support - Good work, and not afraid to approach controversial parts of the project effectively. Shadowjams (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
79. Support - Looks good. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. Overall good work. jni (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
81. Support Opposers raised some good issues, and OE acknowledged he made some mistakes. No one is perfect, and I think he's a better editor after learning from them. I believe he will make a valuable admin.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  23:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
82. Support: Looks good. Constructive edits. Always very helpful, and great at explaining things... very cooperative and is civil. Will attract good editors to Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talk • contribs) 03:22, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
83. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, interesting Userboxen, and has rollback rights. Negative: thinks Pluto was never a planet. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Have seen this user around various places, seems helpful and knowledgeable, although (gasp) apparently not perfect. By the way, I hadn't yet noticed the conversation already underway about patent nonsense in the oppose section when I asked about it, but I left it up once I did, since it's usually better to ask someone directly rather than speculating about their motives. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
85. Support. I am satisfied with the answers and explanations provided. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
86. Support – I've seen OlEnglish around, and I feel confident in his ability to be an admin. He shows that he will take time to look at a NewPage before hitting the delete button; self-restraint is almost always a good thing as far as admin actions are concerned. As far as the response in Q7 is concerned, it's not a big deal; the right thing was that the copyvio was nuked. Just remember that, as an admin, many lay people who know absolutely nothing about Wikipedia will be coming to you, especially regarding misunderstandings as to what is and is not allowed here (like nothing that is under copyright by someone else). MuZemike 18:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
87. Support Candidate is clearly qualified, rational, willing to admit mistakes and reasonably even-tempered... the kind of person needed as an admin. Based on the above substantial support, congrats! Jusdafax 19:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
88. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
89. Support - Good candidate. I'm sure he will do his administrative work well. All the edits that I've seen him do in the past have been very good. He has been a good editor (no blocks among other things) --Bsadowski1 03:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
90. Support - worked with this user in various areas, without any problems. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

    Oops - that comment was meant for mjroots. Never mind - have a free !vote on me! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

    Follow-up - I've reviewed OE's contributions, and see no reason to change my support. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

91. Support Productive and polite candidate, with no behavioral concerns. I have no problem with his answer to Q4 since I read "every article has potential" as a (good) editing philosophy, rather than a proposed policy. However, I hope that the OlEnglish reviews the issue raised by Balloonman below; some errors in tagging or deletion can be inconsequential as far as wikipedia content is concerned, but can still nag and drive new editors away. All the best. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
92. Support Trustworthy Editor. Will be a great admin. User has been editing since May 2008, and has lots of contributions. December21st2012Freak , (talk to me, or else...) 01:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
93. When I first saw this RfA on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, I honestly thought that this was a reconfirmation RfA: I thought OlEnglish was already an admin. I see their name everywhere, I've always seen good work from them, and I think they'll do fine as an admin. Acalamari 02:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Every new article does not have potential. Also, I have difficulty taking seriously someone who says they "sincerely" value all their contributions equally. And determining the outcome of speedy noms based on whether there is a hangon tag or not doesn't seem right to me. If there is a hangon tag then that discussion needs to be engaged and those working on the article consulted. But indications of notability and a check for the abvailability of references would be the appropriate criteria for determining whether to keep or delete an article at the speedy nom stage (at least in my opinion). Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose while reviewing his CSD noms I had an uncomfortable feeling about many of his nominations. Many of them were still CSD'able, but the frequency with which I questioned his rationale has me questioning how well he understands the criteria. Here are two examples:

   Nominated A7

   Llewelyn of Preston was born Llewelyn James of St. Pauls around the early Reinasance, its estimated that he was born 1585. He acted in many shakespearean plays, In his early years he acted women but when he matured he acted with William Shakespeare in the famous hamlet. It is rumour that llewelyn gave Sakespeare the nickname Billy-bard as they where great drink buddies. It is also a myth that Llewelyn was Christopher Marlowes Nephew.

   While the "nickname" part raises doubts about the validity of this article, the rest is full of claims to notability. Being an original actor in Shakespeares plays and acted with shakespeare in hamlet is a clear claim to significance. Also a nephew of Marlowe is a weak claims to significance as it would have a relative of one of Shakespeares biggest rivals working in shaekespeare's troupe. Thus, such a rumor/myth might have a significant backstory.

   Nominated G1

   Sssawesome: to be Uber Awesome. Uber: German for "much". For examble; David is Sssawesome. Or, that is sssawesome. We celebrate his sssawesomeness.

   Please review wp:nonsense. While this may be deletable elsewise, it is not G1. I clearly know what Sssawesome is supposed to mean. I also found some other cases, such as A1, which were not properly labelled.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   How long ago did these happen? Pcap ping 08:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   Within his past 50 deleted edits (which goes back a little over a monht.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   These occurred on August 9 and 14, so I agree they are recent. But, if I may politely badger, I think we are stretching it to oppose based on these taggings. I can kind of understand you with the first one, but not the second one; this falls into the "indeed it's speediable, but not quite the right criterion" category. Any CSD admin knows that G1/A3/G3/etc. overlap frequently (it sounds nonsensical, it's kind of vandalism, it has no content, etc). As long as OE knows what can fit into the realm of speedy deletion, it matters less if he deletes a promo-sounding non-notable bio as G11 rather than A7. Also, for the record, both cases were deleted by admins for the respective criteria. Should they both be contacted, because you disagree with their decisions? With all due respect, IMO this feels like a hair-splitting oppose, B-man, and every admin will interpret speedy cases a tad differently. You have very high standards for CSD, so I doubt that my comments or others will change your opinion, but I felt the need to express my opinion here. Best, JamieS93 13:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   You're right, it could have been a lot worse and a lot more egregious. I debated whether or not to make this a neutral, weak oppose, or just an oppose. I decided to go with oppose because like I said, I had a bad feeling about a fair amount of his CSD work prior to seeing these two cases. Again, not necessarily wrong, but because my concerns were related to his most recent CSD work. If I had found the same issues from work from 3 months ago, I probably would not have raised the issue. In short, I saw enough recent work, that I didn't feel compelled to look at older stuff, but yes, I acknowledge that I've seen cases where the mistakes are clearer and more egregious and that I did consider making this a neutral/weak oppose. (please forgive me if this is rambling, I'm currently on some heavy duty pain meds.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   When I read about the wrong tagging, I considered oppose, but when I checked the candidate's deleted contributions I saw some honest attempts to improve articles that eventually got deleted and realized that they is indeed "not some itchy trigger finger delete-happy fanatic" (to quote A4). — Sebastian 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   You've got to be kidding me. That is your reason to oppose? Because the form was not filled out properly? If you've spent more than two weeks on NPP you'll know by sight that the article is monkeying about crap. Why does the reason used in tagging/deletion matter? There is not notability asserted. By the logic of that I could write "My cat is fantastic and once belonged to Queen Anne as notable by the new york times report." Seriously. Keegan (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Balloonman. ArcAngel (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose, WP:NOTNOW. I think OlEnglish needs more experience with the deletion process(es) before I can trust him with the delete button. This is not a judgment of his other editorial skills. Pcap ping 09:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   While your oppose is valid, I have only seen WP:NOTNOW applied to users with 20 edits who have stumbled upon RfA by chance. By all means keep the oppose, but maybe remove the link? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed. There's a difference between the English phrase "not now" and the Wikipedia shortcut WP:NOTNOW! ~ mazca ^talk 12:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose. I was surprised by Balloonman's comments, because "œ" has always seemed to me to be conversant with deletion and the relevant policies. Upon closer investigation I found myself to be in disagreement with some of the taggings as well, but nothing too egregious. However, there was a single event that I didn't like, in which a user contested a prod by <!-- outcommenting it -->. When OlEnglish encountered this, he did not simply remove the prod entirely from the Wikicode, but reverted the edit with the summary "that's not how you contest a prod". In other words, it would seem that OlEnglish was trying to prevent the user from contesting the prod on a technicality, even if it was perfectly legitimate in the first place. Unsurprisingly, he ¬voted delete in the subsequent debate. Needless to say, I disagree very much with OlEnglish' course of action here. decltype (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   Do you have a link, decltype? - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   Added link to text above. decltype (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   this one bothers me, because unlike the two AfDs above, it is unmistakably wrong, . Fortunately, Tim Song, who knew what to do, immediately spotted it and sent it to AfD. I'd really like an explanation here. DGG ( talk ) 13:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   Ok only because DGG asked i'll defend myself here, though I'd have to see the entire history of what occurred because I don't quite remember what led to my reasoning, but I think I was just being impatient and bitey here and wanted to 'correct' the user into doing things the 'right' way, and of course I could've gone about it much better. What it certainly wasn't was me trying to prevent this user from contesting it because I *wanted* it deleted, I did not have any kind of bias or grudge against this article, it was against the *user* because I thought he was trying to 'sneak' past a prod in a sense, or avoid proper process, it was simply me not taking the time to stop and think that commenting out the prod is a perfectly reasonable way of contesting it. And I voted on the afd because it was still on my watchlist and I always vote on any afd's that pop up on my watchlist. Anyways, I have my bad days where I'm grumpy and really shouldn't be editing, and I acknowledge this was a mistake on my part, borne out of impatience, just as the one you questioned me about above, but if I may.. If one goes deliberately looking for a problem one will definitely find it, and as my good judgments far outweigh my bad judgments I hope you will not judge me as a whole based on these errors but I appreciate you pointing them out so I can learn from them. -- œ^™ 16:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   I appreciate the explanation and realize that I may have made an unwarranted assumption of bad faith, and I have struck that part of my comment accordingly. Sorry about that. Given this, I no longer have any strong objections to your getting the tools. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose Answers to questions are weak and do not show evidence of careful thought. The statement "every new article has potential" is deeply disturbing: it does not acknowledge that articles may be on on non-notable topics, fabrications, or any number of things that have no "potential." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

   Reading OE's answer to question 4 in full, I think it's pretty clear that OE is not claiming fabrications or nonnotable topics should have articles, but that one should assume good faith and try to help new articles that are not up to snuff where possible. Martinp (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral  I would like to see the candidate's response to the opposes over the CSD tagging issue before I move to support or oppose myself. --StaniStani  21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a response. Not only do I not feel a need to defend myself but I acknowledge that I'm not perfect and I do make mistakes occasionally. I'm just glad I have this opportunity to learn so I won't repeat the same mistakes again. -- œ^™ 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's contribs as a whole, and their CSD tags in more detail, I see no substantial problems. Moving to Support. --StaniStani  23:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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.