Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Osarius

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Osarius[edit]

Final (15/33/8); Closed by Rlevse at 03:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Osarius (talk · contribs) – This is my 3rd RfA, the last two under the username Manadude2. My last two RfAs were a bit too early to pass and I have taken some time to edit, and read up on policies. I already have Rollback rights Verify and I have been actively involved in NPP, Anti-Vandalism and finding candidates for CSD. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 21:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to take part in sorting Edit wars, Anti-vandalism, Speedy deletion requests and anything else that comes on it merry way.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have been involved in New Page patrolling, and anti-vandalism over the past few months (about a year actually). I feel that this is more my area of Wikibuilding instead of creating new articles and such. As a friend once said to me: "There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who build, and those who maintain." I guess I'm part of the latter. I also enjoy what I do, helping keep vandalism out of Wikipedia is what I do to relax after a long hard day.
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: Yes, I helped to resolve an edit war between User:Contrivance and User:Combatant last year. I am currently involved in a sockpuppet investigation. I hope to deal with these in the future by issuing 3RRs if needed or if it comes to it, blocks.
Could you clarify what you mean by saying that you are currently involved in a a sockpuppet investigation? Also, could you provide a link to the SPI case page in question? Nsk92 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was actively involved in a discussion on Templeknight's talk page when Wine Guy alerted me to the fact that Templeknight may be a sockpuppet of Bischof-Ralph. After reading the SPI page, I decided to alert the accused (User:Templeknight, User:Michelle cannon) that they had been accused of sockpuppetry. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 23:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Shirik
4. When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user who has not yet received a total of 4 warnings?
A:It is acceptable to block a user who has not yet received a total of 4 warning if they are found guilty of Sockpuppeting. Also it is acceptable if the user breaks a 3RR if issued to them even if the user inadvertently breaches the 3RR. Also for the following reasons:
  • accounts used exclusively for disrupting
  • public accounts
  • accounts with inappropriate usernames
  • bots operating without approval or operating outside their approval
  • accounts that appear to have the sole reason for existing for promoting.
  • Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked on-sight.
Additional optional questions from RP459
5. Have you ever edited under a different username?
A:Yes, before 18th February 2010 I edited under the username Manadude2.
Additional optional questions from Mailer Diablo
6. What are the challenges you had faced while performing New Page Patrol, and how would you intend to use the experience you have gained from these challenges to carry on this work with the new administrative tools (for instance, speedy deletion, BLP issues, copyright problems, treatment of new editors, etc)?
A: Lets start with speedy deletion: I have faced the challenges of finding the right policy to tag a page under, when it borders more than one, say a page promotes an entity but it is also a case of vandalism: which shall I tag it under? I suppose the experience I have of CSD helps in in respect tat I can spot easily if a page requires a CSD or is salvageable with a few tags and copy-editing. As for BLPs, I've not come across one as yet so I've not had to deal with it, but I would follow the guidelines in WP:BLP. If there was a major copyright issue, such as a whole page being copied from a non-free source, then the article would immediately be CSD'd, else if parts of the article have been copied then I would remove those parts but leave the rest of the page intact, unless if I removed the copyright content the rest is just jibberish, then the page would also be CSD'd. I see new editors as me when I first started out, that's why I use Friendly to welcome new users or users without any content on their talkpage because if that was me, I would like to be greeted and welcomed into Wikipedia. If a new editor has created a page that doesn't quite meet the guidelines and has been CSD'd then I would place the appropriate welcoming template on their talk page. I like to be friendly :) Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 00:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Gosox5555
7. Following up from the previous question, why did you change the username that you edited under, if you don't mind saying? (If not, that's okay.)
A: I changed my username because I was getting tired of my old one, I've had it for a number of years, even since i joined Wikipedia, and I hardly use that username anymore. I've even named my laptop and iPod Osarius! I just needed a change. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 00:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Nsk92
8. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
A: A block is a temporary or permanent restriction on a user that prevents them from editing any article except their user and talk pages for a given period of time or indefinitely. A ban is a temporary or permanent restriction on a user that prevents them from editing on one or more articles, though the ban can be extended to apply throughout the whole project.
9. When, if ever, is it appropriate to give an indef block to an IP vandal?
A:An indef block to an IP vandal should almost NEVER be issued. The very nature of dynamic IP addresses make an indef block useless and my prevent an innocent party from editing. It is best to block the IP for no more than a few hours.
Additional optional questions from -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\
10. You say that you are interested in Anti-Vandalism, have you ever considered using Huggle a little more? (I only see 80 edits with it is why I am asking)
A:Yes I have, it's just finding the time as I'm so very busy with college and then I do volunteering work at the weekends, hence the low edit counts, but I try to edit when I can.
Additional optional questions from LedgendGamer
11. Your last RfA (link for convenience) was about 8 months and 800 edits ago. In your own words, could you summarize why it failed and what you've learned from it?
A.My last RfA failed primarily because of the reasons User:Pedro states: He closed my last RfA quoting WP:NOTNOW, that he doesn't see "any real main space work" and that my editing is sporadic, which the other opposees seem to agree on, but as Pedro says "not a big deal, it is free labour after all". There were no bad oppositions, just the amount of editing I had done made them a bit wary.... which is why I have learnt to edit more, even though as I have said at least twice on this very page, that I am very busy with college and my volunteer work. I cannot be on WP 24/7 non-stop editing. I will try to edit more when I have time.
Additional optional question from User:Phantomsteve
12. In your reply to Q1, you said "sorting Edit wars" was something that you would do as an admin. Could you explain how you would use the admin tools to sort these out and - just as importantly - when you would avoid using the tools to sort these out?
A: I would calmly and coolly asses the situation, ask both/all the users who are involved to stop edit warring. If thy continue I would either issue a 3RR or ask another admin for their opinion. If the users still edit war after or during the 3RR I would then decide whether or not I should ban the users from editing that page, or request the page be temporarily fully protected.
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
13 What's your take on IAR?
A As it says: if a rule prevents you from editing or improving WP then ignore it. But if a rule doesn't prevent you from editing or improving WP then you must obey it.
Additional optional questions from iBen
14. I noticed you have only 2,607 edits on your current account "Osarius" and 4 edits on your old account. However, the number of edits does not necessarily reflect the quality of work, please explain why you think you have enough experience to be an admin.
A:The 4 edits on my old account were from after I switched username as I edited my old userpage. As I have said before, when I log into WP everything I do, except from reading articles, is New Page Patrolling, reverting vandalism, tagging pages for speedy deletion (Yes, I know a few have been mistakes, but at the end of the day I'm only human, I'm sure most admins made the same mistakes at some point), welcoming new users, tagging pages if they need cleanup or other improvements etc. I have attempted to make some articles, such as Bamford Youth Club, and failed miserably, but some of my pages such as Bamford Church have done well, even if they are still only stubs. Okay, a few areas I work in might need some improvement on my part and I accept that. I did apply for Admin training... twice... the first time my request was removed because I had forgotten to visit the page, second time no-one responded to my request. I feel I have enough experience in what I am doing, as people have said I am level-headed, I can communicate well etc. A few people seem to think that the number of edits is important and yes, in some ways it is, but if the user has shown that they are interested and involved in a particular area of admin work for a long enough time and applied for adminship to help them do it they shouldn't be put down just because of their edit count.
Another Additional optional question from -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\
15. Back in December, you had a page that you moved from your userspace to the main article space. It was deleted under A7 (Bamford Youth Club). Can you explain why this was deleted.
A: Some articles fail, some articles make it. Bamford Youth Club was one of the ones that didn't make it. When I created that page, the only written proof that Bamford Youth Club existed was a Facebook fan page. Since then there is a website dedicated to the youth club (See here), a Twitter account for the youth club and an official Facebook page. It was tagged for CSD under A7, which is "...does not display the importance or signification..." which I accept, it didn't. As I have said before, creating is not my strong point... maintaining is which is why I decided to join the Lineside team at Peak Rail instead of the track gang team. Sure with a bit of practice and helpful guidance I'm sure I could create some good pages.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

  • By "issuing 3RRs" I'm guessing you mean warnings. ;)  f o x  (formerly garden) 22:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean warnings. Thanks for the clarification Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 23:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Good luck with this. Some more stuff in the nomination would help, though.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support editor is low on edits but seems to be level headed, I see no reason to think that he/she would abuse the mop. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: For future reference... I'm male :P Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 23:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Thanks for the clarification :) -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with RP459. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support One word people: AGF.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean you think the opposers are failing to assume good faith, CE? If not I don't quite follow you... Olaf Davis (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Faced with a user that has been blocked and since granted rollbacker rights, I see no reason not to support.--otherlleft 02:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Regarding this user might not have many edits and apparently little experience, I believe the candidate is ready for the request made as he (see support number 2 above for clarification that this user is male) seems to know what he is doing and I personally think its not about the experience. If every job needed experience then no-one would get anywhere (some people start their own businesses with little or no experience on how to do anything but they still seem to manage). A.Daniels (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as candidate already has Rollback, has received a barnstar, and as the lone block was back in 2008. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support: The "experience issue" gives me pause. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. He knows how to mop. He'll learn how to wax. We need more admins to clean the floor. Put him to work. He'll regret it soon enough. Ezratrumpet (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I like the transformation of editors when they improve over time. I see that here. I think He's not 100% there and Id like a bit more activity but hes been around for a while, but; just because we dont edit as much doesnt mean we dont read alot. I think the motivation is there. At anyrate, I support this editor. I do though acknowledge that my support is more a moral one though. Good luck with your future edits. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Experienced with CSD nominations. Would benefit being an admin. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support because I can trust him with the tools. All the points about experience, activity-level and mistakes are irrelevant to the deeper question of whether Osarius is trustworthy and will be coachable once he starts to use the admin tools.--Chaser (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - the "experience issue" doesn't matter at all to me. ugen64 (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I'm assuming good faith. If you needed help you'd always ask for it wouldn't you? Wikiwoohoo (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats right, if I ever needed a bit of help, or I became stuck or I wasn't sure about something I would ALWAYS go to another admin to help me sort it out. Wikipedia is not a 'war' between editors and admin, it's teamwork between us that bring WP together. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 20:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good answer! Wikiwoohoo (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Support, clearly not going to pass, but I like your enthusiasm. I'd listen to User:Glasscobra's advice down in the Oppose section though, your signature is a bit overly long and obnoxious. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose Sorry to be the first to oppose you, but I see very little past experience in areas he says he will be working in, such as WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, and WP:AN/I. However, since I am not an administrator yet, I cannot view deleted contributions, so I will change my vote if someone can verify that he has experience in WP:CSD. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate has approximately 200 deleted contributions (CSD-tagging) under this account, of which 50 were performed this month. Hope this helps, Mailer Diablo 00:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So 50 articles nominated for speedy deletion? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50 noms for this month, approx. 200 noms in total. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll change my vote to Neutral. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - I'm afraid I must place myself in this section as well - mostly based on a lack of experience in areas you express interest in working. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, Unfortunately. You're on the right track, but with only 12 edits to AIV and AIV listed as a area you wish to work in, I'm afraid I cannot support (AIV Is only one field of interest, I see only limited experience in other areas you wish to work as well). This, combined with a fairly low number of CSD taggings and general inactivity (sub 20 edits a month for most months of the past year) these past few months leads me to oppose. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 01:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 20 edits? I'm sure I've done a lot more than 20 in AIV. I have been using Huggle, WikiAlerter and Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool and I'm sure I've used each of those tools more than 20 times. As for only 20 edits a month, I have been busy at school and then college. Sorry to hear that you must oppose. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 01:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Osarius. You have made a grand total of 12 edits to AIV. I think you misunderstand me - I said that you have made less than 20 edits a month for most months this past year. Is that not correct? Or does X! need to fix his tool? -FASTILY (TALK) 01:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OH! To AIV... I see what you mean now. I have tried to revert vandalism without involving admins, only involving them when there has been a serious need to. Yes, it would be true that I have made less than 20 edits a month for most month of the past year, but does the 700 edits in January '09 and the 524 edits in December '09 kind of even it out a it? Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 01:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Again, lack of experience. I suggest waiting for several months and getting more involved in the areas noted above—what's the point of avoiding AIV when you want to be an admin? And I would like to see more activity each month, several hundred only sporadically does not "even it out" (it makes a large lump, actually).  fetchcomms☛ 01:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    AIV is not my only reason for requesting Adminship. Also I hardly see how you can say I have "lack of experience" when basically everything I do on Wikipedia is based on what I have put in my reasons. I also think that it is not the quantity of edits that matter, but the quality. If the user has shown that they have made helpful edits and not just made lots of small, almost insignificant edits then they should be judged on that. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 02:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is, I don't see very high quality edits. The issue has been raised by several others below; I'm not going to repeat the same thing. Nor do I feel confident supporting someone with less than, say, 3000 edits, because I cannot judge their overall performance as well as I could if the user had, say, 5000 or so. Now, this is certainly not set in stone, but from what I've seen, there have been quite a few poor taggings and not enough involvement in AfD.  fetchcomms☛ 19:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, primarily per overall lack of experience. Well under 3K edits in total (for me around 5K would typically be needed for support). With such a limited overall number of edits I would want to see at least one area of clear excellence, but that is not the case here. The mainspace contribution record is too limited. Very little in terms of article creation. I looked up a few articles created by the candidate and was not impressed: George Boothby is a stub in rather poor shape; Park Side railway station and Winteregg are very short and completely unreferenced stubs. I understand that article-writing may not be your strong suit, but really, you need to bring up the articles that you do create to a better shape. Most other mainspace contributions seem to consist in vandalism reverts, maintenance tags and minor edits (correcting misspellings and the like). Gnome work is fine, but I would need to see a great deal more of it, especially in the absence of substantial article-writing. Projectspace contrib record is also fairly limited. Only 125 edits total to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Speedy deletion tagging is also far from perfect. Among your CSD tags declined within last week are Student Choice high school (a degree granting institution) and CSU Buccaneers (NCAA Division I team). There are other signs showing that the candidate is not sufficiently experienced for the moment. E.g. you have uploaded a file File:Grütshalp.jpg without providing evidence of copyright permission. You apparently did not know the meaning of the abbreviation AIV. The first version of this RfA transculded by the candidate earlier today[1] was badly malformated and had to be untranscluded and then deleted. A good contributor but not ready for adminship yet. Nsk92 (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Nsk92. To otherleft - Rollback is handed out to people who have proven they can go a week or so without writing "poopy" on the hallway walls. Tan | 39 02:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, cynicism. I know there's plenty of good reason not to trust the people currently giving out rollback, but I still have faith. Besides, it gets taken away just as easily as it's given, and that would have given me more to consider.--otherlleft 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing like bitterly sarcastic cynical comments in an RfA to brighten the overall mood. Swarm(Talk) 11:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was absolutely nothing sarcastic about my comment. Tan | 39 14:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess cynicism is the correct word, in that case. Even more delightful. Swarm(Talk) 04:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not being cynical, either. It's also a good thing I have no interest in "delight"ing you. Thank you for your commentary, though, it was most helpful. Tan | 39 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Nsk92. This is an awful CSD tag, and was done less than 48 hours before this RFA. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose: this editor show little understanding of Wikipedia and these edits [2], [3] show that they are clearly not mature enough to be trusted with admin rights. Editor contribution records show limited experience of creating and editing artciles and no articles improved to GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: Not experienced enough. Maybe in six months. -WarthogDemon 05:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, but with moral support. I see a clearly willing and constructive contributor, but I just don't see enough experience to convince me the candidate has sufficient understanding of relevant policies. Blocks on IPs for example - troublesome ones really do get blocked for much longer than a few hours (many are static or in ranges whose ownership - eg schools - can be determined), which I would really expect a candidate with admin-quality experience to know -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    About the length of block you should put on IP addresses see WP:IPBLENGTH. I quote "Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires." Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 08:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What we want to ascertain here is your personal experience and understanding of policy in action, not your ability to quote from policy pages. The question asked about cases where what you have quoted is not appropriate (ie not "most" cases), and you didn't really answer that. You specifically say you're keen on anti-vandalism work, so I think it is important for you to be well-versed on this - When you revert vandalism, do you give warnings? Do you follow a level 4 warning with an AIV report? Do you follow-up such reports to see what happens to them? Do you ever investigate the block history of repeat IP vandals? What's the longest block you've seen? What were the reasons for it? I think you need to show a good bit more experience in this area before you're ready for admin, but I do see a good chance of a successful RfA once you've got that, hence my moral support -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I give warnings when I revert vandalism. I use Huggle for most of my reverting when I have time to use it and that automatically steps up the warnings and I thought it automatically made an AIV report when it got to the 4 level warning... obviously not which is why I shall manually produce a AIV reports in the future. I do investigate the block history of IP vandals. The longest block I've seen (apart from indefinite) was.. oh I've got to remember now... :P... it was about 5 years or so for persistent and heavy vandalism. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 09:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's great that you do all those things, and my advice is really that you carry on doing it, then try here again in the future. I don't know about Huggle, but I use Twinkle for reverting and warning, and though it will do AIV reports, you have to click a button and fill in a form manually (you need to explain your reason, for one thing) -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I use Twinkle too :D... I guess I'll use that part of the tool more often, I've not really explored it's functions in fear of clicking the wrong button... I guess I'll be a bit more adventurous. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 09:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, concerns about lack of experience. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose: Good contributor, just don't see enough experience to work in intended areas. I would definitely consider supporting down the line, though. Swarm(Talk) 11:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose"It is best to block the IP for no more than a few hours." From what I've seen, most schools have an IP address for a long time, even spanning 2 years or longer. In those cases a 6 month or 1 year block can be acceptable, rather than a 12 or 24 hour block. [4] and [5] (barely over a month ago) show that the user doesn't understand CSD criteria. Very few of user's manual edits contain edit summaries. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [6] Would this not be correct though? When I tagged it it did not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    However the artist had a page on wikipedia at that time, making it ineligible for A9. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:AGF. Also see WP:BELLY. That was probably tagged when I was using WikiAlerter, which is still in BETA development and only shows the criteria identity (Such as A9) unless you hover over the button which shows a very small description of what the criteria is. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I respect that it could be in error, I feel that you should have checked to see if the article exists (which would indicate notability), or even Google the name to see if the composer is notable. While I don't expect sysops to memorize CSD criteria, one should have a good idea of each criteria before getting the mop. My oppose stands. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Twinkle tip - Twinkle's CSD tool shows all A, G and R categories, with clear descriptions of each. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For a symphony by a composer as famous as Franz Schubert its potential importance is implied and does not have to be spelled out to avoid an A9 tag. Nsk92 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose due to lack of experience and overall inactivity. [ dotKuro ] [ talk ] [ contribs ] 16:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, I agree with other people's concerns who voted opposed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose concerns about experience and understanding of policy, as above. In particular, the answer to question #12 worries me -- an admin does not issue a ban on his/her own will. That is a community decision. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Fastily and Shirik. Please come back in a few months with more experience under your belt; I will then be more compelled to support. Airplaneman talk 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose – Not enough experience overall on Wikipedia. Just regurgitating information from policy pages does not mean you know policy very well. After some more time on Wikipedia (say ~5 or 6 months) you'll have the experience to know policy well enough that you don't have to copy what a policy says. But good work so far! I look forward to supporting you in the future. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per the candidate's lack of experience, especially in the areas he intends to work in, sporadic editing patterns, low edit summary percentage, and an insufficient understanding of policy. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Candidate just isn't experienced enough. I'd like to see probably another 1500-2500 edits, along with more edits in policy space. Reports like these, along with the general lack of edits to WP:AIV, suggest that the candidate needs a little more experience in dealing with vandals, which was stated to be one activity he wants to engage in. Further, the diffs raised by TheWeakWilled are both recent and very concerning, so I'd like to see some more CSD tagging as well. The answers to questions 9 and 12 are also concerning, and suggest unfortunate holes in the user's knowledge of policy. I'd just generally like to see more experience, which would essentially solve all of these issues. —LedgendGamer 00:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Would suggest Osarius get more involved in dispute resolution (edit wars) without the admin tools, to see that many disputes can be sorted through discussion rather than blocking. Try Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests first, and then Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. But read through a few cases first, to see how disputes are handled. SilkTork *YES! 00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Not enough experience, I don't think your a bad editor but you don't meet my minimum criteria. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose not because I would automatically oppose a candidate with 2558 edits but with this low number of edits I would wish to see more demonstration of experience and ability in admin areas. Only 109 edits in the wikipedia namespace is not sufficient to demonstate that you have had the chance to pick up the experience. I don't consider CSD tagging alone to be enough. I would expect evidence of a better more rounded understanding of XfD I don't even see evidence of one AfD nomination. I don't understand how someone can CSD tag 200 articles, new page patrol over 400, then never nominate an article for AfD. Polargeo (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Nsk92 and others. While I applaud the candidate's enthusiasm and wish him well in the future, candidates need to demonstrate more experience in admin-related areas. On a somewhat related note, I find the candidate's signature to be somewhat ostentatious and unnecessary, I'd suggest a reduction. GlassCobra 18:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What's my signature got to do with being an admin? This my own personal signature, it represents me, same as yours represents you. I'm not complaining about yours, don't complain about mine. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 11:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My signature, date not included, is approximately one-fifth the length of yours. As I said, I find that unnecessary. GlassCobra 15:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose I have to be blunt here. I don't think you have understanding of the policy. You nominated multiple articles for CSD recently that have failed. You had nominated a Userpage for CSD A7. And all your recent edits. Also there are a few AIV reports that have failed. And there has been a lack of other admin activities. Also, you have been off editing wikipedia for quite a bit during January (meaning that you have had no experience during that time). Sorry to have to oppose. (See User:MWOAP/RfA voting) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A factual clarification: the page you mention above was originally created in mainspace and the candidate tagged it A7 while it was still in mainspace. Then another user moved the page to userspace and after that removed the A7 tag. See the page-history here[7]. Nsk92 (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clearup, I still do hold my oppose vote though. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Far too green, a little too "keen". Badger Drink (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Not confident in the user's experience level. Plus poor edit summary usage, which is something I tend to be a stickler on. -- Ϫ 10:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Needs more experience and understanding of Wiki processes particularly in the fields of CSD. → AA (talk) — 16:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Has not answered my question despite plenty of time to respond. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Removed after question has been answered, but can't support at current time. Doc Quintana (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I have been too busy the past couple of days to answer your question. It has now been answered along with the other two posted. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 01:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - generally needs more experience overall, and needs to take more time reviewing CSD tags. Pepper∙piggle 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Too many concerns per above. Sorry to pile on, but you have a ways to go. I do thank you for the work for have done to date for Wikipedia. Jusdafax 09:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Oppose Per answer to Glass Cobra @23. Plutonium27 (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose One doesn't have to be an admin to help solve edit wars. BejinhanTalk 14:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per Fastily and Nsk92. The number of recent incorrect CSD tags makes me doubt whether Osarius would do a good job with the ability to delete pages, and the dearth of edits by the candidate to WP:AIV, an area in which he hopes to work, also gives me doubts. Given this RfA's tally, I would normally elect to vote in the "neutral" section to avoid piling on; however, Q15 compels me to oppose. The most prominent admin tools are the block, protect, and delete buttons, but admins also have the autoreviewer tool, which means articles and redirects they create are automatically marked patrolled when they are created. Just recently, Osarius created an article (Bamford Youth Club) which was correctly deleted under WP:CSD#A7; he also created another article, George Boothby, which has been in alarmingly terrible shape for some time now. I'm sorry to vote this way – it's nice to see that some vandals do reform – but I think it would be best if your new pages were still reviewed by other editors. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Inexperience + eagerness for adminship = worrisome. Townlake (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - You seem to be level headed and have the ability to communicate well, however I'm !voting neutral for now as I would have really preferred at least some introduction as opposed to just having your signature, I'm not entirely satisfied with the number of edits you have to the Wikipedia project space (I usually look for around 350+ from an RfA candidate) and I am somewhat concerned with you having been blocked in the past for vandalism. As I said, I'm !voting neutral for now but I will be watching over this RfA during its course and may change my !vote at a later date. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Ah yes... the block I had a few years ago. I got that when I was young, naive and new to the Wikiworld. Fortunately now I have since reformed and am now completely against vandalism (Just see the tools I use to fight vandalism now). You can see for yourself, no blocks or warnings since. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 23:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Remaining Neutral for this RfA. I don't oppose your candidacy Osarius but I don't feel I can support you this time round either. I have nothing against you as an editor but a bit more experience in the task areas you'd like to participate in as an Administrator over the coming months couldn't hurt. Look forward to lending my support in a future RfA. Regards, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I am unsure about the answers to the questions. Awaiting answer. Will provide detailed explanation upon questions answered. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 03:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Now opposed.[reply]
  2. Neutral Doesn't seem to be too bad for an admin, but the answer to Q8 was sloppy, as the content was copied from two or three articles. Minimac (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the answer to Q8 was all in my own words :) I don't do copy/paste. Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 10:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral leaning support. "It is best to block the IP for no more than a few hours." From what I've seen, most schools have an IP address for a long time, even spanning 2 years or longer. In those cases a 6 month or 1 year block can be acceptable, rather than a 12 or 24 hour block. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Move to oppose. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any reason why you suddenly decide to go from "Neutral leaning support" to "Oppose"? Osarius That's me! : Naggin' again? : What did I do?! 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, see what I posted in the oppose section. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Come back with more experience in the areas above and I will likely support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Lots of activity in WP:CSD, but very little in WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - not piling on, but That was probably tagged when I was using WikiAlerter, which is still in BETA development and only shows the criteria identity (see discussion under current oppose #12) isn't right for any editor, admin or otherwise. A user is ultimately responsible for his own edits, regardless of the tool used. Anyone who misuses rollback can have it removed; Huggle (rollback again) and Twinkle are treated similarly. That a tool is in beta is beside the point...if you find you've done something wrong, you do something about it, rather than trying to disclaim responsibility and blame the tool. Nobody expects perfection; most of us expect evidence of responsibility.  Frank  |  talk  22:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral to avoid piling-on. As Frank says, making a mistake is not a problem - but seeing it and correcting it is important. Blaming the tool is not an adequate response: firstly, most tools include a note saying that you are responsible for your actions; secondly I feel that a user who says "it wasn't really my fault" is unlikely to accept responsibility for any admin mistakes which they will make (and we all make mistakes), instead finding excuses. I would suggest that Osarius uses this RfA as a learning experience - and hope that I will see you at RfA in the future, when hopefully I will be able to support. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, also to avoid pile-on. You seem willing to learn and have coped well with this RfA, showing that you probably have the required temperament for admin work. However, I found your nom statement uninformative (for example, what does "sorting Edit wars" involve?) and some of your subsequent answers have been shaky. If you have an interest in anti-vandalism work, it might help to drop in on WP:AIV every now and then and follow the page history and related reports to see how different situations are treated (again for example, earlier I blocked an IP address for one year; per Boing! said Zebedee's oppose there are occasions when a few hours just won't cut it). Some article work would also be a big positive - perhaps trying to get one up to GA standard? Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 15:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I wasn't going to !vote on this (I think you'll do fine as an admin but do need a bit more under your belt) but have to weigh in with a thumbs down on your signature - way too long and the roller coaster makes me dizzy! --RegentsPark (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Osarius&oldid=1149834454"