Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Okiefromokla

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erik the Red 2 (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 20 July 2008 (→‎Oppose: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Okiefromokla

Voice your opinion (talk page) (38/1/1); Scheduled to end 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla (talk · contribs) - I submit myself to the community with humility so that I may be considered for one of its most humbling privileges. During my last 15 months of continual editing, I've had the immense pleasure of assisting newbies and established editors in any way possible, and it is in that spirit this request is made. After 6,000 contributions and nearly 2 years participating in XfDs, naming conventions, featured content discussions, vandalism protection, an arbcom debate, and collaborating extensively in friendly discussions and controversial subjects, I feel my experience and knowledge has made this request the next logical step in my desire to better serve the project. As explained here, I have had two accounts with the same name due to a password debacle in November 2007; the edit count above is a combination of these two accounts.

I am grateful for this opportunity and look forward to the opinions of the community. Thanks to everyone who chooses to participate. Okiefromokla questions? 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept, of course :) Okiefromokla questions? 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Sporadically throughout my time on Wikipeda, I’ve taken part in deletion discussions and have formed a confidently firm grasp of deletion criteria, so I plan to help with XfDs — albiet cautiously at first. I am, by far, most experienced with fighting vandalism and have managed vandals with firm resolve and borderline vandals with a strict policy of assuming good faith until the last possible moment. I've been a regular visitor to AIV and will spend much of my time there. Handling speedy deletions and requests for unblock are also high on my priority list. Okiefromokla questions? 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: There are disputes, discussions and deliberation at every turn on Wikipedia, but the purpose of the encyclopedia rests with its articles, and I take pride that my priority has always been the no-drama, no-nonsense collaboration and writing process that is poured into every great article. For me, the highlights of my “wiki career” are, without doubt, the two featured articles to which I have contributed the most: Oklahoma and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Okiefromokla questions? 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have certainly been involved in disputes during my time here, but I believe I have handled these with professional poise, understanding, and a cool head. One of my most notable disputes has been an issue regarding conspiracy theories relating to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that lasted several months. The case involved a dozen editors and went to the Mediation Cabal and Arbcom. While heated and frustrating to many editors, I am proud to say that I handled it with rationality and understanding, remaining calm and professional both before and during formal mediation while relying on diffs and specific points of policy rather than personal attacks, anger, or overreactions. I have had no other disputes comparable to this one, and certainly hope that anyone who has disagreed with me felt that they were treated with the greatest respect. I feel I have set a high standard in collaboration and disputes, and hope to continue this into my adminship as one of my foremost guiding principles. Okiefromokla questions? 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Icewedge
4. I assume you have read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, of those poor arguments, which arguments do you feel are the poorest types and which out are, of the types of arguments listed, least bad?
That's a good question. "Just a vote" would be the obvious weakest argument in an XfD. As an administrator, "votes" such as these (without reasoning) are taken with a grain of salt for obvious reasons. Aside from that, personal opinions are the weakest arguments. It is my absolute belief that deletion policy must be followed to the letter, and Wikipedia has a very coherent set of guidelines. When determining consensus in an XfD, I will certainly take with a grain of salt any argument that does not adequately represent or invoke deletion criteria. As for the second part of your question, it is truly hard to pick one of these arguments that would be the "least bad." I certainly believe that a Google Test has merit, although it should not be used exclusively to determine notability. Okiefromokla questions? 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from User:TaborL
5. What do you think of when people view self noms as a hunger for power?
A. I think they have a valid point. However, on the same accord, I don't think this argument should be made blindly to all self nomination candidates. Creating the world's largest database of knowledge is a noble task that attracts editors who realize that adminship is not a position of power, but a position of duty and service and one that requires diligence and selflessness. I believe it is possible that some self-noms are simply eager to contribute in different and substantial ways to this project, especially if they have proven themselves as trustworthy within the community. Okiefromokla questions? 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from xenocidic

6. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.
A: As a general rule of thumb, I will not review an unblock request to a user that I have blocked, with the exception of an obvious disruptive use of the unblock template. If the unblock request is legitimate, I will let it stand for another (uninvolved) administrator. This particular case is somewhat borderline, although it is certainly not hard to figure due to the fact that this user has obviously not proven he intends to contribute constructively, having vandalized after his lone constructive edit and after his second final warning in five days. However, in this situation, I would probably play it safe and give another admin time to review the unblock request. If I were that other admin, I would certainly deny the request due to the reasons I stated above. One week is not a big deal, and there is absolutely no valid reason to cut short such a relatively brief block under these circumstances. Okiefromokla questions? 02:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

  • Is the toolserver functioning for anyone else? Rudget (logs) 21:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As of right now as I type this, it is for me. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for me. So#Why 21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. — Realist2 (Speak) 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently only the "www"-subdomain is down. Without it, it works: see here. So#Why 21:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • God, my question is a convoluted mess. Does anyone else understand it or should I retract it? - Icewedge (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's maybe a little ungainly but I understood it fine, I think it's a good question. ~ mazca t | c 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the breakdown for the previous account, for ease of convenience. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Naerii 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support I will keep it short, I have looked through some contributions and I think this user has done a good job, writing in articles and fighting vandalism, not focusing too much on either one. The Arbitration-debate posted seems to indicate that this is a civil user, not really into personal war. His edit-summary-statistics are impressive (100%, although we have to consider that he has used this account only for 8 months now it is still very good). I will review more tomorrow if time permits but I wanted to have my vote on record for now. I say "weak" now because I also see that this user makes some newbie mistakes, for example having to edit the last change he did to fix errors which could be prevented by previewing (like he did on this nomination where he did 5 changes within 15 minutes). So#Why 22:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes. I shouldn't have done this running on a few hours of sleep :) Okiefromokla questions? 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing, also the answers (I like the answer to question 5) I decided to strike the "weak". So#Why 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support no problems noted from a look through your contributions, some good AfD arguments and well-chosen reports to AIV seem to suggest you know what you're doing. By the way, my complements on your self-nom statement, it expounds your good points so enthusiastically it's worthy of a politician. ;) ~ mazca t | c 22:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support While I do see a few things that I'm not crazy about, I don't see anything that would stop me from supporting. User appears to be civil, trustworthy and knowledgeable enough for the tools. faithless (speak) 22:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Mazca, with all due respect, if I saw a user like a politician, I would immediately oppose that user. bibliomaniac15 23:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but his nomination statement was easily confirmed by reference to his contributions. Don't you wish all politicians had a "contribution history" button you could click? ~ mazca t | c 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I see no problems and you show you're aware you need to ease into areas you're unfamiliar with. --Rodhullandemu 23:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support tabor-drop me a line 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Great recent interactions with Okiefromokla. Honest, communicative, and experienced. Will make a good admin. Acalamari 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I support this nomination because there's no real reason not to do so. S. Dean Jameson 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, shows a good grasp of policy eg diff and the ability to deal with controversial subjects in a calm and polite manner eg diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support  Channel ®   00:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Nothing that rings any alarm bells, and a distinct impression of "thoughtful". Should use the mop well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Would like a tad more experience, but I see lots of good admin work coming from this user. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Good content contributor. miranda 00:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support rootology (T) 01:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak support per my guidelines on how I !vote and the fact thatdig into Okie's history... but have an overall favorable impression of him from my few interactions with him.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Excellent article writer. The quality of the Oklahoma article has always impressed me, and I have never witnessed any incivility from the candidate. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak support - No problems in your record, nice edit count, won't abuse tools. I was concerned that you didn't have enough experience with controversial articles and I'm still not 100% convinced that you have experience with consensus building or disputes (I'm aware of the 9/11 stuff). I was leaning towards a neutral vote but the support of User:Balloonman and User:Rodhullandemu has tipped me. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - I'm sufficiently convinced that whatever areas the user is inexperienced in will be approached with caution and diligence, as a quick look of their contributions showed that same cautiousness. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 02:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support intelligent, reasonably knowledgeable. - Icewedge (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support - Per this amongst other reasons. I think this user will make a fine administrator, and see no reason not to trust with the tools. Landon1980 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - From what I recall of that mediation, he probably did a better job than me ;-) (It was a long time ago, sorry! <cringe>) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - no good reason to oppose, you seem like you have a good attitude to deletion discussions and dispute resolution. Terraxos (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Writes articles (zomg). —Giggy 05:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - a solid editor with a sensible attitude, will be just the sort of admin we need more of. nancy (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support net benefit to the project.Gazimoff WriteRead 11:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Another nice suprise of a self nom. Per Nancy. Good luck! --Cameron* 11:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per all of the above comments. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support an extremely polite, civil editor who also contributes well in the mainspace. I would have no doubts trusting this guy with the tools whatsoever. - Toon05 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support mainly per Giggy. Article writing = win. =D weburiedoursecretsinthepark 13:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support looks a goodie. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per userpage, i.e. proud of articles canddiate has worked on and has received support in the form of barnstars from multiple members of the community. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Weak Support — support, because the candidate knows not to decline an unblock request that resulted from their own block, but weak because he seems reluctant to offer the user a {{second chance}}. –xeno (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! I feel like I missed an answer on a test :) That is a very good question; new admins who plan to deal with vandalism need to be tested with situations such as these. To be honest, it didn't occur to me to mention the second chance template. I do, however, welcome blocked vandals to prove their willingness to contribute constructively, but was more focused on the issue of blocking vs. unblocking for the purpose of the question. In these situations, where there is even a chance that the user wants to come around, the second chance template is certainly a good thing to use. But unblocking as a direct response to that user's request would have not been prudent, as I mentioned in my answer. Okiefromokla questions? 19:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. The question is left intentionally vague, for obvious reasons. On the assurance that you would work more with the vandal-slash-potential-contributor to allow them to prove themselves, I've struck the "weak" part of my support. –xeno (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Seems fine. Epbr123 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I'm smiling. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. All interactions that I have had with this user have been wholly positive. <joke>Plus, we need more administrators from Oklahoma!</joke> —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Boomer! HiDrNick! 21:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Also for a poor Merle Haggard impersonation. C'mon, don't just do it halfway! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended discussion regarding this oppose moved to the talk page. –xeno (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC) This oppose moved to top to preserve numbering[reply]
    Weak oppose - Not quite enough experience in antivandalism work: granted I see a lot of reversions and warnings, but having 14 edits to AIV does not make you a regular visitor. You also express speedy deletion work as being high on your priority list as per question one, but you have very little experience in this area as you have a total of seven deleted edits. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize. I forgot about the other account. Still appears to be close to the 14 AIV edits (maybe more, but not more than 22 total), but it brings the total in speedy deletion up to 92 deleted edits, which is still not very much considering you intend to be very active there. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do admit that speedy is an area in which I could have more experience. If this passes, I would engage in this area cautiously at first. I do, however, feel confident in my experience and knowledge of speedy deletion criteria, which is why I do wish to participate there. Regarding AIV, I believe you're right — I do have more than 14 edits there, considering my previous account. However, I stand by my experience in vandal fighting. I've had no mishaps or misjudgment in this area and, at least in my opinion, have accumulated much experience. I would make a reasonable guess that I've accumulated anti-vandal reverts well into triple figures, though I've worked hard to keep a balance with true contributions to articles. Thanks for your input! Okiefromokla questions? 23:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I felt uncomfortable opposing you in the first place, and I'll take your word for it that you'll be cautious in areas where you've had less experience. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose You say you will be spending a lot of time at AIV, where you have been a "regular visitor", though I count one edit to AIV in your last 500. Article building work is good, yet you also say you are by far most experience in vandal fighting, and still made this diff to an RfA. Overall a good editor, but I'm not ready to support. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input. I would like to clarify, though. "Most experienced in vandal fighting" was a comparison to my involvement in deletion discussions, as I mentioned in answer #1. Regarding my post to J.delanoy's RfA: I debated for a while doing this because I am in fact still engaged in my own RfA, but felt as an impartial observer that a user with 90% vandal fighting and >10% article writing was not quite ready. I disliked doing that, but I had a strong opinion that I thought was relevant and felt it necessary to express independent of this candidacy. I hope I have already addressed some of the first part of your concern in the response to Scetoaux above, but even with this in mind, I certainly respect your point. Okiefromokla questions? 20:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to add that if participating in another current RfA is viewed at all in a negative light, I sincerely apologize. Okiefromokla questions? 20:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the fact that the RfA is current. It could have been from a five years ago and it wouldn't have made a difference. It's great that you can manage getting involved in and RfA while yours is under way. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Great start, but a little inexperienced for me. I'd consider nominating in the future, but as of now, that's a tad redundant seeing as this is likely to pass. Rudget (logs) 10:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Okiefromokla&oldid=226880639"