Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OhanaUnited

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

OhanaUnited

Final (51/21/7); Originally scheduled to end 06:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) - OhanaUnited is a user I came across some time ago, and decided to wait a bit to see if he would be good as an admin. I can't find anything wrong with this user, so I decided to nominate him. He's got a nice balance of edits everywhere, and does a lot of work on the environment section of wikipedia. Portal:Environment and Portal:Sustainable development are now feautred thanks to the efforts of Ohana, and his efforts at WP:GAN and WP:WPBIO can't go unnoticed either. This is clearly a sensible user who won't abuse the tools, and he will make a fine admin. Wizardman 18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Wizardman for nominating me as well as Firsfron for being my admin coach. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am very busy with university studies this week so if you decide to ask optional question(s), please give me sufficient time to answer them. OhanaUnited^{Talk page}

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: I will be focusing on Featured portals because the current admin in-charged of closing discussions, CJ, is withdrawing his activities in Wikipedia (according to his userpage). There is no admin to take care of featured portals. I always feel that featured portals are overlooked by many editors. I hope that by gaining the tools, I can assist in the operation of promotion as well as delisting Portals to uphold the standards.

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

A: My main focus is portals. As stated by Wizardman, I assisted Portal:Sustainable development. I also created Portal:Environment which now both of these portals are featured portals. In addition to portals, I was the co-ordinator of WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive. My most important project was GAN backlog elimination drive Summer 2007. I started this drive in the hope of reducing the GAN backlogs. It lasted one month and the result was drammatic. The drive cut the amount of backlog by a half.[1] In WikiProject Environment, I co-ordinate the Environmental Record Task Force which aims to expand environmental topics and maintaining NPOV at the same time. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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 just had to deal with a POV-pushing editor few days ago. He tried to push his POV in MapleStory and Runescape. When he got blocked, he created sockpuppets and started vandalizing the 2 articles mentioned above (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive107#Abusive sockpuppets). Eventually he got blocked, but it sure gave me some stress (and to the community that edits those 2 Wikipedia pages).

Another one that gave me a lot of stress comes from the end of the Biography Summer Assessment Drive. BrokenSphere was eligible to receive the Biography Barnstar Award because he assessed over 5000 articles. He insisted on getting all the barnstars for reaching each milestone (1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 5000 articles). Me and other editors explained to BrokenSphere that in real life, you don't get all the rewards for reaching each milestone. I provided an example. I said "In Olympics 100m sprint, will you get gold, silver, and bronze medal all together just because you are the quickest to reach the finish line? I don't see any real life scenarios that rewards its recipients like what you describe." At the end, we resolved by giving out all the barnstars that this editor is eligible to receive, as well as any other editor can request to get all the barnstars they eligible for.

Optional question from Hiberniantears

4.Specifically, how would you use the admin tools? This does not have to be all encompassing, but I just want to get an idea of what you would be doing when first granted the mop. Hiberniantears 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I will be looking for users who try to push POV with multiple accounts in Game articles. It is very common to see Player X complaining about how "Game A is bad and you should try Game B instead". Going back to the case of the sockpuppet in question #3. If I had the mop, I would be able to block him to prevent the damage done by that editor 2 weeks before filing a report at WP:AN requesting to block him. I will also block users who vandalize on these articles, though to a less extent.

Follow up question to #4 from Hiberniantears Thank you for your quick reply. Just one follow up to your response. Would you use the mop to block a user with whom you are engaged in an edit conflict on a games related article? Hiberniantears 19:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will let another admin (or maybe more than 1) and tell them the situation. Let them figure out if it's a good-faith edit or not. I believe that integrity is an important part in Wikipedia and I am constantly aware of potential conflict of interest. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Another optional question from Hdt83

5. How do you interpret WP:IAR (Ignore all rules)?

A: IAR allows us to open up new ideas that we never thought of. The whole idea about Wikipedia is about collaboration. To speak of IAR is to speak about be bold. Be bold is just another policy that reinstates IAR. IAR and BB reminds us that we should follow rules because of their spirit, not their exact wordings. As long as you have good reasons and won't disrupt, you should go ahead to improve anything.

Clarifications I believe that as editors, we need to use common sense. We have to realize that there are times when it is appropriate to be bold and ignore the rules when the result is for the betterment of the project. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give specific examples, or in other ways demonstrate your knowledge of appropriate IAR usage? — H₂O —  00:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

IAR is used in a case-by-case situation and I feel that it's inappropriate to describe in details without an actual scenario. Do you want to provide a scenario? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Krator

6. You note some of your best contributions are portal pages. Suppose a very reliable source (Developer, System Admin) would write that effectively all visits portal pages get are by the people editing them, meaning no one would be reading your work. Would you still think these are your best contributions? In more general terms, does the value you ascribe to your contributions depend on whether they are useful to others or not?

A: In my opinion, quality weights higher than quantity. Quality work is always quality work, regardless if they're visited frequently or not. There are many Wikipedias avaiable in other languages. Some of them have very few articles and users comparing with English Wikipedia, yet they deserve a place in Wikipedia.

Optional questions by Mr.Z-man - Please answer the following questions as if you were an admin.

7. Someone requests semi-protection of an article about a major recent event for vandalism by anonymous users. Looking at the history of the page, there are many edits by anonymous users, both bad and good, over the past 6 days. What do you do and why?

A: I first look at what kind of topic the article is about. If it's a very popular topic, for example: Water, then it may not be wise to protect the page just to lock out anonymous users. Protection should be placed on main page and pages that indicate a heavy and continous vandalism.

8. While reviewing new pages, you come across one about a living person that makes a valid assertion of notability and is balanced; it includes both good and bad things about the subject. The article has no sources. What do you do and why?

A: According to the policy, biographies about a living person must be NPOV, vertifiable, and contains no OR. Since it doesn't have any source, I will remove it immediately and ask the user who provided these information to provide high quality reference.

Optional question from MONGO

9. ...You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?

A: I will look at what kind of block it is. If it's something like 3RR then I will agree with the block because it provides a cool-down period for this editor. If I really have to contest with the that admin's action, I will contact that particular admin to see what's the reason behind his/her action. If I agree with this admin's reasoning, I might go for RFC to look for outside opinions.

Please review unblock policy...an RFC wouldn't be necessary I don't think unless this was an ongoing problem with that administrator. The issue is whether you woudl revert a block place by another admin without consulting him/her first.--MONGO 23:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Spawn Man

10: How do you feel about your admin coach not supporting your RfA (Choosing to vote neutral)? And why do you think he's done this? Had you discussed being nominated earlier and had he thought it was a bad idea or anything?

A: I haven't contacted my admin coach, Firsfron, since the end of August (~ 3 months ago) and a nomination was not discussed at that time. The most recent conversation with him was after I got nominated by Wizardman. I decided to let Firsfron know that I got nominated. I think he voted neutral because unfortunately, he didn't feel my answer towards that question to be satisifcatory.

General comments

• See OhanaUnited's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for OhanaUnited: OhanaUnited (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Strong Support - I have encountered this user more than once (particularly in the POV-pushing on Runescape and Maplestory mentioned above), and I would be very happy if he gained access to the tools. Responsible, hard-working and frankly, no reason not to! DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, per Wizardman (talk · contribs)'s great nom. Two featured portals is indeed an impressive feat. Good luck to you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
3. Support - impressive achievements, active user. Now you're thinking with portals. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
4. My one edit for today. Support as nom. Wizardman 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Certainly. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, no concerns. You do realise you don't need to be an admin to list / delist portals, though, right? Neil ☎ 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong Support. My time around OU have been very positive, and I think he deserves this. I can't see him misusing the powers he'd gain. Only one potential problem I've seen was a bit of a jump on Daruno (I think) on the Runescape Talk, but we already knew he was a puppet, so not concerned. Hope this passes, Ohana! --Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 15:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —added by Mario Sonicboom
8. Support. Everyone will find the admin tools handy at some point, even if blocking and deletion will not be a focus. I trust this user.--ragesoss 15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. A strong candidate who could use the tools to support article-building project work. Majoreditor 16:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
10. I couldn't possibly oppose a Wizardman nomination. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Not a perfect candidate, but no problems or concerns. Has done a sufficient number and variety of edits, as well as vandal-fighting. We need more admins who can translate, who can work on Canadian articles, and who can create templates (see {{User:OhanaUnited/Userboxes/Protect Environment}}), so he fits the bill. Bearian 17:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Knowledgeable and trustworthy. VanTucky ^Talk 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - sensible editor and featured portal work. Addhoc 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Suport - is a good editor, and has very good edits in the portal and article namespace. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Thanks for taking the time to field my questions. I think you fall under the category of someone who would not use the tools with great frequency, so I just wanted to make sure you had an understanding of process. In addition to scanning your contributions, I followed the string on your talk page and Wizardman's talk page regarding your preparations to complete this RfA, and you appear to be a pretty thoughtful person, who I seriously doubt would abuse any extra abilities. Best of luck! Hiberniantears 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support because UofT is the place to be...Go UT, Go UT, Go....Go UT, Go UT, Go...woot ...but seriously, a good editor and I would definitely give OhanaUnited the tools. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - I've worked beside Ohana in the GA project for some time now. I trust him not to abuse the tools. Should make a fine admin. Lara❤Love 20:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Everything I have seen from Ohana is great. As far as I know, there are absolutely no things that would be worth opposing over. Captain panda 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support I have had something of a heated discussion with Ohana in the past related to the delisting of Victoria Cross (Canada) as a GA. Ohana remained cool throughout and the discussion was very constructive in the end, with the VC for Canada article now an FA. At the time i had reservations regarding Ohana's communication skills and his lack of following due process. Yet i really do think that these have been adressed and that the whole incident was actually very constructive. I think he has the requisite skills to be an admin and so i support his nomination. Woodym555 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. Great work in the GA project. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Good user, No reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 23:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Strong support - good work at GAC shows that he understands how to analyse NPOV, RS, V, WEASEL, PEACOCK and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    Support (BTW, feel free to ignore Mikka. He/she posts the same thing to every RfA he opposes.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kscottbailey (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

25. Support per multiple reasons already listed. tosh²^(talk) 02:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
26. Support per all the reasons above. A great editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
27. Discussion under Oppose isn't convincing, and I am convinced that Ohana will use the tools well. ~ Sebi 04:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. my interactions with this user have been strong and I am confident that Ohana will use the tools correctly. SorryGuy 04:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - don't really agree with those who oppose. User seems well qualified. Jauerback 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
30. Support User is well qualified and very trustworthy. Generally a good Wikipedian - • The Giant Puffin • 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
31. A very good Wikipedian indeed. Daniel 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Another solid contributor, we need more editors like you! Phgao 02:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. One of the most sensible and level-headed users at MfD and elsewhere. Oppose votes are highly unconvincing. Walton^One 09:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    Distinguishing between policies and guidelines isn't important anymore? Dekimasuよ! 02:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

34. Support Good 'pedia infrastructure development. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
35. Support I've gone back and forth through the opposes below, from respected members of the community, but I really don't see them having sufficent weight to balance the excllent and diverse contribution levels from this candidate. I don't see any issues here, and I'm happy to give my support. Pedro :  Chat  12:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    Weak Support. I definitely take note that Lara supported above, and defended from criticism. My extremely subjective knock is that every time I've run into Ohana, the newbie-ness and eagerness to become an admin has shone through. Also don't see strong need for admin tools; this may indicate a strong desire for them... Have you been lurking the more important discussion pages, etc.? If you get the mop (looks like you will) then please do not be WP:BOLD until you've listened to other admins, read all the admin training pages repeatedly, and lurked discussions about blocking etc. for a nontrivial amount of time. Listen and learn. Learn esp. from others (I saw your reply above suggesting that you would). End weak support statement. --Ling.Nut 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    Further: Change to Oppose; see below. Sorry. --Ling.Nut 14:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for the comments, I will definitely learn from other admins (like Wizardman and Firsfron) before I use my tools. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    The concerns brought up here are not major enough for me not to oppose.--SJP 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral.

36. Strong Support: Can't see any good reason to oppose, after all, this is for a position of janitor not CEO of Wikipedia. IvoShandor 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
37. Support - good answers to my questions. Mr.Z-man 21:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
38. Support--MONGO 23:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
39. No reason to oppose. Acalamari 02:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Have encountered this user on numerous occasions. Strong work on Toronto's bid for Wikimania 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfect Proposal (talk • contribs)
41. Support east.718 at 18:32, 11/3/2007
42. Support I saw an oppose vote below about a nonstandard interpretation of IAR, but I don't think that has much practical significance. I've seen OhanaUnited at Editor review, and I think he's an experienced editor who can be trusted with +sysop. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
43. Weak support I had to think for a while to decide whether to support or go neutral, and in the end I decided that Ohana should deserve the benefit of the doubt despite the shaky ground here. Some of the concerns below are certainly valid, but they probably wouldn't interfere much with Ohana's performance with the admin tools. Besides, user is trustworthy. Húsönd 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
44. Support: 1. Clear need for the tools -- stepping forward to fill a vacuum in the ongoing management of the protected Wikipedia:Featured portals page. 2. 1000 mainspace edits is more than offset by his making large, high quality edits. From his work on featured portals and Good Article development and review, he clear knows encyclopedia development better than many candidates with 5000 mainspace edits. 3. I respectfully disagree with many of the oppose comments. Ohana's stumbling on WP:IAR doesn't worry me -- it's a slippery policy to tangibly define beyond just simply parroting the one sentence policy itself; Ohana clearly seems to have the requisite common sense it calls for using. As for poor answers on the "block vs. ban" question, I think even many admins are confused especially since indefinite blocks can evolve into bans per WP:INDEF. Finally, mixing up whether WP:BOLD is a policy or guideline is not a showstopper for me; I trust Ohana will not block anyone for their Failure To Be Bold. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - seems reasonable and sensible. I don't think they'll go crazy. Tim Vickers 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
46. Support Per Wizardman. 'Nuff said. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Epbr123 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
48. Support - yeah, you need to brush up on Q5, but I can see what you mean, and it's not exactly the easiest question I've ever seen in an RFA. No causes for concern, civil, good policy understanding with no faults that can't be fixed with experience (block/ban can be tricky at times, but I feel he understands it). Demonstrated ability to collaborate and resolve disputes. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Though there are some weaknesses, should be able to wield the tools effectively in the area for which he requested them. We cannot all be major article builders, and that need not be a prerequisite for the mop. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
50. SupportAs Dlohcierekim said, there are a few weaknesses, but looks overall to be a good editor. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 02:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
51. Support. Absolutely. AshLin 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Insufficient content-building experience. only 25% of ~4000 edits are in the main space. Too early to entrust the power to judge other contributors. `'Míkka 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   [Civil comment asking the user to reconsider their approach to RfA and adminship and maybe Wikipedia in general] — Dorftrottel⁠ 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   [Not so civil comment asking the user to stop trolling. I am entitled to my opinion, based on experience, not on a whim.] `'Míkka 18:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   I tend to edit articles in big sections, and get a few edit counts, rather than editing each sub-headings and get a lot of edit counts. My content building are significant in portals, which are not counted towards mainspace. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'd like to point out that Ohana has contributed to two portals, taking them to featured status. He was also the coordinator of the Summer Backlog Elimination Drive for Wikiproject Good articles, he's one of a handful of GA reviewers invited to participate in GA sweeps (only the most trusted reviewers have been asked to join at this point), he has also put hundreds of edits into Wikiproject Biography. And he translates articles for Wikipedia:Translation. I think if one were to look past the numbers and actually look at his contributions, it would be painfully clear that content building is not an issue here. Lara❤Love 20:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   What! Some times I agree with Mikka's user is hardly into content building but this is completely not the case here. Ohana is one of the main contributors at WikiProject Good articles as stated above, he helps maintain the quality of these articles as well. Content maintaining is as important as content building. T Rex | talk 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

   Answer to question 1 gives me the impression the user won't be carrying out any administrative tasks and they haven't read much at all about being an admin. They also accepted the nomination despite being "very busy with university studies".--Snakese 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   I think you need to read the whole sentence. I said "I am very busy with university studies this week". Although we welcome every member in the community to vote in RfA, I would like to ask how Snakese found RfA so easily when he created this account 3 days ago.[2] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   User talk:Professional Deletionist redirects to User talk:Snakese. Professional Deletionist created his account Oct 23, was an editor on the RuneScape articles, and has since been indef blocked. I've indented his vote, but he continues to revert. Lara❤Love 21:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   The account was blocked only for the WP:U violation, instead of changing the Username, appears they created an account with a non violating name and redirected the old account to the current one. Therefore no reason to indent the vote. Dureo 03:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

   My mistake. I apologize. >< Lara❤Love 05:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

   The user who cast this oppose has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet. Oppose indented accordingly. Acalamari 17:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Answer to Q1 is kind of bizarre, and the answer to Q5 demonstrates a poor understanding of IAR, which in my opinion is the last shred of sane policy we've got here. east.718 at 05:54, 11/1/2007

2. Oppose. Undoubtedly a good editor, and I've had good experiences with him before, but per his answer to question 5 he doesn't seem to understand things like the difference between a policy and a guideline. Particularly given the apparent fuzziness on policy, I'd rather not see him go looking for socks and doling out blocks without a second opinion, something he seems likely to do per question 4. And I give a bit of a pass to any conflicts that nominees here show us openly, but it is really not ever necessary to argue with anyone about barnstar eligibility. Even if the other editor was wrong per the way the barnstar descriptions were written, what was the harm in letting him have the barnstars, especially if it would encourage further participation? Dekimasuよ! 09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

   In the follow up to question #4, I said that I will find more than 1 additional admin for 2nd opinion. In fact, I have asked for opinions for this kind of situation. (See User talk:CaptainVindaloo#Request for help) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

   The follow-up question was intended to deal specificially with cases in which you are actively involved in editing the article. If you will always ask for second opinions and ask other admins to take action, your response doesn't really answer the original question about how you will use the tools. Anyway, it appears that your RfA is likely to pass, so I'd strongly encourage you to review the differences between guidelines and policies. It will cause you lots of headaches if you block an editor for coming into conflict with a guideline. Dekimasuよ! 03:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

3. weak oppose Nominee seems to be a decent sort, but only 1000 edits in main space, and many recent ones are minor cleanup or vandal-reversion (randomly checked). I don't see a need for the tools, nor do I have sufficient confidence that nominee will not abuse the tools. Perhaps in a few month I'll think otherwise. Argyriou (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

   Vandalism reversion seems to show a definite need for the tools, and edit counts aren't really helpful or accurate way to assess someone's contribution history, nor is it really a good reason to oppose a candidate.IvoShandor 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

   Edit count, when checked for quality, is a perfectly good way to assess someone's contribution history, and lack on contributions to encyclopedia-writing is a perfectly good reason to oppose a candidate. Argyriou (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose - I was seriously going to support as all my encounters with you have been extremely pleasant, but reading your answers to the questions all I can say is "WTF?" Q5's answer makes no sense whatsoever! Q1 show's no need for the tools (This shows that the editor may not even know what admins really do) and the answer to Mongo's question is worrysome as well. I don't feel the candidate has sufficiant skills or knowledge of the area to be a helpful admin - sure he would abuse the tools, but he is almost ceratinly going to make mistakes and stuff up his adminship duties because I feel he hasn't the faintest idea of what it entails. Also, his edits to the Wikipedia namespace only confirm this (His highest edit level is talk?! Nearly half go to this venture). as well as accepting this nom whilst saying he'll be doing exams etc, I don't feel he's ready yet. Sorry man, but oppose for now. Cheers, Spawn Man 06:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

   The diff provided by Fang Aili is also worrysome. [3]. Spawn Man 06:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Q5 (IAR) answer. — H₂O —  09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

   I suppose I should expand on this, as per the candidate's request. Spamming my MSN asking why I'm "doing so much to make the RfA fail" (paraphrase) doesn't put me in the best mood. Nor does labeling all of my comments "revenge comments" becuase of my failed RfA(s). I don't think I need to say that they aren't revenge comments. And I won't even go into the canvassing issues, because technically none of this is valid as it's all off-wiki. But since you got my MSN details onwiki, it's an onwiki matter for me, it's annoyed the hell out of me, and I'm opposing your RfA. *waits to be MSN-blocked* — H₂O —  02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

6. I'm not really sure this user knows what being an administrator is. Q1 doesn't actually mention the use of admin tools. (Also, Q5 is somewhat awkward.) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 12:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Answers to questions fail to demonstrate competence, appear to demonstrate severe confusion. I'm concerned also about the user's ability to communicate, as the answer to Q.5 does border on nonsense. Xoloz 14:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose I'm sorry; your own admin coach went neutral on you. --Ling.Nut 14:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
9. oppose Did not say what they were using admin tools for (blocking, deleting, etc) Stupid2 08:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

   Is that your best reason that you can provide? Everyone will have the need once in a while to use the tools as demonstrated in my question 3. If an admin gains the tools but doesn't use it, no harm is done. As long as the admin used the tools at least once, then it's beneficial to the community. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

   Not always - not understanding the difference between a block and a ban & hey presto! you've used your admin tools once to incorrectly suspend someone from wikipedia. I think it is a very good reason to oppose. Spawn Man 01:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

   Question -- at a practical level, what is the significance of "block" vs. "ban" for a new admin such as OhanaUnited? He can't "ban" someone but he can indefinitely "block" them. However, indefinite blocking is a serious step which I doubt many admins, new or old, would take lightly. So I don't see how this question really has significance other than an admin incorrectly writing "indefinitely banned" instead of "indefinitely blocked" in a block log. In any event, per WP:INDEF, one admin's "indefinite block" eventually segues into a de facto community "ban" if not reversed. I think the real concern for any RfA should be the possibility of an admin inappropriately indefinitely blocking someone, not the semantics. Am I missing something in all this? --A. B. ^(talk) 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

   Ohana's Admin Coach didn't even support this RfA - That's all I need to know. Spawn Man 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose. I normally think that "doesn't show need for the tools" is a frivolous reason to oppose, but this user can't articulate any need or even understanding of the tools. It might just be poor communication. In that case I think Xoloz's observation applies. Cool Hand Luke 05:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose, per my comments in the neutral section, and concerns regarding his own admin coach being "neutral" at this RfA. This is the first time I've ever switched from an initial support to an oppose, and it was not done lightly. K. Scott Bailey 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Fang Aili below. It doesn't help that your own admin coach is neutral.  :(  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Your answer to question 9 was very weak. Review policy for a while, and come back ready for questions. Best of luck anyway - Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Reluctant oppose. Is a good editor and a valued contributor, but the answers to the questions (especially Q7 and Q9) seem to reveal an unclear understanding of policies and administrator tasks. As featured portal director though, I would enthusiastically support! henrik•talk 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Maturity concerns, and I remind you that adminship is not a trophy. Comments such as this one -- yes, I too remember that horror on the "assessment drive", where people completely ignorant of topics were insisting that it was somehow acceptable to assess articles "start" "stub" -- with bots no less. Opus has been a valued contributor here, and a prolific article writer, for one quarter of your life, and you vow to "oppose him strongly" should he ever dare to run for adminship, because he dared to oppose that odious tagging project. No, no, I'm sorry, I can never support for adminship anyone with this attitude. Antandrus (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    This diff was from 5 months ago, he's a better user now than then. Plus that was quite a stressful time for all us assessors, myself included. Ohana would probably be able to explain better than I though. Wizardman 00:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    That editor instead of asking for re-evaluation on certain articles that he wrote, he decided to remove the templates instead. He furthur thinks he was right in removing the templates because he disagrees the idea of that project. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

16. Oppose Has not demonstrated a good understanding of policy and process. TigerShark 01:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose Per your answer to questions 7 and 9. I'm not sure if you understand protection policy, and you should read WP:CDB. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    Question 7 was asked by Mr.Z-man and question 9 was asked by MONGO. Both of them support me after I answered their questions.[4][5] I couldn't understand how you oppose me when the person who asked those questions deemed my answers to be good. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    Simple, I interpreted the answers differently than the two you mentioned. I respect MONGO as an editor, but that doesn't mean we read your answer the same way. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

18. Must oppose at this time, question 9, and this diff are most unsettling to me, knowledge of guidelines and policies at al. Dureo 02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose essentially as Xoloz and Cool Hand Luke. Even as I do not expect that the Ohana should abuse the tools, and even as I recognize that he is possessed generally of a civil demeanor and sound judgment, I am not certain that he knows, relative to policy, whereof he does not know (his answers, unfortunately, are not particularly allaying), such that he might inadvertently misuse the tools, or that he is optimally capable of communicating with other editors whom he might encounter qua admin; I cannot, then, conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive, and I must—albeit with much regret, since the candidate is, by all accounts, a fine Wikipedian—oppose. Joe 06:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    I think your vote was casted after it is ended (see the time it's scheduled to close). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    By three minutes. And technically, an RFA isn't considered "closed" until a 'crat closes it. Anyone can still vote I think. SashaCall 06:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    But as someone who supposedly knows the rules, you'd know that already right?<insert doubt here><insert doubt here/> Spawn Man 07:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

20. Weak oppose Some pretty serious issues brought up by others, and the answers to the questions are pretty unsatisfactory. GlassCobra 06:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Per Xoloz. The answers don't inspire confidence.--chaser - t 07:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

You don't need the mop and bucket to promote featured portals, or other featured items (FA excepted). Just ask Spebi (talk · contribs), who's promoted numerous featured lists. — H₂O —  08:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC) To oppose.

It's always better to have a few spare hands, agree? And supporter ragesoss was right, "Everyone will find the admin tools handy at some point, even if blocking and deletion will not be a focus." OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your answer to Q1 doesn't clearly explain how you are going to use the block, protect or delete buttons. Addhoc 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC) switch to support

See question #3 and 4. I would be able to use the tools to prevent POV-pushing editors. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Addhoc 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, any user in good standing who isn't directly involved with the list in question can promote a list... there isn't an official list director like there is for FAs. ~ Sebi 04:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be.. *wink* *point* DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to have Ohana as the FPoC director, but I don't think he needs the admin tools to do so. — H₂O —  07:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral. Can't see how admin tools are necessary here. I have no objections to any alleged lack of encyclopedia-writing experience. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Ohana has clearly done a lot of great work here, but I'm not convinced he has a firm understanding of policy or what admins do. A few days ago he incorrectly described the difference between a block and a ban [6], even though this is something that Firsfron clearly explained during his admin coaching (User:OhanaUnited/Admin_coaching#Policy_discussion). This might just be a difficulty with the English language, but Ohana also seems to think that he needs to be an admin to promote portals, lists, and such, which is not the case. In my mind this adds up to an unclear understanding of the admin role. Please try again in a few months. I would love to support but cannot at this time. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral Fang Aili pretty much summed up what I wanted to say in one. Where I can see that you are a strong and experienced editor, there are some concerns that I can't overlook. For instance, I would be wary of promoting until I am sure that the candidate has a sure understanding of admin policy, and when admin can use their tools or not. I'd love to support you in a few months time. Keep up your good work though. Cheers- CattleGirl ^talk 02:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral per Fang Aili. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral No solid reason to object, but no solid reason to support either. With regards to not understandingly fully the roles of an admin, he would need some time to sort it all out. Enthusiasm being visibly strong can be a double-edged sword; thus, I stand neutral. Pasonia 18:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral (now leaning oppose, per some further investigation) I rarely oppose good editors, and I won't do so here. However, Q5 concerns me greatly. It may boil down to a language issue, and this is why I'm not opposing, but I can not support at this time. Regretfully, K. Scott Bailey 02:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

6. Neutral (leaning towards oppose) I almost never oppose good editors but the answers to q5 and q7 worry me. The answers seem to avoid answering the question at hand and is confusing to read. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Though no one of the concerns brought up by the people who are opposing you are good enough for me to vote neutral on you, all of them together cause enough concern for me not to support. Sorry:(--SJP 01:00, 7 November 2007 (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.