Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oscarthecat 2: Difference between revisions

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

Oscarthecat

Ended 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oscarthecat (talk · contribs) – Oscarthecat has been contributing to Wikipedia since October of 2005. Since then, he has amassed over 5,500 edits, about 4,500 of them in the article namespace. Oscar is known for being very civil and relaxed, as you can see at Talk:Calvin and Hobbes both at the present and in archives. I nominated Oscar in March, unfortunately without success, but now I think he would make a truly extremely well qualified admin. Most that opposed said that they would support with time...I guess we'll see. - Mike 14:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted, many thanks for the nomination. --Oscarthecat 13:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I do a fair amount of recent changes patrol at the moment, for which the rollback admin feature would undoubtedly be useful, as would being able to act against vandals. I'd also continue to participate in afd discussions and eventually close off ones where reasonable concensus has been reached.

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

A: I haven't created many articles, but I've done quite a lot of restructuring and tidying up of articles, in an effort to get them into a state suitable for consideration as a Featured article. Such restructures/tidyups include Calvin and Hobbes, Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Nintendo Revolution. Recently, have been pleased with the progress made discussing the way forward with the Calvin and Hobbes article, in order to satisfy other contributers and at the same time follow WP:EL policy. I've done rather a lot of work on various "retro" gaming articles for games such as Manic Miner and some associated magazines like CRASH, Zzap!64, Retro Gamer and Your Sinclair.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've been involved in discussions over edit conflicts in the past, where I've found that starting a line of discussion with everyone concerned has definitely helped reach a consensus. Over at the Calvin and Hobbes article (I've done a lot of edits on this one), we'd reached a standstill with external links. I wanted to reduce the ever-growing list of fan site external links, others wanted to add to it. After much discussion we made use of references within the article, which referenced content of note within the fan sites (see Talk:Calvin_and_Hobbes#External links redux). By doing this, it became clear which fan sites had content of note. More discussion on there since has now started, where we're aiming for a concensus on how to reduce the content of the article by moving character profiles to other articles. Other than that, haven't been involved in any conflicts, either during my time as User:Oscarthecat or my anonymous edits (varying IP addresses) prior to that. Done some edits on Nuclear power which is sometimes tricky, given the POV balance needed on the page. Happy to say that my edits there get accepted, and not immediately reverted (article seems to be watched/edited by many people with very strong opinions for/against Nuclear).

Optional question from  Netsnipe  ►  16:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

4. I've noticed that this year you haven't really come across any substantial abusers in the form of persistent sock-puppeteers or long term abuse cases and you haven't shown any participation on the Administrators' noticeboards so far. Can you provide any examples where you've been challenged or have thoroughly investigated an abuse case? Do you think you are ready or experienced enough to deal with the darker side of Wikipedia should you be pushed to the breaking point one day?

A: I've been involved in the long-term abuse of the Juggernaut article (repeated edits by appears to be someone having an axe to grind against Tesco, see the Juggernaut talk page). Managed to open a dialog with all concerned, got contributions from others, eventually got an administrator involved to protect the page. Incidentally, I have used the Administrator noticeboards now and then, when absolutely necessary, mainly to make them aware of ongoing vandalism.[1][2][3] On whether I'm ready for the darker side of wikipedia, difficult to speculate on that, although I believe it wouldn't be a problem for me. --Oscarthecat 16:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Oscarthecat's edit count on the talk page
• See Oscarthecat's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count at talk page. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Have updated my signature - at the time I created it, the WP page said "There are several objections to having images in signatures. In particular, they are said to cause server slowdown, and to serve no purpose in an encyclopedia project other than vanity in addition to making pages more difficult to read. There have been some calls for banning them entirely; some people have objected to such a ban, arguing it would stifle creativity.". Needless to say, I took the "stifled creativity" approach. Looking at the page now, such images are actively discouraged, so my old friend the Union Flag has now been removed from my signature. --Oscarthecat 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I know this is less relevent, but thanks for bringing this to my attention too. I've removed the image from my sig as well. - Mike 16:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Final tally: (46/5/4)

Support

1. Strong Support as nominator. - Mike 14:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Merovingian - Talk 18:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Seems to be in order. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 18:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support np here Computerjoe's talk 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{19:16, 03 September 2006}
6. Support I'll support but I would like to see more use of edit summaries as there are quite a few gaps in the Wikispace edits. On that subject, there are no Wikispace edits at all in July of this year and almost all of April, although your edit history shows that you were active in these times. Are there any particular reasons why this is the case? (aeropagitica) 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Candidate meets my 2K and civility requirements. We need more level heads around here; the removal of the flag from his signature shows a willingness to be flexible. User's answers to the questions seem fine; user's WP:talk space edits are very low, but that was never one of my requirements. No dings, no big deal. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support— Main space edits:4778— Wikispace edits: 341— Blocked: never— Images: 76— Moves: 13— First recorded edit: 18 October 2005. Edited and commented on a longstanding NPOV conflict— Nuclear power — edits seem mildly partisan but completely sane and reasonable. Edited and commented on a potential NPOV conflict— List of civilian nuclear accidents — edits completely sane and reasonable (and well referenced). Ample evidence of recent change & newpage patrols. Edit summary usage for Oscarthecat: 99% for major edits and 99% for minor edits (based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits)— fixed that earlier problem. No evidence of imprudent or inappropriate behavior jumps out (other than the signature issue, which is fairly small change in light of the rest). Understands enough Wikipolicy that you can give him the delete/undelete/ban/unban powers—he can be trusted not to abuse them. Williamborg (Bill) 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per Williamborg (Bill) --Ageo020 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per nomination. Some P. Erson 23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support good editors make good admins abakharev 01:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. I would prefer to see more WP-space edits, but looks perfectly okay to me otherwise. I don't care about signatures — in fact, it's cool to see U.S.-flag guy nominate U.K.-flag guy (twice!) Grandmasterka 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per Grandmasterka. —Khoikhoi 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per nom. Michael 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Supported then, support now Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Bicolor cat solidarity support per nom and consistent with my RfA standards. Joe 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - Williamborg summed it all up very nicely! - Glen 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support I see nothing wrong, I believe tools will be used and not abused. Yanksox 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    Lol, I see I had an edit conflict with you! -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

21. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support 4,500 edits! This guy deserves this! (Don'tblockme 09:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
23. Support - no reservations here. Metamagician3000 11:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support, the user in question has undoubtedly met my qualifications, which don't really exhist.  Daniel_123  ►  14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, couldn't find any particularly troubling edits, has satisfactory experience. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support.We can trust this guy to do well as admin. --Nishkid64 16:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Looks like a strong user, plus he's a cat. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support - Iolakana•T 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, because I see no compelling reason not to. I suggest you increase your involvement in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk spaces, but that's not going to make oppose. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 21:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Would ideally like more evidence of how you'd behave in a difficult situation, but you are clearly already acting as an administrator and are contributing in a positive manner. The Land 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Committed, dedicated editor. Zaxem 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support -- Tawker 04:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support not many user talk/talk edits, especially for an RC patroller, but he seems level-headed. I would also like to see an answer to Netsnipe's AfD question below, but I'll support pending that answer. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 05:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support - good contributor. --Ixfd64 08:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. RFerreira 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Solid user with a solid record, no significant incidents. Best of luck. Themindset 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per above. Solid user. —Jared Hunt September 5, 2006, 21:07 (UTC)
41. Support per nom _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 02:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
42. SupportAppears to be a quality user, would make good admin. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 19:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support A good user with a good track record.-- danntm ^T _C 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per comments above. Good user, no issues. Newyorkbrad 16:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support I give you the support, your track record shows you have what it takes. FireSpike 16:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Slightly weak answers, leaning towards weak support however your generous main space edit count gives you a full support from me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose WP:SIG - remove the image please. – Chacor 15:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this into account. – Chacor 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - project and project talk space edits are VERY low, and the image in the signature —Mets501 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose - Oscarthecat has enough edits in (main) to show dedication. But along Mets501's concerns, I'm concerned with the lack of edits he's had in the project/-talk space in his time here. Anyone wanting to be administrator really needs to get some experience keeping track of what's going on around the place on the noticeboards. Most of his AFDs also appear to have been single line votes. Oscar: are there any AFD nominations you could point out that show considerable research on your part? --  Netsnipe  ►  14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose. Few major edits apparent in the past month and relatively low percentage at article talk pages suggests not only a lack of significant edits but also a lack of engagement with the community over content building. Espresso Addict 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Netsnipe - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose shows lack of dedication to the community behind the project and the process of gathering consensus with low WP/Talk edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKMask (talk • contribs)

Neutral

1. Sig problem solved. Based on my old criteria for an admin, would likely gain support but I think I'll go neutral. – Chacor 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral - worried about an overuse of fair use images in edit history, but besides that no other worries. (and for the record, I see nothing wrong with the flag in the sig...) --T-rex 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Nuetral - leaning t'wards support-- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral - (leaning toward oppose). I'm torn. On one hand the quality of normal edits is great and I want to AGF. On the other hand though, I agree with some of the opposers, specifically dealing with the amount and quality of Wikipedia namespace edits. Having looked over some of them myself, especially the AfD votes, I'm concerned with single line voting. If the user can provide evidence satisfactory to Netsnipe's concerns, then my vote can be assumed to be a support (if I don't update it). In that case I may still have additional concerns, but not enough to prevent supporting. -- RM 03:45, 9 September 2006 (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.