Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OwenX

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

OwenX[edit]

Vote here (44/4/0) ending 01:52 October 7, 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

OwenX (talk · contribs) – OwenX is a great guy that he contributes all around Wikipedia. I often see him doing RC patrol, he's an active member in a few WikiProjects, and he has great community involvement. kate's tool has him at ~1800 edits (for those of you who care about editcountis), and his first contrib was in December of 04. He uses edit summaries an overwhelming majority of the time, and has plenty of wikipedia namespace edits. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Thank you for the nomination. Owen× ☎ 02:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, as nominator. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extreme Phroziac support! -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Even tells me the time when he'll be on RC patrol to help out! --HappyCamper 02:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. →Journalist >>talk<< 02:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Most certainly. -- Essjay · Talk 03:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Friday (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support CambridgeBayWeather 04:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, good editor. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, although the low number of edits given the amount of time he's been here is a little surprising. But I really liked his answer to the question about conflict resolution. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Yes, I haven't been very active until July. The vast majority my edits are from the last three months. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, a few contacts, always positive. rvv'd my user page with a rollback-like edit summary, tricking me into thinking he already was one. — brighterorange (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He probably has one of the fake rollback scripts. --Phroziac(talk) 18:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish...Sam's script doesn't work on my machine, for some reason. I use the standard text for the benefit of those using Derk's tool (myself included). CDVF automatically adds vandals reverted with this specific string to its temporary "blacklist". Owen× ☎ 19:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support! --Phroziac(talk) 18:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support; I see him on RC patrol; he does a great job of it and could benefit from the extra buttons. Everything looks good to me. Antandrus (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support great RC work, and NPOV AfD contribs. Only request that you review WP:CIVIL due to a few edit summaries like get with the program, buddy!. It's not an issue, per say, just some could find it offensive and become very defensive before they even look at your reasons or comments. Other than that, full support. ∞Who?¿? 19:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support: OwenX would make a great administrator. I was impressed on how he weighed in on the Synergy/DE Afd debate. On this issue, a particular user working as a marketing rep for a technology company was posting POV articles about her company and then refused to cooporate with other editors on creating an unbiased article. In a letter to the user's talk page, OwenX clearly explained the implications of that article and how it can be rewritten in a form that is acceptable to Wikipedian standards. His actions in this matter have given me confidence that he'll play a fair and consistant role in protecting Wikipedia from commercial exploitation. Solarusdude 20:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Fire[[User:FireFox|Fox] T C 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. -Splashtalk 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - ≈ jossi ≈ 21:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Pasboudin 22:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Solid user. Andre (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - 1800 edits is plenty enough to confirm that an editor is serious about improving Wikipedia. -- BD2412 talk 05:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I sadly disagree... while one may be serious about editing, this low level of editing does not show enough about user interaction and temperment. This user has yet to have any serious conflict... so what if they do after they've been given admin powers? Makes the situation much easier to just bitchslap someone you disagree with.  ALKIVAR™ 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support KHM03 14:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Great job on the RC patrol. Robert 16:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. 1800 edits is good enough for me. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 13:26, 1 Oct 2005 (CDT)
  24. EXTREME DEATH TO EDITCOUNTITIS SUPPORT!! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, damn editcountitis. Ral315 WS 00:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Furry Alien Support the above comment about his use of a specific string to add to the temporary "blacklist" impressed me more than his answers to the standard questions. Alf melmac 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Huhum, definitely. --Sn0wflake 02:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Joke137 15:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support have come across him several times and always found him accurate and helpful. Dlyons493 Talk 17:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Got me on the right track. Seems very helpful and nice.--Guitarist6987876 04:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support in hopes of a editcountitis vaccine. And because he'll be a good admin. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support --JAranda | yeah 23:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Seems to be knowledgeable and active. -- Curps 01:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support This is a rational person with an interest in the smooth functioning of Wikipedia: exactly what is needed in an admin. Chick Bowen 03:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Cool. JuntungWu 11:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, although I've had no personal interaction with Owen, by his edits he strikes me as a good person and a valuable editor. Shauri smile! 14:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. For all the good reasons cited above. I love the consistent use of edit summaries in every namespace, as they are an easy courtesy to provide for those still on dialup and those who don't want to load every single page to get a feel for what's changed. Unfocused 00:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely don't like the banner ad he's placed at the top of his talk page to draw attention to his ongoing RFA, even though it is phrased very neutrally. Even though it's not blatant electioneering, it still seems like poor judgement to me. Unfocused 16:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Banner ad removed. I'll admit, I'm probably pickier than most on things like that, but thank you for your consideration. Unfocused 17:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. A fine editor and plenty 'nuff of them. --hydnjo talk 03:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support is there a pill you can take for editcountis? --Rogerd 03:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Keep this article... Erm, I meant support! --Andylkl (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Carbonite | Talk 13:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Deryck C. 16:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. OwenX appears to be a friendly person, from what I can observe, but 1800 edits is just too green for me. I will gladly support him in the future once he has more experience should this first nomination fail. Silensor 16:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1800? Are you kidding? --Phroziac(talk) 18:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, been here for a long time, but only 1800 edits, that's way too little for being on wikipedia so long. I have over 1000 and I've been here for a few months. Maybe if they worked harder, in a few months I'd actually support. Private Butcher 19:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Durin's comment below: He's made approximately 1700 edits in the last 90 days. Just because a user has been registered for 9 months doesn't mean they've been editing at the same level of activity for that whole time. Ral315 WS 00:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose sadly not enough of an edit history yet to show user interaction conflicts, how will this person react to an in their face assholish vandal? or an ignorant newbie who trashes their "pet article"? Needs more time and more edits IMO.  ALKIVAR™ 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Too few edits, never have encountered this user. PedanticallySpeaking 17:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Neutral. Good person and good editor he is, I must say, but 2000 edits in 9 months is simply too few. Will reconsider if the nominee provides reason for that scarce editing frequency. Deryck C. 15:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC) switched to support.[reply]

Comments

  • A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:OwenX-Edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Average edits per day over last 90 days is 19 per day. Use of edit summaries is 96%, 100% over last 500 edits. 93% of user's edits are over the last 90 days. --Durin 14:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I would support, but have an active RfA and don't want to make it look odd. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No rule against voting on other RfA's while a candidate in your own - if you're inclined to support, then by all means you should. -- BD2412 talk 05:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

  • Additional question I would like to point out for the candidate:
    1. According to the edit count engine, you made only about 2000 edits in 9 months, which is a rather scarce number. Is there a reason for you to edit so scarcely? Or did you take a long wikibreak? If yes, from when to when?
    2. Also with reference to your current scarce editing frequency. Are you going to and by what rate are you going to increase your editing frequency in case you become a sysop?
      A. (to both quoestions) As I mentioned in my reply to Angr above, and as Durin was kind enough to demonstrate in his two comments and the chart he prepared, I wasn't very active until July, when I started taking on maintenance and administrative work on WP. About 1800 of my 1900 edits are from the last three months, for an average rate of 600+ edits a month—in line with other active editors/admins, as far as I can tell. Family, work, and social obligations permitting, I expect to maintain this level of contribution as an admin. Owen× ☎ 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. RC patrols would certainly be easier with a Rollback button, and the ability to Vprotect pages and block vandals when needed could come in handy. It will be nice to delete clear-cut Speedy articles rather than load the category. I would also help in trimming down the ever-growing AfD backlog.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I didn't write any major articles, but have a handful of smaller ones about various topics from Beer to Israeli companies. Most of my work are small edits: correcting factual errors, improving style or grammar, adding redirects, sorting categories, etc.
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 have been in a few edit conflicts, but nothing to get stressed about. In one case it was with an editor who was trying to promote a Futures trading system. I was trying to reach a consensus with him on a more general wording, but he chose to create a fork--a set of articles with his own version of things. I haven't seen him for a while here, but I joined a couple of editors working on merging his articles into the mainstream. In two other separate cases (Ethnic cleansing and Diaspora), an editor with an extreme POV was trying to use the article as their soapbox. Along with other regulars, we tried to find a common ground, but in both cases the editor dropped the issue. In one case (Tragedy of the commons) I reverted what I thought was an arbitrary blanking, only to face a rude editor who insisted on getting his way. I figured the change wasn't worth fighting over, and backed off. I wouldn't have done things any differently as an admin; if it's a conflict to which I am a side, I'd involve another admin and let them use their judgment. Generally, I would rather win someone over than defeat them.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/OwenX&oldid=1085556392"