Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Featured articles, Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
"WP:RFX" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for expansion.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Vanamonde93 43 6 5 88 10:10, 2 September 2016 5 days, 11 hours no report
Oshwah 2 162 46 17 78 16:06, 29 August 2016 1 days, 17 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 22:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection and deleting pages.

About RfA and its process

Latest RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
RegistryKey2 RfA Withdrawn 9 Aug 2016 21 34 10 38
Steel1943 RfA Withdrawn 11 Jul 2016 19 12 1 61
BU Rob13 RfA Successful 9 Jul 2016 155 30 6 84
Xaosflux RfB Successful 9 Jul 2016 173 1 1 99
Jo-Jo Eumerus RfA Successful 5 Jul 2016 168 3 1 98
Checkingfax RfA WP:SNOW 1 Jul 2016 4 25 0 14
Anarchyte RfA Withdrawn 16 Jun 2016 81 53 18 60

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start a RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details and Template:Centralized discussion.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account. There is, however, a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. Also forbidden are multi-part questions which are disguised as one question, but in effect are really more than one question and violate the two-question limit. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, you may wish to read Advice for RfA voters.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most, requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which may feel like "baiting"), consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you would reply. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".
A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per WP:NOTNOW can be tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#G6. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found here.
If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 22:40:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Vanamonde93

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (43/6/5); Scheduled to end 10:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) – Folks, let me present Vanamonde93, who has been editing continuously since August 2013. With around 24000 edits under their belt (>50% to mainspace), they've improved 6 articles to Good Article status (one of which is at FAC now) as well as 27 DYKs. Vanamonde93 has impressed me as calm and level-headed, and more importantly has told me they'll help in some areas that could do with some extra admin hands on deck. So discuss away. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

co-nomination

Vanamonde93 has been around for three years and I've seen them navigate their way to becoming an even-keeled editor who brings a level-headed-ness to the editing process. I waded through the discussion on the three GA nominations of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and was impressed by the way Vanamonde93 has learned and progressed as an editor from one nom to the next. The BJP is the current ruling party in India and attempting to bring it to GA status is bound to be contentious, but Vanamonde stuck through three rounds of GA discussions, learning to keep calm and to insist on fealty toward sources. As a result, we have a better article on this important subject. Through the long discussion content, I saw Vanamonde93 emerge as a tenacious but straightforward and no nonsense editor (see, for example the comments here and here ). All these are important attributes for an admin and I have no doubt that they will make an excellent one. --regentspark (comment) 20:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with many thanks to Casliber and RegentsPark for their kind words. Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have had substantial experience doing anti-vandalism work, primarily with STiki; so to begin with I would like to work with AIV and RFPP, to help shorten response times there as much as possible. I have also participated in a few deletion discussions, and intend to help out closing AfDs. Since this is a contentious area, I plan to begin with very clear-cut cases, and work my way towards closing debates more difficult to call. Deleting expired PRODs is another area I would feel comfortable working in, and I would like to do some work with CSD, although I intend to take it slow there as well. Finally, I would like to help out at DYK. I don't intend to participate at ANI, although I might look in at ANEW, given that it is a forum where a slow response-time can increase disruption. I have no intentions of participating at UAA immediately either simply because I have no experience there, although in the long run I hope to help out with administrative backlog wherever it arises.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are on the content side; I have brought six articles to Good Article status after substantially or completely rewriting them. The GA I am most proud of is The Left Hand of Darkness, which I got through the review process after completely rewriting it, and which is currently listed at Featured Article Candidates. I am especially happy about this article because it is not a topic on which I have received any training in real life. In addition, I have written 27 DYKs, of which my favorite is probably Evolution of snake venom, an obscure but fascinating topic, and my first DYK nomination. I have also done a fair amount of content work on articles related to the political history of South Asia and Latin America, areas which do not receive nearly enough attention. The approximately 8000 recent changes classifications that I have performed on STiki and other anti-vandalism tools are another valuable contribution, of a slightly different nature.
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 been in several conflicts on Wikipedia, particularly in my first two years, and they have been a continuous learning experience. There are a couple of reasons for this; first, when I began editing actively here, I approached articles with the single-minded goal of bringing them into line with some source that I had read, and I didn't care much about the consequences when I believed that I was right. This approach got me into multiple conflicts, and earned me a 24-hour block for edit-warring in early 2014. The second reason is that among other topics, I edit pages related to South Asian politics, an area with a number of sockpuppets, SPAs, and otherwise difficult editors. I have had substantial interactions with both the India Against Corruption and the OccultZone sockfarms (although I didn't know it at the time), and this certainly increased the number of conflicts I was party to.
Perhaps my worst conflict was a series of disputes on the talk page of Bharatiya Janata Party (see talk archives 2-7) and its associated GA review pages. These also proved to be my greatest learning experiences. The content disputes taught me to be completely rigorous about WP:V and WP:NPOV. The second GA review of that article had to be failed due to a brief edit-war, which truly cured me of performing blind reverts. I did eventually, succeed in getting that article through the GA process, but only after learning to edit collaboratively, listen to the concerns of other editors, and build consensus for changes to the article, all within the framework of policy.
Since that failed GA review 18 months ago, I have continued to edit contentious topics while working collaboratively with other folks and managing to avoid any serious conflicts. One key part of this has been learning to live with content that I would much rather change immediately, and participating in discussion instead; another part has been realizing that most good-faith editors have something of value to contribute to a discussion, even (or especially) when I disagree with them, and therefore learning to listen to arguments with an open mind. In addition to writing content in conflict-ridden areas, I have participated in a number of content reviews, including my first FAC, and these lessons have stood me in good stead.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Lourdes
4. Please explain how do you see these edits as good faith edits (all of which you reverted in the past handful of days). I am requesting this clarification to understand whether you have an idea of what is and what is not vandalism. Thanks. Here you go: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Comment-You marked most of the vandalizing edits as good faith edits. Why? Is it auto done by Stki or you mark them? Thanks VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 12:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) STiKi documentation explicitly recommends marking any reverts of edits that are not obviously vandalism as reverts of good-faith edits. SSTflyer 13:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
A: My apologies for the delay, folks, I expected to be back online 2 hours ago. Part of the answer to this question lies in the way STiki currently functions and is formatted. Blatant vandalism may be classified as "vandalism" at the click of a button. However, all other problematic edits fall under the "AGF" umbrella. These include "removal of content," "tests," "NPOV violations," etc. Classifying an edit as a "test", for example, will undo the edit with the edit-summary "Reverted good faith edit": but STiki then allows me to send the user a message, detailing what the problem was with their edit. I always make use of this function. Thus for every test I revert, I send the user a message letting them know that tests are disruptive, and should be carried out in the sandbox: for instance, this revert was accompanied by this message. The "good faith revert" part of the edit summary might be a little misleading in this circumstance.
The other part of the answer is in how I understand and classify vandalism versus other types of inappropriate edits. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, without regard to our core policies. When I come across an edit such as this or this, vandalism is certainly a possible diagnosis. Yet it is also possible that the user in question is testing their ability to edit, without intent to disrupt. In my experience, test edits frequently take the form of adding random strings of characters, adding a name, or removing arbitrary chunks of text/markup. If an edit could be reasonably interpreted as a test, I assume good faith, mark it as a test, and send a message explaining why tests in the mainspace are inappropriate. Not all of the diffs above are for test edits, but in each case, I sent a message explaining the problem: and in all but one instance, the behavior was not repeated. Sending a specific message in this manner seems to me to be less bitey than marking any problematic edits "vandalism." Needless to say, had any of those individuals shown an awareness of the fact that they were disrupting Wikipedia (misleading edit-summaries, for instance, or profanity) I would have marked them as "vandalism" instead. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


Additional question from VarunFEB2003
5. How do you differentiate between Wikipedia Policies and Wikipedia Guidelines? What is(are) the difference(s) you find? VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 12:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
A:I'm not sure I can do a better job of explaining the difference than this, but let me try to rephrase it in my own language. Policies are core principles that are generally accepted, and should be followed under all normal circumstances: the exceptions to a policy are likely to be very few and far in between. For core policies like WP:BLP or WP:NPOV, for instance, I find it very difficult to envision a situation in which they do not apply. While there isn't really a bright line between policies and guidelines, guidelines are written in the form of generic best-practices, and so might have wider exceptions, and might require more of a common sense approach. For instance, WP:RS is a guideline describing (among other things) what constitutes a reliable source: but there are a number of sources which superficially meet the guideline, but which are known to not, in fact, be reliable. Both policies and guidelines are supported by consensus. However, consensus may change over time, and so there may be times when a documented policy or guideline does not accurately reflect consensus, or comes in the way of improving Wikipedia: which is why WP:IAR exists. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from SSTflyer
6. How would you have closed these two AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt-right?
A: Halo: There are seven people, including the nominator, arguing to delete/redirect: with the exception of the "plausible search term" issue, both these !votes are saying that the song was not, at that point, notable, because there is no evidence of meeting WP:NSONGS. Eight argue to keep, so numerically near 50-50. With respect to the strength of the arguments, which is what really matters; there seem to be a few trends among the "keeps". There is an "WP:ILIKEIT" vote, a few arguing based on Beyonce's obvious notability, a few saying that the song is charting on iTunes, and a few people arguing that the single will certainly be notable after its release. In all honesty, these are all rather poor arguments. An artist being notable does not, in and of itself, make a song notable, as explained at Wikipedia:Notability (music) (and there's no substantive difference in the [9] old version of the guideline). iTunes is not, AFAIK, a chart that would grant notability. Finally, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All of these are points made by the "delete" folks. So, taken in sum, the arguments to delete are a lot stronger than the arguments to keep, except for one thing: the AfD was held just days before the song was released. Given that last bit of information, and assuming I'm closing before the song is released, I would have a few options. I could delete, and have the article recreated in 48 hours, which would be rather silly. I could relist, which is rather a copout, because we know which way the decision would go post-release. On the balance, I think I would close as no consensus, which in effect is a "keep", and monitor the article to make sure it was speedily brought into shape following the release of the song. Post-release, most of the votes stop being factually correct, and the song becomes obviously notable: so I could relist the discussion to determine consensus under the new circumstances, or I could simply close as keep, given the obvious notability; although this last option would come close to being a supervote, in this exceptional case it might be justified in order to save everybody time and trouble.
Alt-right: To me, this is actually a little more straightforward. The statements that there isn't very much coverage are clearly off the mark. The arguments that say that the page fails NPOV and/or WP:SYNTH, I would treat as generally weak because AfD is not meant for cleanup; that said, there are some pages that are so unsuitable for the mainspace that it would be better to delete and start over, and this is an argument that can be persuasive. The old version of the article [10], is bad, but not, in my view, beyond salvaging, and many folks in the AfD make this point, too. The fact that the coverage is not very coherent is not a very strong argument, because although the sources are rather scattered, they are clearly describing the same general topic, and vary on the details. This discrepancy is something that should be addressed in the article, but not, in my view, a reason to delete. In sum, I would close as keep. I might, however, mention in the closing summary that if bringing the article into line with NPOV proves impossible in the near future, then a WP:TNT argument would be much more persuasive. In this particular case, though, I would be more likely to leave an opinion myself, and if I had time try to clean the page up, than try to close the discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from GeneralizationsAreBad
7. How would you respond to the POV allegations below? Please note that I do not personally endorse or reject said allegations. I am merely providing a means for the candidate to answer them.
A: GAB, I understand where the question is coming from. To begin with, let me state that although I do not identify with any of the faiths below, I do not bear them any ill-will, whether Hinduism, or Islam, or any faith you care to name. Likewise, I hold neither of those national identities, and am not "against" either of them. What I do believe in are our core notions of neutrality and verifiability, and the useful guideline about reliable sources. These standards sometimes require us to present text that is at odds with an orthodox interpretation of a certain faith, or political ideology. For instance, in the comment highlighted by Regentspark, I proposed an alternative wording for the lead of Muhammad. By no stretch of imagination can my proposal be called "Islamist"; if anything, I suspect my proposal would be distasteful to orthodox Islam. Or to take another example: here and here, I removed very similar synthesis from the pages Anti-Pakistan sentiment and Anti-Indian sentiment. There were similar problems with the content, and I treated them symmetrically; but an editor viewing only one of those edits might naturally be suspicious; and efforts such as this, which involved removing OR of a POV nature, result in accusations of the "opposite" POV. In general, what I have done is to do my best to make articles reflect reliable sources and WP:DUE, and I think this fact may be seen in my content creation work. I have done this on any articles related to religion, politics, or national identity that I have come across: and if and when I have been pointed out to have missed something or misinterpreted something, I have done my best to make good. Honestly, beyond a point I cannot do better than to ask folks to dig into the relevant articles, and the source material, and see if I am not borne out.
Finally, I would like to add that I am fully aware of WP:INVOLVED. I have done my best to remain neutral on the pages I have edited: but in any case, I would never venture to take an administrative action there, should I gain the tools. Likewise, I would never take an administrative action against a user with whom I have had a dispute. I hope I have covered the question: if there any specific follow-up queries, I would welcome them. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Joshua Jonathan
8. You have taken a strong stance in India-related articles, strongly opposing nationalistic pov's. Does that make you a defender of Wiki's neutrality, or an administrator who's taking sides? And how, as an administrator, will you deal with editors who think you're not quelified for this job, given your strong positions? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I have done my best to follow NPOV, and to fix soapboxing or other content of a POV nature, wherever I edit. On pages where nationalistic sentiments run high, this has meant arguing against Wikipedia being used to further such sentiments, and yes, I have frequently taken a strong stance in such arguments, because NPOV is a core policy. Indian nationalism, however, is far from the only POV that I have come in conflict with, or have opposed, as I have explained above, I have also come into conflict with POV-pushing of other kinds, and I can give more examples, if necessary. I will continue my content work regardless of the result of this RfA, and I will continue doing my best to follow NPOV on what has aptly been described as a "minefield" below. I want to reiterate, though, that I am aware of WP:INVOLVED. If I have "taken sides" in a dispute as an editor, then I would not use admin tools in the same dispute. Similarly, editors who have doubts about me because of previous disputes can rest easy: I would not use admin tools in connection with them. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Kingsindian
9. Could you answer the oppose vote of CFredkin below? Were you indeed following their contributions and if so, why? (There's nothing wrong with following people's contributions in general).
A:One of my areas of interest is US politics, and though I have not done as much work there as in other areas, I monitor a number of prominent pages. I believe that CFredkin and I first interacted on the Chris Christie page, though I might be wrong; but after interacting with them I watchlisted their talk, as (I believe) they did mine. This meant that they got involved in a dispute that spilled onto their talk page, I was aware of it. A couple of months prior to the 2014 US elections, the number of disputes grew large enough that I took a look at some of them: and frequently, what I found concerned me enough that I participated in some of these content disputes. Since this RfA is primarily about my record, I don't really want to get into a deep analysis of another editor's behavior or post a number of diffs here about them, though I will if asked for more detail. Suffice to say that virtually all of CFredkin's edits at the time seemed to take the form of removing seemingly negative information from the bios of certain politicians, and adding it to others; and I was far from the only person to notice this, as can be seen here (during the relevant period). So, for a period of a couple of months, I looked at their contributions a few times, reverted them occasionally, and reported them to ANEW once, resulting in a warning. The number of disputes declined over time, and so eventually I stopped checking anything. Looking back now, 2 years down the road, my behavior was not ideal on two counts. When I came across problematic edits, I should have tried to fix the relevant content rather than simply revert. Second, my understanding of BLP was not as strong as it is today, and so I was less demanding with respect to reliable sources than I should have been. That said, I still feel that I was not wrong in finding something problematic about the edits I examined, and I have certainly never pursued CFredkin (or anyone else) with the intent of annoying them or disrupting their work. I should also add that our interactions are inflated by my subscription to the feedback request service for political RfCs, which are a dime a dozen on US politics pages. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
2nd question from VarunFEB2003
10. As User:Joshua Jonathan said you have a strong stance in India-related articles and you stated that you will never use admin tools to support/oppose personal ideas. If you gain admin rights will you be open to recall (obviously based on large community consensus) if a large part of the community finds your attitude defamatory to a (any) country and/or religion? Secondly another thing that came up was your use of StKi. Labeling massive large scale vandalism as good - faith edits is not expected from anyone leave aside admins. Limitations of StKi's talk notice delivery should be no reason for labeling vandalism as good - faith edits. Differentiating WP:VD and Good faith edits are 2 of the most important elements for a good admin. The question is will you change your current usage of StKi for reverting vandalism if you are crowned a sysop (or otherwise also). You can use WP:VPT to get an extra feature added to StKi (if possible) but labeling it as good-faith edits is.....unacceptable. I got recently warned for labeling a reversion of a good and correct edit as vandalism then doesn't the opposite apply to? Thanks and Regards. VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 16:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
A:
Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
11. You reverted an Editor here in the Arnab Goswami article and restored a comment The video was eventually proved to be doctored stating as a fact that the video aired by Arnab Goswami in Times Now showing Kanhaiya Kumar shouting slogans has been proved to be faked or doctored.The only source for this accusation in the article is the piece by Siddharth Varadarajan in his online portal The Wire Here. (Noting that it was Siddharth Varadarajan is the person who accused Arnab Goswami of airing a doctored video in The Wire and which claims that it is proven).
Can you explain how your edit does not violate WP:BLP policy and do you think that The Wire is a Reliable source particularly for a serious accusation on Arnab Goswami?(without any other third source and only one Primary source)  ?
(Note It has been removed by another Editor during this RFA as a WP:BLP violation.
A:

Discussion


Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Support- Seems a good candidate to me. Only thing wrong is that the user was previously blocked for edit warring, but surely lessons have been learned from it. Class455 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. support as nominator. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - good content record and enough background experience with WP's dusty byways that I have confidence they'd be fine with janitorial tools. This is also one of those cliched occasions where one can say "I thought they were already an admin." -- Euryalus (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Certainly: an excellent contributor with plenty of experience and a clear need for the tools. Great content portfolio too. No concerns whatsoever. Omni Flames (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support: No concerns. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 11:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support as co-nom. --regentspark (comment) 11:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Seems like an excellent candidate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    This editor seems to have joined Wikipedia only last month.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support I have seen Vanamonde93 around a lot and always had a positive impression. Some very healthy content creation, including article creation. Good explanations regarding what they have learned from past mis-steps. Very healthy looking AfD participation. I'm unconcerned regarding previous, 2 year old block. 20k+ edits with over 50% to article space. Talk page show plenty of collaboration and ability to explain policy and personal actions to new and, um, difficult editors. Tons of CLUE here, this is an easy call for me. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  9. Support Only had positive interactions with this user. The one block in their log looks extremely harsh (blocked for edit warring after two reverts on an article that didn't have a 1RR restriction) so I definitely wouldn't hold it against them. Number 57 15:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  10. Support He will be a net positive to the project. We need more anti-vandalism admins. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  11. Support Seems like an excellent candidate.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  12. Support, my interactions with the candidate were positive and not problematic.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  13. Support Seeing the answers regarding the alleged POV has given my enough thought to support this nomination. Additionally, the "vandal edits" appear to have not been a misjudgment, but an honest use of the Stiki tool. I don't see a POV from the user's edits and they would be a solid admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  14. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 18:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  15. Support I did my homework, and changed my !vote from o to s. The edits I reviewed, some of which included articles the candidate created, reflect the work of a competent editor. Atsme📞📧 18:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  16. Support Looks like a clear net positive to the encyclopedia. Many of the opposes are extremely unconvincing.Tazerdadog (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  17. Strong support - Vanamonde93 is an exceptionally good editor. He was one of the first people that I ran into when I started editing South Asia pages and I learnt a lot from his editing as well as his conduct in dealing with highly disputed topics. South Asia topics are a minefield with multiple nationalistic POVs. Vanamonde93 has always kept on the right side of the debates, with focus on reliable sourcing and NPOV balance. Speaking as a Hindu and a person of Indian origin, I can state with certainty that I have never seen him display any bias against Hindus or Indians. The comments in the section below are just a representation of the "minefield" I mentioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  18. Support Experienced in content creation and maintenance work. You can't have one without the other. Widr (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  19. Support After reading the candidate's answers to the questions above and looking over their contributions I see a careful and clueful editor that can be trusted with the tools. I am not swayed by the oppose votes based on the supposed bias against various religious and ethnic groups and I think they should read the answer to question 7 above. I also think some diffs are required by the editors below that make accusations as such. Valeince (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  20. Support - definite net positive, only block was unjustified, great CVU work. They can only benefit from having these additional tools. Zerotalk 20:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  21. Support - I can't find anything to substantiate the concerns below, and I see every indication of both a) potential for activity in admin-related areas and b) enough clue to use the sysop tools well. So probably a good choice for admin here! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  22. Support Lots of experience in content creation and with the background work, and seems level headed. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  23. Support despite a focus on content creation, the candidate has demonstrated competence on the maintenance side of the project as well. There are naturally more Indian editors than Pakistani editors on the English Wikipedia, so it's not surprising to see accusations of bias. SSTflyer 00:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  24. I'm happy to support a good editor and content creator who also happens to be a fellow fan of Ursula K. Le Guin. Jonathunder (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  25. Support I've seen Vanamonde around, trust the noms and like their answers to the questions. They learn from the mistakes we all make, and will be a net positive as an admin. Opposes not a concern here. Miniapolis 02:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  26. Support, per nom. Solid content contributor, experienced vandal-fighter and - despite some questionable cases in the past - level-headed and fair enough to make a decent admin. Majoreditor (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  27. Support - Experience everywhere I would want to see experience, good answers to the questions, and more importantly (to me), a willingness (if not eagerness) to step aside and leave the tools alone when they have a personal opinion on the matter that they want to express (per answer to Q6, "...In this particular case, though, I would be more likely to leave an opinion myself, and if I had time try to clean the page up, than try to close the discussion myself." To me, even if I was concerned about the candidate having a POV per the opposes, that would allay such a concern quite nicely. PGWG (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  28. Support firm editor who dares to take a stand. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  29. Support . I lack the authority to comment on the opposes below and my own research does not reveal anything egregious. Good balance of the right kind of edits in the right kinds of places and thoughtful answers to the questions above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  30. Support: Great experience where it matters, including content work and new content management (CSD, AFD). The answers to the questions show a clear-headed grasp of Wikipedia policy. I particularly appreciated the answer to question 4; it shows a good faith and non-bitey approach to edits made by new users, which can really go a long way in dealing with and helping out new users and is crucial to successful admin work. Airplaneman 07:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  31. Support: Solid editing background, whilst the one of the opposes was a sock and another failed to provide any diffs.--Catlemur (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)--Catlemur (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  32. Support, primarily due to the excellent answers to 3 and 7. I'm not convinced by any of the oppose rationales thus far, and I'm frankly flabbergasted that we're hitting an RfA candidate for assuming good faith too much. Treating potential test edits as good faith attempts to edit the encyclopedia is no less than required in a vandal fighter as per WP:NOTVAND, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE. The STiki instruction page cannot override our policies and behavioral guidelines, obviously. ~ Rob13Talk 09:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  33. Support, looks great! Nsk92 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  34. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  35. The edit warring block is sufficiently long ago to ignore or treat as a lesson learned. Nice content work, I'm sure you'll make a fine admin. ϢereSpielChequers 12:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  36. Suppport: A review of the contributions show no problems, and answers to questions here and their contributions to WP:ANI/WP:AN3 show WP:CLUE. I have generally been favourably struck by their editing in contentious areas and handling of disputes where there's strong POV. There are occasional missteps, but overall it's pretty good. An admin with experience and an appreciation for the situation in such areas would be useful. Kingsindian   13:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  37. Support, not an editor I know but there are no major issues that I could find and I believe they would be a net positive -- samtar talk or stalk 16:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  38. Support: The only issue I can find is the labelling of vandalism as AGF, and even then that's a fairly trivial point. — Chevvin 16:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  39. Support. I wasn't familiar with this user before but have done some research. Good answers also. It's actually quite refreshing to find someone who doesn't shout VANDAL at every test edit, so I'm not really persuaded by some of the opposition. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  40. Support The candidate seems likely to become an admin with a strong content creation background, working in areas where that is desireable (AfD, PROD and DYK). Thoughtful answers to questions. Assuming a fair amount of newbie good faith is a laudable trait. The partisan warfare complaints below do not convince me, and in any case I would hope that the candidate would be wise enough to stay far away from such temptations, once be-mopped.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  41. Support - I've seen Vanamonde93 around and always been satisfied. Similarly, I'm happy with what I've seen on this page. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  42. Support. My only interaction with Vanamonde93 has been at the current FAC for Left Hand of Darkness, and that convinced me that they are level-headed and rational in discussions. I've looked at the opposes and don't find enough there to concern me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  43. Support I'm not entirely sure what the oppose !votes are all about. It's worth noting that some of the users who criticized the candidate's apparent "too much assumption of good faith" have never or rarely used STiki. When the "good faith revert" button is used STiki users have the option of sending the user a talk page message explaining the revert (There also appeared to be some misunderstanding of policy on the !voter's end). I also fail to understand why we're opposing a candidate for their beliefs and stances. Must I be opposed on my RFA (should I ever run) for being Christian because I would offend everyone who wasn't Christian? If that's the philosophy then maybe we should oppose all humans running for RFA, because we're all biased; anyone who says otherwise is mistaken. Back on topic: Candidate's edits all look good, and I am certain that this user will be a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    The answer to that question is yes. I now know that I can never support your RfA. The idea of a Christian being an admin simply scares me. </humor>—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose Vanamonde93 belongs the 'pro-Islam/pro-Pakistan/anti-Hinduism/anti-India' camp, which makes it impossible to add even the most basic academic sourcing.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    Some evidence of that would be nice.—cyberpowerChat:Online 16:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    Here you go, "Vanamonde93's support". This is part 1. And User:Calm321 became User:Xtremedood. Ponyo blocked Xtremedood for socking --John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    HUH? I don't see any connection here.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    And how exactly did John Jaffar Janardan become interested in an SPI case from 15 months ago if he's been here for a scant 7 months? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    Because it's a sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    Discussion of VictoriaGrayson's !vote is on the talk page: [11]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    NOTE: !Vote by now-blocked John Jaffar Janardan removed as a sockpuppet by Bbb23: [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Marking all vandalism edits (including for instance this 34,000-byte deletion [13]) as "good-faith" edits, which is plainly incorrect. The Stiki instructions are clear and even test edits should be classified as vandalism [14]. Candidate has been doing this for years. This is very basic stuff, and an admin candidate needs to at least get the basic stuff right. I don't know what the problem is -- not caring, going too fast, not taking the time to make the right choice, editcountitiis, or what, but this is just too glaring for me, right off the bat. I just don't personally feel the candidate currently has the maturity and rigor for adminship, but I wish them well in the future. Softlavender (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    "Test edits should be classified as vandalism". That's not what WP:NOTVAND says: Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism. If the Stiki instructions say something else then that seems a bit confusing. I agree that your example doesn't seem good faith, though. --Begoontalk 17:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    That's not what the Stiki instructions say [15]. If the candidate can't adequately control what the Stiki software actually does, then they should switch to Twinkle or something that correctly labels vandalism as vandalism or disruptive or nothing or anything but "good-faith", in my opinion. I checked dozens and dozens of the candidate's Stiki usages and they continually label clear vandalism as "good-faith" and have been doing so for over two years. Softlavender (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    "All" doesn't seem an apt description - this STiki listing shows the candidate as reverting 20% of edits handled on STiki as "vandalism" and 22% as "good faith". This doesn't look out of line amongst the massive variation among editors on that list. The issue has now been addressed adequately I think under Q4 above: Noyster (talk), 17:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I've been involved in a number of contentious interactions with Vanamonde93. I don't necessarily see that as being a disqualifying factor for adminship in and of itself, particularly since I edit bios of US politicians almost exclusively and contention there seems to go with the territory. What does concern me however, is that in many cases Vanamonde93 seemed to be wikistalking me. There are a number of instances where his/her first (and in some cases only) edit to the article was to revert my edit. And some of the articles were fairly obscure. I don't believe that behavior is consistent with adminship.CFredkin (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    Oppose based on the concerns stated above and discussion below. Atsme📞📧 16:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The editor needs to label vandalism as such. Limitations of Stiki cannot be reasons for labeling clear cut vandalism as good faith edits. Labelling vandalism as good faith edits takes away the time of other editors in re-labelling such editors' subsequent unhelpful edits as vandalism. Honestly, if all these edits can be labelled good faith edits, and if we could therefore expand the definition of good faith edits and suggest all vandalism reverting editors to do so, we would be really wasting quite a lot of time. I would be confident of this user once he has invested at least a month in correctly labelling vandalism edits as vandalism. Lourdes 09:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I don't think labeling vandalism edits as good faith edits is appropriate. Per Lourdes, I would also be confident if this user has invested one month in correctly labeling edits as vandalism. Music1201 talk 15:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Studying contribution history leads me to conclude that this editor does not consistently demonstrate the necessary temperament, judgment, restraint or clue one would expect of someone given the tools. Keri (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. After reading the comment below, I am keeping my vote here before I decide one of the 2 options. VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 12:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Holding here awaiting answers to the questions on POV and explanations of the vandalism reverts. Katietalk 15:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    For the moment, as I am curious about the allegations of POV. The vandal revisions as well have my interest, as those appeared to be clear-cut. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    Neutral, leaning Support Per RickinBaltimore and KrakatoaKatie. The POV allegations have to be cleaned up.ThePlatypusofDoom Moved to Support (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. As the other folks here, the POV issue needs to be cleared up - administrators with POV issues have caused problems in the past. Conversely, I am also noting that the accusations without evidence are likewise improper, especially given the battleground phenomena that have plagued the topic area concerned, c.f the ArbCom case linked on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Neutral for now. GABgab 16:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Placeholder neutral. Neutral for now. I am not familiar with this user, so I will move to support or oppose after some input and time.Jianhui67 TC 04:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
General comments
We can find more evidence. --John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@1.39.37.59: You may be presenting a good case, but don't be anti-Islam. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not @Emir of Wikipedia: But I can't support Pakistani editors who make anti-Hindu edits. I don't know which country you are from, all these problems escalated with the release of a movie called Bajirao Mastani. Another problem is that Pakistani anomymous IPs try to vandalize the page Indian Army and insert false information in these pages 2016 Pathankot attack, 2008 Mumbai attacks. Some established Pakistani editors try to show Lashkar-e-Taiba in positive light. These things can't be accepted, and anyone who supports them can't be a neutral administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.57.125 (talkcontribs) 13:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Why can't we be anti-Islam, Emir? What if we are atheists?VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: I'm an atheist, and I think it's moronic to oppose an editor because of his beliefs. As long as he shows that he can put his personal views aside and be neutral, like any decent Wikipedian, I don't see a reason to oppose due to beliefs. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm not a Muslim but I'm not anti-Islam, I'm not a Hindu but I'm not anti-Hinduism, I'm not a Christian but I'm not anti-Christianity, etc - "not X" is not the same as "anti X". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Victoria please don't make such comments here. This is not the right place. It won't show good about you. We have to be secular and respect all religion to oppose Pakistani anti-Hindu editors. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: We can't be anti-Islam or anti-Hindu or anti-Indian, as Wikipedia is neutral. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - Please read this and reply Thanks VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 12:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not trying to single anyone out, but so far the candidate is being asked to prove a negative, and no diffs nor other evidence has been provided. The accusers of POV must make a much better case. I find the candidates rationale to the Umar_Khalid AfD to be rational, and ascribing motives to someone else seems like a type of personal attack. A consistent pattern of biased editing, particularly unsourced, needs to be demonstrated. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I need to clarify. My concern is solely about the accusations of POV, the the willingness of some to hold the candidate responsible for the unsubstantiated claims of others. CFredkin and Softlavender make the type of arguments that are specific and verifiable. I may or may not be concerned by them, but I have a basis upon which to make a judgement. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Since most people don't know the difference between anti-Hindu and anti-Hinduism, it would would be useless to explain them. He is very clever editor. It's the "selective" reverts he makes about unsourced changes and his support for editors like Xtremedood who was pushing his POV in Mughal–Maratha Wars and Battles involving the Maratha Empire. If he would have been neutral, he would have reverted every unsourced edits. Why he doesn't revert original research, when the unsourced edit matches his anti-Hindu POV? He will revert unsourced edits, if it is against his POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.37.138 (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
So, to make sure I'm understanding right, the issue is that at one point Vanamonde was not wholly convinced that Xtremedood was a sock? (In that diff of Vanamonde's comment, it does not say anything about supporting Xtremedood's actions.) If there are other instances of anti-Hindu POV behavior, can you provide specific instances and links to those instances? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Candidates are allowed to have biases. Why? Because everyone is biased about something. It's impossible to avoid and I haven't seen anything from any of the oppose comments in the form of evidence that would indicate they would disregard something like WP:INVOLVED when conducting administrative actions. Mkdwtalk 20:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. The question that VictoriaGray readded by @Joshua Jonathan: (diff) was removed by @BU Rob13: because it was added before the RfA was opened (diff). Just making it clear there was no bad faith in its removal. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (162/46/17); Scheduled to end 16:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Oshwah (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, I’m happy to present you Oshwah for your consideration as an administrator. Oshwah is a prolific editor who frequently assists with reverting vandalism, making AIV reports, contributing to AfD discussions, tagging articles for speedy deletion, and assorted wiki-gnoming. He is best known for welcoming and supporting new editors. Whether it’s creating accounts for new contributors, guiding them through the editing process, or explaining policies, he does so in a kind, patient, and helpful fashion. His talk page is a testament to his willingness to lend a hand to those who could benefit from his aid. 

Since his last request for adminship Oshwah has taken the constructive comments to heart. He helped bring two articles to good article status by writing Windows Push Notification Service and contributing in part to Sakurai's Object. In addition, he has created a handful of articles with substance, including: Fast DormancyUniversal Windows PlatformAndroid Cloud to Device Messaging, and Microsoft Push Notification Service. Overall, I’ve found Oshwah to be calm, courteous, thoughtful, and eager to go the extra mile for others. I think Oshwah would make an excellent administrator and I hope the community feels the same.  Mike VTalk 14:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Oshwah (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure to co-nominate Oshwah for adminship.

Administrators are in a tough position. The admin backlogs are huge and we have a real need to clear those, but we also have another problem – we need thoughtful, kind administrators who are willing to pitch in and help a newbie. Oshwah more than meets this mark. I could clutter this statement with diffs of ANI sections in which Oshwah offers to mentor and guide new editors and editors who need a little bit of help. His well of kindness is bottomless, and I have no words for his willingness to assume good faith.

Oshwah wants to help the project, and he has gone the extra mile to make himself useful. He stood for RFA once and when it was unsuccessful, he devoted months to addressing the concerns and issues that were pointed out to him. He has brought two articles to GA status, has created new articles, and has continued to keep the great attitude and cheerful countenance that every administrator needs.

Oshwah will make an awesome administrator. Please give him your support. Katietalk 11:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, and I thank both Mike V and KrakatoaKatie for their time, their trust, and for their kind words. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to continue my work and extend my participation in recent changes patrolling and the reversion of vandalism. As an administrator, I'd process and respond to AIV reports instead of simply piling on reports for someone else to handle. Instead of filing RFPP requests (and the numerous AIV reports that follow) and repeatedly "chopping the vandalism tree down" on an article as it's being slammed with vandalism by multiple users while I wait, I'd be able to protect those pages myself and actually process RFPP reports and respond to them. I would also be able to respond to blatantly inappropriate usernames that are against UPOL and help with UAA, which is typically a huge backlog of reports from concerned editors and bots. Of course, my participation in administrative backlogs and noticeboards would expand into other areas as I become proficient (such as AN3, SPI, and other noticeboards), but my primary area of focus (at least initially) would be helping to "man the front lines" and be available to respond to disruption, vandalism, trolling, and other issues that disrupt our number one goal: to build an encyclopedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia (apart from the time I spend patrolling for vandalism and disruption) would be the time and effort I spend helping new and misguided users with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, offering mediation and insight towards disputes, diffusing heated disputes and situations where the editors and participants are obviously very angry, and mentoring editors and helping them to turn their issues around. It always makes me happy to help new editors and to make sure that they feel welcome and that someone has their back in good faith, and nothing brings a bigger smile on my face than to mentor users and help them overcome difficulties (one example: 1, 2, 3, 4) or help angry editors establish a middle-ground, put past incivility and negativity aside, and agree to work together (such as here). My responses and collaboration with others (no matter what) have always come with civility and treating everybody with respect in-mind. I find that the best way to "put ice on heat" and help steer anger and negative disputes is to always respond with kindness and respect and with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines cited, and to always remain calm and professional with others... even when they are not. It's not easy at times; there have often been discussions like this one, this one, or this ANI where you have to be patient and professional with others regardless of the situation, or (if that doesn't work), you sometimes just have to walk away. I don't like walking away; I always try my best to offer help and try to deflect anger and incivility with respect and appropriate knowledge and insight. But sometimes you just have to.
I've also ventured into article creation and expansion. I created Windows Push Notification Service, Microsoft Push Notification Service, Android Cloud to Device Messaging, Universal Windows Platform, and others. I've also helped expand articles such as Sakurai's Object, Google Cloud Messaging, and Apple Push Notification Service. I've thrown my hat into the ring and offered some insight by writing Wikipedia:Identifying test edits for anyone who cares to read it, and created help templates (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) which are currently live on Wikipedia pages. After being given the feedback that I received on my previous RfA, I can honestly say that I'm glad that I didn't pass. I wouldn't have created this content, it's absolutely important and relevant experience to have, and I feel that the feedback was absolutely spot-on.
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: Of course. There have been many instances where conflicts have caused me some stress, such as a discussion I had regarding Paul Ryan (1, 2) where I reverted an edit the user changed and left a talk page message (which I agree wasn't blatant vandalism and could have been handled differently), or on Budbrooke Barracks which led to this discussion. I've made mistakes that have caused me a great amount of stress as well, such as what caused this discussion, as well as this one (where I completely dropped the ball and derped hard). There have been some disputes that I've tried to help mediate that have been a somewhat stressful wall to climb. One such example was with Kingdom of Ulidia (ANI, my talk page, article talk page), which quickly became a wall of text between two contributors and resulted in me making a decision for them, rather than simply mediating. There have also been users that you could say caused me some stress, such as my attempts to help mentor MassiveLizard (1, 2, 3, ANI) and Winterysteppe, which ultimately weren't successful and were disappointing let-downs for me at the time.
When in a discussion, it's always best to remain neutral, assume good faith, and cite appropriate policy where needed. The ultimate bottom line is that you must remain calm and professional, and treat everyone with civility and respect. Period. I've handled the stress caused by mistakes on my part by apologizing and doing what it takes to undo the mistake and make things right with those affected (if any). As I've said many times to new contributors: you have to forgive yourself, learn from your mistakes, and (most importantly)... you have to let it go. I am not a perfect editor, and I will never be; It's not the end of the world if you make a mistake... we all do it. They're are a normal part of growing and learning and good editors never stop doing such. When I'm caught in a disagreement, it's always best to try and see the other editor's perspective and side of things, try to come to a common agreement between everyone involved, and make improvements from there. If anything starts to get stressful or start to bog you down, take a break. There's a whole list of other things that you can participate in while you're stepping away for a bit. It's much better to walk away for a bit rather than allow yourself to lose your cool and respond in an uncivil and unprofessional manner to anyone. It's something I take seriously and will continue to do.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Ritchie333
4. A new user adds an infobox to Ian Fleming. An experienced editor with 50,000 edits and 10 FAs reverts with an edit summary of "not again". The new user puts the infobox back, saying "we need these to be consistent". It is re-reverted by a different, but equally experienced editor, with a summary "don't you know what consensus is, fuckwit?" The new user adds the infobox back with a summary, "Stop bullying. The article is better. Don't call me names, troll". The second editor re-reverts with a summary "Which part of FUCK OFF do you not understand?" A third party files a report on WP:AN3 with a summary "I've had enough of these clowns who come off the street with their infobox vandalism, they all need a bloody good block if you ask me". You are the first admin on the scene looking at the AN3 report. What action do you take, if any?
A: Ah, so there are some very important things to note with this particular situation:
1. The article is an FA.
2. There is an existing ArbCom case regarding the addition of infoboxes here (WP:ARBINFOBOX). Depending on who these experienced editors are, the ArbCom case would be very relevant due to the remedies applied.
3. Looking at the archives on the article's talk page, a discussion was in fact held and a consensus reached regarding the addition of an infobox in 2012 here.
All involved parties would be warned for incivility and making personal attacks at one another per the edit summaries they used, and that further incivility will result in blocking. The three editors reported would also be warned to discuss the dispute on the article's talk page (it also wouldn't hurt to cite the discussion as well) and that further edit warring and incivility would also result in blocking. I wouldn't make any blocks nor change the protection status of the page at this very moment (even though protection would be justified per content dispute); I'd instead wait to see how the editors proceed with their dispute, and be prepared to take appropriate action if the editors continue engaging in edit warring despite the warnings they received. I would also remind the reporter of the AN3 that the edits were not vandalism; it's a content dispute.
Additional question from Glrx
5. Please comment on the following interaction. Dominican Republic IP changes height of Trump Tower (New York City) from "203 m (664 ft)[ref]" to "203 m (666.01ft)[ref]" with no edit comment.[16] You revert in the same minute with the comment "failure to cite a reliable source".[17] The given ref, which the IP did not change, states the height is 664 ft. An hour later the IP leaves a note on your talk page showing the conversion of 203 m is 666.01 ft.[18] IP then changes value in article back to 666.01 and changes ref to cite metric conversion. BollyJeff reverts that edit in the next minute.[19] IP leaves another comment on your talk page 20 minutes later.[20] IP apparently never gets an answer ("All replies will be made underneath your message on this page.").
A: Well, I'm not going to beat around the bush -- I didn't notice that the editor also changed the unit with the edit he/she made. Hence, I didn't realize that the editor was actually converting the height of the tower instead of modifying it. I reverted and messaged the editor about referencing a source to support "the modification" as a result. Obviously, I was incorrect with reverting the edit in the first place, as the math appears to check out and the edit looks to be good. But on top of that, the editor received a talk page message that probably confused him/her, and the editor never heard back from me at all. That disappointed me (and still disappoints me) quite a bit; I should have payed closer attention and I should not have allowed a message with a request for assistance (especially due to a mistake I made) to go unanswered. It just wasn't cool of me to do :-/
Additional questions from Gerda
6. Please clarify how assuming that the article mentioned in Ritchie's question was a FA influences your view on the situation. (I happen to know that the example was constructed from a different article that was not an FA yet.) Is less civility permitted when you "defend" a FA?
A: It didn't; I noted that it was a FA in my answer simply because FA's usually come with loads of talk page discussions, and it's a bigger clue to check the talk page of the article for discussions that may be relevant to the dispute. That's all I meant to convey when I mentioned it in my answer; I was just explaining my train of thought. And no - incivility and personal attacks are just as unacceptable and cause the same disruption; it doesn't matter what the article is.
7. I'd also like to know (same example) how the arb case comes into play, more precisely which part of its ruling influences your view on the situation, and how. (Just knowing that there was a case is not enough. Many quote that case and have no idea what it was about.)
A:
Additional question from GeneralizationsAreBad
8. What is your opinion on the practice whereby admins speedy-delete pages that have not yet been CSD-tagged?
A: Primarily, it depends on the rationale for the deletion. If it's a rationale such as G12, A10, or G5, then yeah definitely go for it. Those need to be deleted pronto. However, if it's something such as an WP:A7, it's a BITEY move to simply delete those articles yourself and it would highly discourage and chase away new editors. Instead, you should tag the article and give the user the courtesy of being notified and allowing them time to contest the deletion. Deleting the article straight-away robs the creator from being able to do so. Not to mention, if you perform a deletion with no CSD tag, remember to notify or warn the user appropriately if it's not a VOA or similar vandalism account! Don't just delete the article and walk away!
folllow up: For G5, and G12, are there options other than deletion? DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from User:Begoon
9. Below, SMcCandlish links to a regex search he did for your NACs: [21]. As he points out, there are unblock request declines by you in that search. This is clearly an admin function only, the resultant template specifically (mis)informing the user, in the bold heading, that an administrator has declined their request. Why did you do this, and do you think it was wise?
A: The reason I NAC'd these unblock requests was because they were blatant trolling requests created by LTA's, VOA's, socks, or other users that clearly had absolutely zero chance at all of being unblocked. Administrators have plenty of tasks on their plate and I felt that, instead of having them take precious time away from other tasks in order to close a troll request, I'd save them the time and the trouble and close them myself. I simply stated "Declining" in order to avoid feeding the troll as much as possible, and I added {{nac}} to the end of each decline response. Obviously, if the account made another request, I'd leave it for the admin to handle so talk page access could be revoked. I honestly didn't think that I was doing any harm. I was only trying to help. However, good intentions can often have bad consequences. The bottom line is that it wasn't something I should have done. I acknowledge that it was an overstep, and I will learn from it, and I will honor it.
I would like to expand upon my answer to this question, as well as the concerns that many have raised about my non-administrator closes to unblock requests based on what I've read in this RFA. While most of the users here have agreed that my NAC's were a good-faith miss-judgment on my part (which is true; I can assure you that I had purely good intentions when doing so), most have also agreed that this violation of policy is very serious. When I made the decision to IAR and perform them, I'm sure that you understand... I never imagined nor did I ever intend that it would be viewed as a breach of policy this seriously by the community, and for that I offer my most sincere apologies and (should my RfA not pass) my absolute 100% promise that the NAC closures of unblock requests will stop and will not occur again. I acknowledge that it was absolutely not something I should have done, that it was against policy, and the use of IAR here was not acceptable. I respect everyone's input and I acknowledge the community's concerns regarding editing and perhaps even collaborating in over-confidence, and you've done quite an amazing job making this RfA stress me out... haha ;-). While I feel terrible about what I've done (and I really, really do), I can't take it back and I can only look and walk forward with this as a learning opportunity and first-hand experience regarding maturity and growth. I offer my sincere promise that my use of any Wikipedia tools (whether they be administrative or not) will reflect Wikipedia policy, and used with care.
Follow up: Thanks for the reply, and expansion, and sorry to "stress you out" further... From the fact that you link to non-administrator closes (an essay about deletion discussions, move discussions and RFCs, incidentally, not unblock requests...), and WP:IAR, I'm assuming that you knew that this was against policy when you did it, and decided that ignoring that policy was for the good of the encyclopedia. I disagree, and think that was a poor application of IAR (and note that you accept that, above), but I don't doubt the motive, only the judgment. In the light of that, would you please give some examples of when you think, as an admin, the application of IAR will be appropriate?
A: Hey, no apologies necessary :-) (and when I said "you", I meant everybody; I wasn't referring to you, specifically - I was just being silly). Ignoring all rules, down to it's very core (evolving from how it was defined in the first place), was meant to work hand-in-hand with WP:BOLD and assure new editors and those that aren't "Wikipedia rulebook brainiacs" that it's okay to make a positive contribution without having to know every single rule on Wikipedia in order to do so. For example, adding an infobox to an article to improve the overall quality of its information and how its displayed, but maybe not using the correct infobox template that should have used. Or adding good quality content, but without correct formatting or styling per WP:MOS. This is where ignoring rules can come into play... if you're faced in these situations and feeling as if you have to go "diving into the rulebook", or if something technical or minor is going to prevent you from making these changes, worry not. Just add the positive change that should be made, and go about your business. Because if done correctly, but maybe not perfectly, someone will inevitably improve that content, let you know about Wikipedia's guidelines and how you can better yourself, and allow you to learn and grow. In a nutshell, IAR is intended to allow editors the ability to expand the project without getting "nervous and depressed" (as put originally) about having to know every single friggin' rule. Because changes can always be undone, and it can always be fixed later.
Take what I explained above, and compare that to my use of IAR recently... and it's very clear that I allowed my use of that rule to be come very very warped. I was invoking IAR like an absolute crazy fool and to the point that people might probably might think, "oh wow, this guy is a loose cannon ready to explode at any moment!" This RfA has helped me to realize just how wrong I was when invoking IAR (with the "clerking", NAC closes, all of that...). Either way that this RFA closes, I will leave with a completely reborn person in regards to this rule. I hope you believe me when I say this, but I sincerely and honestly think that this is the absolute best outcome that could come with this process, more-so than whether I'm given a few extra buttons or not. I really mean that.
Thank you. I understand that you accept that you overstepped, and regret doing so. That's a positive thing. I hope you don't think this is pushy, but my actual question was In the light of that, would you please give some examples of when you think, as an admin, the application of IAR will be appropriate?, because I'd like to see how you would apply this new understanding in practice. To perhaps be clearer, I was looking for examples of admin actions you might take yourself whilst invoking IAR, or maybe actions you have seen other admins take which fall into this category, and with which you agree. --Begoontalk 05:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha... I might be going bonkers here, you're either going to absolutely hate me or love me for what I'm about to say, but I'm just going to say it. DO NOT IAR AS AN ADMIN! Follow the policies and guidelines at all times when you make an administrative action, and do not fucking click an admin button without the ability to cite a policy to the book and explain your actions. It might be a bad answer, but after learning how badly I've done with IAR, that's sure as hell what I'm going to do if I'm given the tools.
It's certainly not a bad answer. The occasions it would be necessary and acceptable are pretty rare, and stating you would not do it is perfectly prudent. You can always seek the opinion of others if the need arises. I tried to find an example, and found this:[22], but even that was not done without discussion. Thanks for patiently answering my long cross-examination. Good luck. --Begoontalk 08:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you :-)
Additional question from User:78.26
10. You come commended by many highly-respected editors because of your demeanor and ability to help resolve conflicts. Thank you for your example regarding user:Nuro Dragonfly. I'm sorry to bother you with a question that will frankly take some time to answer, but can you give a similar examples regarding other users, and can you demonstrate where your participation at one of the "dramah boards" has resolved a conflict, calmed spirits, or otherwise specifically benefited the encyclopedia? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
A: Sure. ANI is a big archive to search through, but I located a few that I believe that you're looking for. One example I can provide is this ANI, where I encouraged the use of good faith and the importance of not BITING the newcommer, as well as offered mentorship. Another ANI example is this one, where I recognized the issue as content-related; I provided input to help with the dispute, and recommended against any use of the mop.
Additional question from User:TeeTylerToe
11. By the nature of things, Admin interactions with users tend to be confrontational. How do you intend to handle this, particularly with maintaining impartiality, and especially when it comes to prejudging users?
A: When interacting with an editor, I’d rather not begin by considering it a confrontation. Administrators should enter an interaction with an open mind and create positive interactions. That’s part of not prejudging an editor who’s had a poor start on Wikipedia.
12. What do you think about territorial users, and ownership behavior? How many like-minded territorial users does it take to make a consensus? How much sway should the biases communities be over verifiable and notable additions? For instance over something like intelligent design?
A: Nobody on Wikipedia "owns" content. Everyone's discussion towards a consensus regarding an article or its content should be reached based on the merit of their argument. The fact that someone created the article or contributed to the majority of the content added to it (the common thing that "owners" try to cite when claiming such), or anything such as the longevity or edit count of an editor's account is irrelevant.
Followup It looks like you answered the first part about singular editors. What about small groups of editors with similar views as is common with hobbies, and other groups unconsciously working to push the orthodoxy of their group, e.g. hobby group. What do you think about these groups using their numbers against individual editors to combat even the slightest change to their preferred version of an article. Why do you think actions of groups get viewed so drastically differently from groups of individuals?
HiTeeTylerToe. I'm just letting you know that I intend to answer your question here. I'm currently mobile at the moment and will be for a few hours; once I get back on a workstation, I'll replace this message with my response. Stand by.
Additional question from Nairspecht
13. Hello Oshwah! You have noticed that a huge part of an article, say 50%, does not fully abide by any one of Wikipedia's policies and you think that it is better to not have it there. However, this content in question has been added by several editors (with appreciable history of edits) who have just been following the flow and expanding the article without realising that one of the policies was not followed there. What will you do? (Please talkback, if you can, after you answer. All the best!)
A: It really depends on the situation and the policy that the content doesn't fully abide to. Obviously, serious violations such as per BLP or COPYVIO would have to be removed immediately. Usually, if the content doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies but doesn't quite measure up to a Wikipedia Guideline, it's always best to improve the content so that it does, and open a discussion on the article's talk page if you feel that others may want to discuss your changes. An important thing that should be noted is the fact that all content is equally open to being challenged, improved, or modified; the fact that it's "been there for a long time" is not a justification for keeping the status quo if changes are needed. Shoot, we've seen instances where blatant vandalism had gone many years before being discovered and removed. It's just one reason as to why asserting the longevity of the content's existence when arguing that it shouldn't be modified can be seen as, to put it quite frankly, a silly argument.
Additional question from SSTflyer
14. You see these usernames at WP:UAA. What do you do?
  • Adria Airways Bombardier CRJ700
  • CB240HYKbmjdpr
  • Female Wikipedians
  • Lara Croft (WMF)
  • NeoNazisMustDie
  • Pashto script
  • Space exploration technologies
  • Wayback@archive.org
A:
Adria Airways Bombardier CRJ700 - It's an interesting account name, and looks to be the name of a series of Bombardier airliners. This may raise some eyebrows to some editors, but this is a good faith scenario; maybe the guy just really likes airplanes. This would be a {{UAA|e}}, as their edits could certainly uncover potential problems or COI. But this would not call for a hard-block per UAA.
CB240HYKbmjdpr - BLOCK, because Asus monitors are clearly the way to go. :-P
I'm joking :-). The username is definitely a weird choice... the model number of an Acer monitor? A really sweet one, I might add. Heh, okay. But either way, it falls into the similar situation as the username above. Like the first example, this is not a blatant violation of UPOL. I'd AGF and watch their edits, as they may uncover potential problems / possible COI. But this is not a "block-worthy" account solely because of the chosen username.
Female Wikipedians - This account implies shared use to me, as it's plurality can imply that more than one person shares this account. However, this isn't problematic enough to hard-block the username based on the name alone. I would discuss the concerns with the editor, and add {{UAA|d}} to the report. (I'm assuming that I don't have definitive proof that the account is actually being shared; if, for example, the user responds and states that it is being shared, the account would be immediately blocked).
Lara Croft (WMF) - Having (WMF) at the end of your username is reserved only for Wikimedia Foundation staff. However, the global title blacklist disallows the creation of accounts with .*WMF.* in the title. While it's perfectly acceptable to check with someone within WMF to verify that the account is legitimate, these accounts are typically okay (because of the blacklist) and seeing it reported to UAA shouldn't raise any alarms or bad assumptions from the get-go.
NeoNazisMustDie - Obvious {{Uw-uhblock}}.
Pashto script - I'm not seeing any blatant issues at first glance, but this username is of an article that relates to a topic that is currently under discretionary sanctions placed by ArbCom. If anything, I'd talk to the user and let them know (while also assuming good faith and the fact that they might be completely new and unaware). Of course, as with the first two examples above, it's advisable to also watch their edits.
Space exploration technologies - {{Uw-softerblock}} as the name of an Organization. ({{Uw-spamublock}} is for usernames that blatantly imply spamming, or have made promotial-only edits on top of having a promotional username).
Wayback@archive.org - Email addresses are typically not allowed as usernames. I know that older accounts that are email addresses are allowed to keep theirs as such, since the rule was invoked afterwards (example), but I would explain the concerns to the user and ask the user to change his/her username without invoking a block. It's perfectly understandable that a user may not know about this; blocking them out-right would be BITEY; just kindly explain the issue to them with a personal message, or (worst case scenario) using {{uw-username|it violates Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names|username policy]] as an email address}} or something similar.
Additional question from AntiCompositeNumber
15. Under what circumstances would you consider resigning as an admin? Will you hold yourself open to recall?
A: If I screwed up so badly that it was to the point where I knew that, if put through the "admin zapping" process (ArbCom), it would result in my tools being yanked, I'd resign them. There's no need to waste the community's time and effort going through all the "hoops and processes" (which are far far too many, by the way) to have them yanked if it's going to result in the same outcome.
On that note... Yes. Yes, I would. I feel that a significant amount of the community agrees that there are aspects of adminship that are broken or fundamentally flawed (including myself, to be honest). One reason that I believe this to be true is the fact that ArbCom is the only committee that can yank those tools from somebody. The community itself is the one who gives those tools to editors, why can they not take them away? I think that it would improve adminship as a whole if the community had an easy and fair process where they could start a "Request for take his mop away", achieve a consensus, and have your tools yanked; it would add more accountability with administrator actions knowing that the community can, at any time, smack you on the back of the head and say, "Yeah you're done. Yoink!" What would my criterion be? Good question. I'd have to look up some recall criteria that other administrators use for themselves and get an idea of something that is both fair for the community, and myself. My first thought is to take the number of supporters you get at an RfA, divide it by a certain number, and if enough editors stand together and say "he needs to go", then yeah... I think I'd deserve to be smacked with the mop I used. (I wanted to link a youtube video from Disney's Fantasia where Mickey Mouse gets smacked in the butt with the mop, but that's copyrighted so...)
Additional question from Darreg
16. Do you think consensus can ever go against a guideline? If consensus on an issue is moving towards one direction, and a Wikipedia guideline on the same issue is clearly towards the opposite direction. And you're to take a quick action on the case. How will you close the discussion?
A: You should never take "quick action" on any discussion closure. All discussion closures should be made with absolute care and accuracy, and when the time is right to do so (which might not actually be right now). Can a consensus be reached that a guideline shouldn't apply in a certain situation, etc? Certainly; consensus can change. As with any discussion, the proper determination of consensus should take into account the quality and merit of the arguments presented, not just the number of supporters behind the argument. It's also important to note that there are policies and guidelines that are exempt from this, such as Wikimedia Foundation policies, office actions, and binding decisions imposed by ArbCom.

Discussion


Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Mike VTalk 16:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Absolutely no qualms. Oshwah would make a great admin. I trust the judgement of the nominators, and the answers to the initial questions are just what I want to see. clpo13(talk) 16:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Support With the utmost HIGHEST yes! Oshwah has a great demeanor, can work patiently with new editors, and is knowledgeable. Wikipedia would be a better place with Oshwah as an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - I have worked with Oshwah over at ACC and it is safe to say he will be an excellent administrator. He is friendly to newcomers, level-headed, and overall a net positive to the project. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support. A read of Oshwah's talk page is telling that they'll make a fine admin. Oshwah has to deal with so many questions and complaints and they are all handled wonderfully, with civility and a positive attitude. This is exactly what I like to see. -- Tavix (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - I have been waiting for this day for a while and I know he will make a great admin. Woodstop45 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support. I am not unfamiliar with this user. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support after seeing Oshwah around and always being impressed by their work and demeanor. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  8. The strongest possible Support. Absolutely. I have absolutely no reason for Oshwah to not be an admin. He's a fantastic editor, and will be a great admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  9. (edit conflict) Absolute support. Perfect candidate. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  10. Support great work on mentoring, anti-vandalism and content creation Atlantic306 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Support - Excellent candidate, No issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 16:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)(Moving to oppose)
  11. Support Great candidate for the mop. I can not think of anyone I better qualified for the admin toolset. 10 out of 10 would recommend! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • So some editors below are complaining about the lack of reasons in the support column I figured I'd explain my support a little better. Oshwah is one of the most patient editors I have seen on this project. He has routinely taken the time to help out newbies and often offers support to editors who don't understand something. Oshwah rarely (if not ever) looses his temper dealing with others on Wikipedia which is less than I can say for some current admins. Oshwah is a Vandal Fighter which is pretty much the definition of what administrators do. Oshwah Would make an amazing administrator, he's familiar with policy, is willing to own up to his mistakes and is the kind of person this project needs in an administrator. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 14:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  12. Support per Mike V. Has been around since 2007 and has been editing regularly since August 2014 ,good policy knowledge and feel the Project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  13. Support for the same reasons I gave on his last RFA. Oshwah will be a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project and he is for sure trusted to hold the mop. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  14. Support per nominations. It's about time! Jianhui67 TC 17:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  15. Support. I have seen Oshwah around for some time. While I understand the concerns expressed below, I am still comfortable supporting, because I can trust that Oshwah will not abuse the tools, and also that while they may make mistakes, they are willing to listen and learn. Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  16. Support Such a great temperament as evidenced by the many helpful responses on his Talk page and elsewhere, along with a tireless enthusiasm for keeping Wikipedia vandal-free - a win-win combination and a successful candidacy would probably be a relief for the administrators at AIV who keep having to deal with his requests! Mike1901 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  17. Support. You're hired. SlightSmile 17:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Support I gave Oshwah some advice on their first poll. They followed up with me and we had a further discussion. I've seen an improvement at AIV though they sometimes still make mistakes and are too quick on the revert button. Nonetheless, I suspect Oshwah will be more careful with the adminship tools. The consequences are much steeper and the responsibility all that much more. Best of luck, Mkdwtalk 18:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    The declining of unblock requests is very worrisome. It should not have been done and is expressly prohibited under our blocking policies. There are a number of tools admins use to assess these situations. They have also been given the trust of the community to review these types of situations; blocking and unblocking are the most consequential actions administrators can take. I have never reviewed an unblock request without checking the editor's deleted contributions. Even ones that seem like a very straight forward decline. That being said, I've read Oshwah's response to question 9 and while clearly a huge misstep, they've acknowledged their mistake. I am therefore still supporting Oshwah's RFA and I hope they take this as a cautionary warning because any use of the admin tools in contravention of administrative policies may not be received as well. At 91% I think the outcome is fairly clear and I wish them the best of luck [condolences] on their new responsibilities. (I do think they should respond to the rest of their RFA questions though) Mkdwtalk 01:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Moved to neutral. Mkdwtalk 18:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  18. Support With 91.2% success rate at AFD and experience and victim of two ridiculous blocks. And and and if KaisaL can be sysop with less than 8000 edits, I don't see one strong reason, why Oshwah can't be an administrator. Marvellous Spider-Man 18:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  19. Support – good work in the trenches; attitude as yet unsullied from having to deal with the scum of the earth. Great addition to Corps of Admins. Favonian (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  20. Support - Oshwah is a great Wikipedian and has contributed in numerous places around the encyclopedia. I've seen his work several times in passing over different articles and it's always high quality. -- Dane2007 talk 18:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  21. Support as co-nominator. Katietalk 18:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  22. Support: Would make a great admin. Oshwah has beaten me to too many reverts on Huggle. Oh well :) But that means that he's done a great job. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  23. Support, and happy to do so. In my experience: This editor has the right temperament. Does great work fighting vandals. Exemplary efforts to welcome, help and nurture new editors. From the comments. Reading the comments above, I'm also impressed that this editor went through the RfC process once, was not chosen, and then accepted and followed the advice others provided. Again, exemplary. David in DC (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  24. Support - Oshwah should've been given the mop long ago! A definite net positive. Having had several interactions with this helpful user, I can see no issues at all. Best of luck sir :-) Zerotalk 18:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support: (edit conflict × 3) Oshwah is great with the admin tools, handles problems nicely. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 18:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Support. Oshwah has shown through his years of service that he can be trusted; as he mentioned above himself, he's not perfect, but he doesn't have to be. He's responsible, he cares about the project, he knows what he's doing, and he's probably not going to sabotage the encyclopedia with his admin tools. As such, I'm happy to support. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 18:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Moving to neutral
  26. Strong Support Oshwah has proven that he will be a great admin. He's nice to just about everyone (something I do need to work on), he faithfully reverts vandalism and test edits, and there is nothing bad about him from what I can see. Peter Sam Fan 19:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  27. Support Trustworthy editor who would benefit from having the tools. One time this month, it took 45 minutes after a BLP was reported to WP:RFPP before the article was protected, with mass vandalism continuing the whole time. This took up valuable time from several editors who had to keep refreshing the page history and revert all that. Extraordinary backlogs in critical areas require extraordinary evidence against prospective admins willing to work in those areas to oppose them. Gap9551 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  28. Support. Oshwah is very on-the-ball in every interaction I've had with him. He doesn't hesitate to ask questions if he's unsure of something, and he has done a great job in the last few years. I think he would be an excellent admin. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  29. Support Oshwah is a good vandals fighter, I'm hope and he should be a good admin. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  30. Support A few hiccups here and there, but overall Oshwah is a vandal-fighting machine and would make better use of the toolset than most admins. "Manning the frontlines", as he puts it, is indeed how I picture Oshwah as an admin, but one look at those AfD stats leads me to believe he'd do well working on content-oriented backlogs. I think there's still some perfecting to be done, e.g. when to use page protection over blocks, etc, but few enter adminship with perfect expertise.
    More than anything, I admire Oshwah's attitude and ability to keep cool when things get hot: whether it be an editing dispute, backlashing vandals, or nosey admins like me calling out his trivial mistakes. I find people like Oshwah make Wikipedia fun, improve the collaborative spirit of those who encounter him, etc, and with a mop this positive influence is only going to carry more weight. In response to the current opposition, this is the temperament we should look for, not his supposed over-eagerness to join the ranks MusikAnimal talk 20:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  31. Support Good candidate. CAPTAIN RAJU () 20:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  32. Support About time! Oshwah will be a clear net positive with the mop. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  33. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  34. Support About damn time. One of the nicest, most competent, users Wikipedia has. Always willing to help out wherever needed. 100% net positive. Absolutely no issues with giving him a mop. --Majora (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  35. Support I'm surprised you aren't one already! I thought you were one when I first came across you. You revert vandalism constantly and you're great with the newbies. Best of luck!! Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 21:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  36. Support I´ve lurked at his talkpage, and I say it´s a good bet he´ll do a decent job. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  37. Strong Support - Absolutely. I also wish to echo MusikAnimal's admiration for Oshwah's attitude and commitment to the project. Best of luck :) Mlpearc (open channel) 21:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  38. Support. Fully qualified candidate. To anyone opposing Oshwah I say "bushwah!" Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  39. Strongest support I tottaly think this should of happened years ago, Oshwah will be a great admin, I see him helping out on IRC, and doing some anti-vandal and other tasks onwiki theres no better person to become admin Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  40. Support--Why not?--Church Talk 21:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  41. Support largely on the reputations of the noms. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  42. Strong support - I detected murmurings of a second RFA run a while ago, and I'm very glad to see that my sources suspicions have been confirmed. Oshwah is an incredibly cordial, helpful, and prolific editor whose good faith is absolutely out of the question. He also has a real, demonstrated need for the tools, which would be extremely helpful. Oshwah has done valuable work, and I wish him the best of luck. GABgab 21:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  43. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  44. Strong support Obviously a WP:NETPOSITIVE. My interactions with Oshwah have shown that he's incredibly civil, calm and helpful towards everyone, especially towards newcomers, which is something I'd expect in an admin. His countervandalism work is excellent and he would be a huge help around WP:AIV and just in dealing with vandals in general. I have no doubts that he'll use the admin tools wisely. Oh yeah, and how could I oppose someone with such amazing hair? Omni Flames (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Omni Flames: He shaved his head, sadly. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    @ThePlatypusofDoom: Oh dear, well then I suppose I'll have to strike my comment and move to oppose. Omni Flames (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Obviously, he grew rather tired of the constant "Dude, you must be Yahoo Serious! Could I get your autograph?" :) RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  45. Support Been seen around, I see no problems here with giving him the mop. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Support - I don't think I ever ran across Oshwah until a few months ago, but what I've seen has been all good, and I think he'll turn out to be an excellent admin. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Moving to neutral. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  46. Support: Oshwah has repeatedly demonstrated a clear willingness and ability to take on difficult situations with patience, thoughtfulness, and a neutral point of view. He has always been willing to listen to advice, help others, and work towards the overall improvement of Wikipedia. In all honesty and frankness, I believe him to be one of the most genuine, competent, and enthusiastic editors we have on the project and that it would be pure foolishness to pass up this opportunity to give him the ability to do MORE work improving the project and to relieve the burden on our other hard-workings administrators who are already overworked. To the concerns of "hat collecting" and the quality of his content, I respond as such: Wikipedia admin-ship does not have to be about content creation, many (if not most) admins do very little content creation. Regarding the hat collecting, how does gaining user rights to clearly help improve the encyclopedic equate to hat collecting? We've been steadily unbundling admin tools into user rights, thus more "hats" for people to "collect". Oshwah clearly intends to use the admin bit to improve the encyclopedia and has demonstrated good jugdment and competence. 'nuff said. Waggie (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  47. Support - I've examined his contributions in articles and interactions with editors I know something about, and his contributions have generally been timely and good-humoured. Looking at his AFD votes, I'm pleased by how they've generally been well-reasoned and backed up with clear explanations, often taking the lead rather than just chiming in. Overall, I feel happy for him to get the mop. Blythwood (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  48. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  49. Strong Support – I've seen Oshwah around and he always behaves extremely respectfully and seems to have exactly the kind of personality one would want in an admin. Also he's eager to jump into areas where more admins to shoulder the burden of work are sorely needed. See no reason not to support strongly, even after reading the concerns brought up below. Snuge purveyor (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    I applaud SMcCandlish for their technical sleuthing skills! Below, they bring up Oshwah's non-admin declines of unblock requests, which concerned me. After a look through all of them, there is only one that stands out as possibly hasty or inappropriate. Several have been closures of unblock requests where the reason parameter was used to conduct personal attacks ([23], [24], [25]); several have been declines to obvious, definite, or self-admitted trolls and vandals ([26], [27], [28], [29]). Some were second or third in a series of rapid-fire declines (third of three in 11 hours: [30], third of three in 31 minutes: [31], second of two in 1 hour: [32]). The only incident that stands out is here [33] where Oshwah declines an unblock with an empty reason parameter by an IP editor, with the text "Declining" and edit summary "Obvious troll." Maybe some better explanation in decline parameter ("Procedural decline; please specify a reason"?) would have been a little nicer. The IP editor seemed so genuinely confused that they thought the byte change in their edit history was the number of editors who had 'liked' or 'disliked' their edit. (Might still have been a troll; not my specialty.) In all I feel that these non-admin closures are trivialities, obviously aimed at reducing admin workload. Having reconsidered my position, I find that I still strongly support Oshwah's promotion. Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Reading through everything here, and on Oshwah's talk page, I find my support wavering a little. I'm still in favour of promotion, but with the advice that the candidate slow down. 78.26's comment about being "a bit hasty with IP editors" hits the central concern, and Begoon's oppose about "spraying bullets" is apt. MRD2014 at support #24, and Meltingwood on Oshwah's talk page [34] both say that the candidate has made reverts that they were about to make, so clearly there are others who can take up the slack if Oshwah slows down and acts a bit more carefully. I would go so far as to advise the candidate to attempt to become the number two or maybe even number three Huggle user for awhile, by exercising more caution with each revert. I'm confident Oshwah will take to heart the lessons of this RfA, especially since he agreed to stand for recall in the answer to Q15 :P Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  50. Support A fine choice. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  51. Support Perfect choice, Oshwah always behaves extremely respectfully and has the kind of personality one would want in an admin. He clearly intends to improve Wikipedia and has always shown good judgment. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  52. Support I find the opposes unconvincing; Oshwah is a recent changes/anti-vandalism patroller, has been doing this a while, and does it well. Geogene (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  53. Strong support. Oshwah fairly regularly asks me on IRC to help him out with tasks that he can't do himself without the tools (usually page protections, VOA accounts, etc.) The requests are always well thought out, and it's clear he'd put the same thought into doing them himself. I've corrected him before on some misunderstandings and he is very good at taking feedback and learning from it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  54. There's really nothing that can go wrong here. Rcsprinter123 (reason) 00:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  55. Support We need more admins like Oshwah, or more admins in general.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  56. Support Excellent user with a great track record of counter-vandalism, good decision-making, and helpfulness. Sn1per (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  57. Support - no reason not to. I will say that the non-admin closure of an unblock request was troubling; on the other hand Oshwah has stated that it was a mistake and (s)he will learn from it. That is good enough for me. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  58. Strong support Oshwah was terrific user and he will make an excellent admin. Mona778 (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  59. Strong support - Man, I have known Oshwah for a long time. He is helpful, really nice and has a strong record of counter vandalism. So @Oshwah:, dude, you have my support!!! --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  60. Support No big deal Rhoark (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  61. Support From what I have seen, Oshwah has the right temperament to be a good admin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  62. Support Montanabw in particular raises serious concerns, but ultimately my personal observations of the user (we often overlap on Huggle) more closely match match the noms' picture: dedication, kindness, and humility. That's exactly what we need from an admin. FourViolas (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Noting my concern that the answer to Q4 didn't include any newbie TLC. The "new user's" actions here are consistent with those of a good-faith editor whose only problem is unfamiliarity with dispute resolution guidelines. Being told to "fuck off", responding quasi-politely ("troll" is a reasonable term for a confusing and uncivil person on the Internet), and then getting told off for it by an admin would have been more than enough to drive me and many other good-faith editors from the project early. Still supporting for now, but with reservations. FourViolas (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  63. Support as he is very experienced editor and I think he will make good use of admin tools. Fuortu (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  64. Support per nom. Experienced, super responsive on IRC and I think they'll make an excellent admin. :-) --Az1568 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  65. Support per the others above. Should be an excellent admin. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  66. Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  67. Support I support few RFAs that will easily pass, as this one will, but I've met Oshwah on IRC many times. He's consistently kind and polite to everyone and seems very trustworthy. I don't think admins need many more qualities, not that I think he has none. KSFTC 05:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  68. Support--Stemoc 05:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  69. Kusma (t·c) 05:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  70. Support – He's not an admin yet? Hurry up. Strong editor, prolific as hell, apparently friendly... I think he has earned the unpaid non-promotion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  71. Support -- I thought Oshwah was already an admin :-) . That would be an excellent addition; our interactions were all positive. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  72. Support I've been stalking Oshwah from last week 😜 , when I got EC while reverting vandalism, I must say they are the best Wikipedian I've ever seen; Oshwah seriously deserves admin tools! ;-) — RainFall 07:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  73. Support Whenever I see this editor around, it is always good news. Can't beat that. Dr. K. 07:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  74. Support I would have loved to have given a well reasoned, policy and experience backed !vote here, but I'm on holiday and I think Oshwah's actions speaks louder than I ever could. I've known Oshwah for quite some time, and always found them to be polite and knowledgeable. They've gone out of their way to help new editors (and myself when I've gotten into a pickle!). I can't recommend Oshwah enough for adminship -- samtar talk or stalk 08:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  75. Support Oshwah is the #1 huggle user, and is responsible with rollback. Giving him adminship will reduce the burden on other admins significantly. On top of that, he is quite civil, particularly with new editors.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  76. Support although I wish Oshwah would concentrate more on things he really wants to do, not so much on what others expect from him. Widr (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  77. Strong, Strong Support- I have had the pleasure of working with Oshwah in the counter vandal department and I was very suprised he wasn't an admin before I saw on his talk page, He is always kind to others, and helps newcomers, which for me is a big positive. I think Oshwah will be a brilliant addition to the admin team, he will do a great job. A net positive for the encyclopedia. Class455 (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  78. Support Babymissfortune 08:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  79. Support One of the issues I see often is that it can take some time to block vandals and protect pages, and the consequence is that there will be dozens of highly disruptive and rude edits, and edit summaries. As Oshwah is often patrolling on Huggle (Heck, he is Wikipedia's number one user), he will be able to quickly respond to these incidents. Also, I regard him as Wikipedia's number one in dispute resolution, and I have often sent difficult editors his way, which he has always dealt with calm and patience. Another indicator, IMHO, is the number of times he has had attack pages created, or his talk page vandalised, and that it doesn't faze him one iota. I also regard Oshwah as my Wikipedia bestie (and I'm sure others feel the same way), and so it would certainly be an asset to have him as backup. No one else that I know of (apart from the more famous administrators like Materialscientist, Bgwhite, John of Reading, Gilliam, I dream of horses, Widr and Boing! said Zebedee) has worked so hard to keep Wikipedia great, and so it's with great pleasure that I support his adminship. PS. Whenever human cloning is made possible, I would nominate that Oshwah be the first to be cloned, and that they are all made administrators. 😀 David.moreno72 09:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  80. One of the friendliest, calmest editors around here and maintains civility in tensed situations. Has demonstrated the need for mop and I'm pretty sure they'll make a good use of it. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 10:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  81. Support - likely net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  82. Strong Support Excellent editor. Will be an excellent admin. --NeilN talk to me 11:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  83. Support - with a Face-smile.svg. I'm sure there will be lessons to take from the RfA, but that is a good thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC).
  84. Support. zomg Oshwah is like the BEST WIKIPEDIA EDITOR OF ALL TIME zomg !!!!!!11111one1 lol (Also, Oshwah has good contributions. His AfD comments are well-considered and his CSD tagging is generally good.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Support - sure, they look like a solid candidate for a mop. Plus MikeV's endorsement as nomination goes a pretty long way. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Per the Q9 point and the talk thread analysis raised by Begoon. Everyone makes mistakes, and enough net positives that not worth switching to oppose: count this as a "neutral" -- Euryalus (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  85. Support: A net positive! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  86. Support Didn't have a chance to support last time. Will be fine with the mop. Miniapolis 13:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  87. Support I'm not particularly bothered by the content "issue" - it is perfectly fine for admins to be interested in things besides creating articles. We need more admins to deal with the various backlogs and enforcement even more than we need them to write. Oshwah has a good head on his shoulders, the right temperament, and a willingness to learn from mistakes. Also unlikely to delete the Main Page. Overall a very promising candidate who I think will make an excellent admin. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    @The Wordsmith: Yeah, but besides creating articles, I often create redirects to highway related articles. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 00:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  88. Support Ticks all the boxes for me. WaggersTALK 15:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  89. Support - I've interacted with the editor in various discussions, and don't recall any red flags that would have me discourage them being an Admin. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  90. Support—my interactions with this editor have convinced me of his competence. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 15:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  91. Support.. Although I have never directly interacted with Oshwah, I have seen him around in AIV, Vandalism, NPP and at AfDs. He seems to be a level headed guy, never involved in any disputes and very consistent. Although not a "requirement", the only feedback I have for him is more content creation (only six new articles created). DYK and GA contributions should also be worked on. I wish him all the best for the nomination. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  92. Support I have seen this editor frequently, participating in various admin-related areas; CSD, AfD, and so forth. The edits made were appropriate and constructive; I am sure that granting the mop and bucket would be a net positive for the project.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  93. 20 mule team Support His work in various areas is levelheaded and fair minded. He is already an asset to the project and having the mop and pail will increase that fact. MarnetteD|Talk 17:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  94. Support I would have been inactive for a month if Oshwah's RfA didn't appear in my watchlist. Oshwah is a prolific editor with an outstanding record for helping new users as well as having detailed understanding of policy. With a wealth of experience he is by far worthy of the mop. It disheartens me to see even this many opposes over completely trivial stuff Face-smile.svg -NottNott|talk 17:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Support I have often encountered Oshwah around Wikipedia and found him uniformly constructive and courteous. Doing my usual research: His record at AfD, CSD, and PROD shows a very good understanding of deletion. He is very familiar with admin-related pages such as AIV, UAA, RFPP etc. He has more than 100,000 edits (how many of us can say the same?). He shows a commendable willingness to accept advice and criticism. I trust him with the tools and feel he will be a good addition to the admin corps. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    P.S. I still support him, but the actions revealed at Begoon's question concern me. Oshwah not only declined unblock requests (which as a non-admin he was not entitled to do) but he gave no reason, just "declined". IMO it is absolutely incumbent on the person declining an unblock request to explain why they are declining it. The explanation should demonstrate that some thought went into the decision, and should directly respond to the user's reason for requesting an unblock. Oshwah, I hope you will take this correction to heart. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Ouch! I just saw the bit about doing "non-admin clerking" at AIV, and even inventing a template for such actions. It isn't clear to me if he only endorsed AIV reports (which is harmless but not helpful) or actually declined some (which would go way beyond what a non-admin should do). Worst of all, when people began to express disapproval of his actions at WT:AIV, he actually said that he would stop "if there was consensus for him to stop". Whereupon he was properly zinged that he shouldn't require consensus to stop doing something that he should have gotten consensus to do in the first place! I'm very sorry, but I am moving from "support" to "neutral". This shows way too poor an understanding of Wikipedia policies regarding the uses and limitations of admin tools for me to continue to support him. --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    P.S. BethNaught kindly provided some examples (in the Comments section below) of cases where Oshwah formally declined some AIV reports, and even closed the reports after declining. IMO he could have been brought to ANI for that. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  95. Support Haven't interacted personally but responses indicate they'd make a great admin. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  96. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  97. Support No problems here. Have seen your good work in different places. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  98. Support - obviously, should have been one after the last request. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't everything; you do a lot of good work here, but maybe step back every now and then :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Ajraddatz: May I ask, to whom are you addressing your question; who should 'maybe step back every now and them'...? Muffled Pocketed 19:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    The candidate. That's who we're here to talk about :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    To expand a bit on my vote: First, it is clear that Oshwah wants to be an admin here. And with the pedestal that admins are put on, is it really any surprise that people who want to be involved in the governance side of the project gravitate towards the role? I would argue that there has always been a "career path" to becoming an admin, and most successful candidates have gone down it, with the expressed intention of becoming administrators. There are boxes to check before entering the role, and I don't think that checking them is a bad thing. After all, we want people who are a) excited about the role and b) experienced enough to perform in it. I also, as always, fail to see the relevance of content work here. Even if Oshwah had 50 FAs under his belt in some obscure topic, that wouldn't prepare him well for all content disputes; moving between different types of content here, you find all sorts of different standards and expectations. I think what is important is that he understand broadly the policies related to content work here, even if that isn't his main focus. I see no evidence that he doesn't understand them. And there is nothing wrong with anti-vandalism, because we need to maintain the quality of the articles as well. It's just as important as writing them. The one (and serious) concern I have is regarding his error rate. I've never been incredibly happy with Huggle spam, and it is disheartening to see so many messages on his talk page regarding mistaken reverts. But to put it in perspective, Oshwah's last 500 reverts go back a week, and that's with him slowing down for the RfA. I think the number of errors relative to the reverts he does is quite reasonable, though of course there is still room to improve. All of this to say: is he perfect? No. But does he plan on being active in admin areas, and can he be trusted to use the tools well and maturely accept responsibility for his actions? All indications say yes. So, thanks for applying, and hopefully when you become an admin you'll realize how small of a deal it is. :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  99. Support - per last time, net positive. GiantSnowman 19:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  100. (edit conflict) Support per nom. I don't buy the rationales below: the base question is, can we trust him with the advanced access of adminship (including appropriate judgement)? Everything seems to point to yes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  101. (edit conflict)Support Oshwah was one of the very first editors I interacted with on WP and I've lately been watching his talk page and noticing how he unfailingly interacts with other users with courtesy and good will. I've read some of the reasons for opposition, but on balance I am still in favor.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  102. Support Been nothing but friendly in helpful in my interactions with him. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  103. Support I voted Nay the previous time due to lack of article work, but now he has that experience so I am satisfied. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  104. Support. Oshwah suffers from overeagerness, as do many potential administrator candidates. Who can blame them? When an editor knows how to handle something, has the experience to do so, and genuinely wants to help out and improve the encyclopedia, I can absolutely see why many editors try to ignore all rules and help out. I'm a huge fan of aggressively expanding the role of non-admins, but I think Oshwah jumped the gun a bit (or a lot, rather) on the unblock request closes. But no-one is saying Oshwah's response was incorrect, and is the solution to overeagerness really to make it even more difficult to get into the roles they're eager to help out in? We need admins, people. We need them badly. If we slap down everyone who tried to help a bit too much before their RfA, we're going to be left with only those candidates who don't plan to dig in and take care of backlogs. The only remaining question is whether Oshwah's overeagerness is evidence of a broader lack of judgement, which is a fair question. I don't think it is. I offered to help Oshwah get involved closing discussions prior to his RfA with the hope that he'd come to RfA with a more solid record to judge. His response was that he's a vandal fighter, not a closer, and he had no interest in doing anything just for the purposes of passing an RfA. That response removes any doubt in my mind that Oshwah will jump into unfamiliar areas and wield the tools in an amateurish manner. He knows what he's good at, and he is damn good at it. ~ Rob13Talk 20:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  105. Nom from KrakatoaKatie makes this an easy support. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Reaffirming my support, albeit much weaker—the answer to Q9 is reassuring. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  106. Support. I'm inclined to agree with Rob. Based on what I've gleaned from the responses, I think he will do a good job. I'd still like to see a 3 to 6 mos. "internship" for newly elected admins before giving them full access to all the tools and/or ability to block, etc. I remember some discussion about it in the recent past but don't know what came of it. Atsme📞📧 21:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  107. Support Seems to be a positive influence at ANI from what I've seen. Number 57 21:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  108. Solid judgement, polite, been around for a while, knows the rules. Would block again Strong Support SQLQuery me! 21:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Database errors. Sheesh. ;-) Katietalk 23:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Welp. SQLQuery me! 23:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  109. Support A dedicated editor that has a good grasp of policies and all the edits I have seen from them show good judgement. More content would always be nice, but they do have some and we also need editors that are willing to get dirty fighting vandalism. Think they will make a fine admin. AIRcorn (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  110. Support – not surprised. 333-blue 23:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  111. Oppose candidate has made mistakes, works in areas of the encyclopedia that aren't my personal favorites, and appears to want the job. No, wait, that would be silly; I sure don't want to deal with AIV. Support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Noticing some of the new opposes, I decided to come back and look again - and frankly, all this carrying on about the NAC unblock declines looks like a sudden mass outbreak of the vapors. I take a dim view in general of "only admins are allowed to do that!", especially when it isn't followed up with evidence that the task was done badly. Everywhere else on the project, someone cleaning up after a troll so others don't have to is a good thing, but here it's bad because the rules say it is? Luckily we have a rule about fussing about rules. Here's the correct answer to this "alarming" discovery: "Thanks for taking care of those trolls, Oshwah, but next time it'd be better to just leave it for an admin, just in case it turns out there's something more to the request than you realize." Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  112. Support - <humor>I dunno, when the dirty laundry is supporting the RFA, they must be a good candidate!</humor> In all seriousness though, Oshwah is a hardworking user. He is enthusiastic, and always tries his best to help. Of course, he does make mistakes, but all I have seen him do wrong, I have also seen him most apologetically resolving these mistakes. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 00:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  113. Support Would make a great admin, been a long time coming. --Charitwo (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  114. <joke>Oppose; user has a non-trivial block log!</joke> Supporting, basically, because of the things some of the opposers raise. If he's already reporting lots of vandals, familiar with responding to unblock requests, etc., he knows what to do, and the admin tools will enable him to do what's right instead of waiting for someone else to come along and do it. Every additional good admin means less work for the rest of us. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Nyttend, based on the strike opposes above, any concerns I had over Osh having the mop were clearly misplaced. mm Atsme📞📧 21:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  115. Support Has a clear need for tools and can be trusted as demonstrated in edits. Music1201 talk 01:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  116. Support - I'm not gonna argue with myself from the last RFA, when I opined, "While I'm tempted to ask whether Beano still kicks butt, I think we can safely consign that 2007 edit to the realm of juvenilia. I'm impressed that you dove from being a new account straight into vandal fighting — strong props for that. Adequate tenure, clean block log, seemingly a need for janitorial tools. Keep up the good work." Congrats on passing this second time around. Statement of principle: vandal fighters need the tool box and their access should be expedited. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  117. Support - Outstanding candidate. I fully support. He is a tireless patroller who is doing quite a lot to keep the encyclopedia free of vandalism, disruptive editing and errors. He has a helpful and civil demeanor that is important for an administrator. His talk page in recent years more than adequately shows that. I also have seen him provide help on user and article talk pages. I discount any passing remarks by a much younger person several years ago (not that they were that bad). He has made enough contributions in other areas to show that he is trustworthy. Anyone who thinks that there are no backlogs at AIV should look at it at this time. There have been several others over the past week. Oshwah will help prevent that. He also has made good contributions at AfD, CSD, PROD, UAA and RFPP which show a good grasp of Wikipedia policies. As more of an aside, I suppose, in my opinion, a point that someone who has been a helpful contributor for over nine years and now seeks adminship with a record of a very large number of edits is hat collecting is not persuasive. When someone can make the kind of contributions Oshwah has proven he can make in maintenance areas especially, he should be allowed to make the additional contributions that his record proves he can make. Donner60 (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  118. Support I foresee some likely issues with jumping into issues too quickly based on the problems I've seen described here, so be careful with that and try to err on the side of keeping editors. That said, I think you'll do a fine job overall, just look a bit more before you leap. Hobit (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Weak support I do kind of agree with Ritchie333 on Oshwah's content creation but I see many positives about this user as well. They are civil, they like to help users (new and old) and they seem like he would be happy to work at the areas where more admins are needed. Overall, Oshwah would be a WP:NETPOSITIVE to Wikipedia if he became an admin. However, I do suggest that you send a bit more of your time on content creation/expansion/improvement. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Moving to oppose. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  119. Support - I've actually thought you are an admin at a first place actually. Looks experienced and ready for admin's force! NgYShung huh? 08:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  120. Support I agree with many of the support comments. Good contributions in many areas convince me that Oshwah will use the tools for the benefit of the project. From my point of view the two issues brought up for opposing are not serious enough and are clearly outweighed by his contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystallizedcarbon (talkcontribs) 10:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  121. Support – I see his competent anti-vandal actions every day on my watch list. I'm sure a mop will make him even more effective in that field. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  122. Support I have found this user to be a competent wikipedian and I respect their judgement and trust them with the tools. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 13:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  123. Support - I could have sworn I'd seen an RfA of his recently, but apparently not. Anyways, Oshwah's a very helpful editor and we would benefit from having him as an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 14:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  124. Support, this user has learned from their previous RfA request, gotten better, and seems to hit all the check marks I would want in a good admin. I see no reason to object here. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  125. Support - I think that giving him the tools will be a significant net benefit to the project, it allows him to be more effective with work that he is already doing well (albeit perhaps out of process, in an IAR sort of way). He readily admits his mistakes and comes up with ways to self-improve, which is to my mind one of the most important characteristics of someone given increased powers. PGWG (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  126. Support I checked out 7 of the non-admin unblock request declines and they were all from troll accounts. I can see why Oshwah thought they were doing a good thing and reducing administrative burden. I also see them admitting fault in A9 and saying they'll learn from it. Recognizing you're wrong and learning from mistakes are two of the qualities I value most in administrators, so Oshwah has my support. ~Awilley (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  127. Support. I think Oshwah gets a little overeager to help out sometimes, but that could become a positive if he channels it properly, such as tackling backlogs. If nothing else, we can always trust Oshwah to act in good faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Support I'm not worried about lack of content work. I signed up at Wikipedia to remove rubbish, and have continued to do that. Interesting that nobody seems to have noticed those non-admin declines before. Looking through them now, I can only remember looking at one of them myself (and didn't see anything wrong with it at the time). They look like declines that are rather more polite than would be given by some admins that I won't name, in fact.Given his other work here, I'm quite prepared to accept that he was acting in good faith, and would have stopped if it had been pointed out as inappropriate. Peridon (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC) (Moving to neutral)
  128. Support Weak Support Oshwah is extremely nice and never bites a newbie. He has experience in counter-vandalism, and most other Wikipedia-related tasks. He also has decent content creation (at least better than mine!) Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Changed to weak support after a long thought about clerking at AIV. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  129. Support Without a doubt, this user would make a great admin. Oshwah is a hardworking and helpful user. His work on Wikipedia is very high quality. Ilyushka88 | Talk! Contribs 18:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  130. Support Fantastic candidate, excellent vandalism fighter (can't tell you how many times I've gone to revert some vandalism in RecentChanges only to have Oshwah beat me to it). Responding to an unblock request as a non-admin was a very mild mistake done entirely in good faith; it doesn't concern me at all. -IagoQnsi (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    This is only a very marginal, weak, support. I take a lot of the oppose and neutral comments here very seriously, and I think what Drmies said was particularly apt. I've been wavering, and I came very close to opposing on the basis of those non-admin closures of block review requests. Blocking a user, any user, is a big deal. And therefore, a request to unblock is a big deal too. Until someone has been vetted by the community via RfA, they have no business closing the door on that. Taking that with the perceptions of being over-eager and of not enough sensitivity to content, and one has plenty of reason to be concerned. On the other hand, I think that being eager to help is a good thing, and I think I'm seeing more of that, than of over-eagerness. And I'm seeing enough intelligence and humility and willingness to admit mistakes that I really do believe the candidate will learn from mistakes. I think I can trust this person to help with the many routine tasks that we need administrators to carry out, and I offer the strong advice to go carefully with the more sensitive tasks, especially at first. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Moving to oppose because of the AIV actions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  131. Support Conscientious and diplomatic. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  132. Support - I have read the oppose views with interest and some consternation and wonder whether any keen editor who makes a mistake can ever hope to aspire to be an admin. Learning from mistakes is a positive way forward and it seems highly unlikely that past mistakes would be repeated. I have always found the edits by Oshwah to be balanced and appropriately judged. I firmly believe that people grow into jobs if supported and encouraged and I see no reason to doubt that here.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  133. Support as I do not see any reason to think that the nominee will abuse using the toolset, so thus I see no reason to oppose. (I was actually the first "oppose" vote in Oshwah's previous RFA, but no longer consider my previous opinion relevant to assessing a nominee's ability or comprehension to be an administrator.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  134. Support, while Oshwah may not be perfect, he's good enough for me to support. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  135. Support.--Cahk (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  136. Support - Oshwah has made mistakes (but who hasn't?), but I'm really impressed by the fact that they recognize the mistakes and have learned from them. We need more admins at AIV (and overall), and I literally see nothing that concerns me. However, at the time I write this, there are still two questions unanswered, though I do not expect the responses to change my opinion. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  137. Support. Based on this user's excellent work at WP:AfD alone, I would support; 90-plus % match rate after over 100 discussions. We need many more hands at AfD. Bearian (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  138. Support I remember Oshwah's previous RfA, and I thought that they would have made a decent admin back then as well. I see no reason to change my mind now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  139. Support As nom for his previous RfA. He has only improved since his last time. I see no reason he will not serve the project to the best of his ability.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  140. Support I don't see any problems when Oshwah if he becomes an admin. He looks back on his mistakes and seems to keep his cool. WikiPancake 📖 14:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  141. Support encountered him several times on the front lines. Extremely (over?)enthusiastic, yes, but he gets it right when it comes to finding vandalism. Wouldn't dismiss given the number of other vandal fighting regulars who've voiced strong support. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 14:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  142. If he's so eager to help, he probably would be able to help a lot. And I don't see enough red flags. SSTflyer 15:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  143. Support: I see an editor willing to do a lot of difficult work. He's been bold and made a few mistakes, but he seems to have gained wisdom along the way. Eagerness to help is a good thing.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  144. Support: seems qualified and not likely to cause too much drama. Jonathunder (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  145. Support. The nominators provided valid reasons for Oshwah to get sysop - Oshwah has made good content and wants to help deal with the admin backlog. His block log (one block where the admin blocked the wrong person, another where Oshwah offered his block log up for testing) showed good humour and interaction with admins. Deryck C. 16:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  146. Support User has my trust; will be helpful for the project as an admin. SpencerT♦C 16:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  147. just barely by the skin of my teeth support. I'll try (and likely fail) to avoid TLDR. I think enthusiasm for our project is a good thing. I'm not overly concerned about lack of content creation, and the candidate has taken steps to better understand this process per last candidacy. To be subsequently told they are too eager smacks of a can't-win situation for Oshwah. I appreciate the candidates vandal-fighting efforts. They seem good with new registered users, but a bit hasty with IP addresses, which I know from personal experience is an easy trap to fall into. The action regarding the unblock requests has me flabbergasted. The examples in answer to my question have me underwhelmed, sorry. I support this candidate for their tenure of contructive contributions, their enthusiasm to make Wikipedia better, a basic demonstration of WP:CLUE despite some SERIOUS missteps, and the ability to apologize, learn, and move on. (For instance, no sulking after failed RfA previously, but a demonstrated desire and ability to move on, continue contructively, and work on the points brought up.) I temper my support by the issues brought up by several of my betters on the "oppose" and "neutral" sections. I beg the candidate tread more carefully when they get the mop, for it seems they will, and to continue to accept guidance. In my suspect opinion your great weakness is over-confidence, but your great strength is humility, an odd combination. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  148. Support: I have a high impression of Oshwah and their edits, especially in administrative areas, just from the past month alone since I've returned to active editing. Airplaneman 19:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  149. Support. Seems very qualified. Net positive. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 20:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  150. Support – the oppose votes hold no water with me. We're going to need more vandal-fighting admins in short order. I'm sure Oshwah will take some of the concerns (e.g. in the 'Neutral' section) to heart. But none of this is close to enough to oppose. (But keep up the good work, RfA!! Keep on keeping on, in the face of changing times, so that no one will ever want to run for Admin!!) --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  151. Support because this editor is a net positive. kennethaw88talk 05:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  152. Support – I have considered the statements in opposition. They, being primarily fair, do not reduce my confidence in Oshwah's administrative fitness, nor show him less than the net positive he clearly is.--John Cline (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  153. Support - whilst recognising some valid concerns in the Oppose/Neutral sections (which I hope the candidate will reflect on) we should not be insisting on perfection, but asking whether Oshwah as an admin would be a net positive. DexDor (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  154. Support - Oshwah has great sight and knows what to do. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 06:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  155. Support - A positive candidate. Denisarona (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  156. Support – seems to be a competent and friendly user. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  157. Support clearly has a firm grasp on administrative tasks and has demonstrated qualification to be an admin. The concerns about over-eagerness are something the candidate should take very seriously, but IMO that's not enough reason for me to oppose. Lepricavark (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  158. Support - has demonstrated clear competence. Is civil, kind and polite, especially to newbies. Tom29739 [talk] 19:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  159. Support. I'm impressed by what I have seen from Oshwah. Nothing in the oppose section is a deal-breaker for me, but then I continue to think we set the bar too high for RFA - it makes adminship a bigger deal than it is (or ought to be).--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  160. Support: Going through all the !vote comments here. What I can say is that people make mistakes, it shouldn't be used as a yardstick to haunt them for the rest of their lives. We all have done things we are not so proud of. It would have been suspicious for someone to be on Wikipedia for so long not to have any issue considering how long he's been contributing here. I see more reasons why he should be given the mop than why he shouldn't. Darreg (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  161. Useful contributor, has the makings of a fine admin. Some of the opposers would like more content contributions - their standards in that regard are different to mine, I'm not convinced they are better. At least one editor mentioned the low number of new articles created, personally I would have no problem supporting a candidate who had never started a new article and only ever worked on improving our 5.2 million existing ones. The non admin closures of unblock requests have made me hesitate, but I'm not convinced to oppose over them now, though I would suggest the candidate be wary of exceeding the authority of a single admin should this RFA succeed. ϢereSpielChequers 11:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Re "I would have no problem supporting a candidate who had never started a new article and only ever worked on improving our 5.2 million existing ones." Yeah, that's a nice thought, except that's not the case here. The candidate's userpage lists only 3 articles that he has expanded, and a careful look at those articles leaves a rather underwhelming impression. It does not look like he views serious mainspace work (whether creating new articles or substantially expanding or improving existing ones) as a significant priority, and almost all of his overwhelming energy is concentrated elsewhere. I don't think he actually gets what Wikipedia is fundamentally all about. Nsk92 (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    The first nom mentions six articles. I've read enough of the candidate's content contributions to be comfortable that this candidate meets my standards of content contribution for adminship. I wouldn't support him for FA delegate, but I think he is qualified for adminship and I see nothing that indicates he doesn't get what Wikipedia is about. As for our various roles in the project, it is a team effort, I like to think there is room for many different roles among Wikipedians, even my typo fixing can be useful. ϢereSpielChequers 21:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  162. Support but not without a few reservation. I think this RfA is a bit early, and you lack seasoning that would have come from another few months of seeing how things are done without the ability to handle things yourself. Nonetheless, you're enthusiastic and energetic, and I don't think you lack anything that can't be learnt from experience, and I think you could be a great admin in time. So I support, albeit slightly hesitantly, but if I may offer one piece of advice: please take it easy for your first couple of months; don't do anything that can't be easily fixed unless you're absolutely sure, and if you're even a little bit unsure either leave it for a more experienced admin or ask someone. Your nominators are two of the best people you could ask for the areas you want to work in, and I'm certainly willing to offer any help I can. We could do with some new blood at AIV and as long as you're careful you should be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, per pretty much everything I said at RfA #1 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 3#Oshwah (I did say I would probably vote "neutral" there, in fairness). My reasons to oppose have not changed, but in summary the quality content didn't seem up to scratch and I get the feeling that Oshwah has still got too much of a "hat collecting" vibe. He likes to clerk at ANI a lot, which is not bad per se, but sometimes he closes threads when he doesn't need to. Bottom line is I'm sure Oshwah does everything in good faith, but I think he's not quite hit the right temperament for the tools just yet. Stick as a normal editor for the mo and you'll be alright. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Comment Things like the striking of !votes here, for example, as noted by Drmies that 'Admins really don't need notes about SPAs and stuff like that.' Similarly, the creation of those 'Endosement templates' for AIV I suppose...? Perhaps you could clarify further Ritchie333; it could look like 'trying too hard', in the colloquial. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 20:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Those notes are sometimes helpful. Especially as many AfDs are closed by non-admins with less or even little experience, and a vote that is not legitimate could sway the consensus the wrong way. Striking the vote though was not the right thing to do, but I don't see that alone as a particularly egregious act - it's not as if the vote was deleted, and he can learn from it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    I am also extremely concerned that a number of support voters (but by no means a majority) seem to be basically paraphrasing "zomg Oshwah is like the BEST WIKIPEDIA EDITOR OF ALL TIME zomg !!!!!!11111one1 lol" I was under the impression most of us writing the encyclopedia were adults with a reasonable temperament, and I would certainly expect anyone taking an administrative role to be likewise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Your unneeded infantilization of support statements is not helpful. --NeilN talk to me 11:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    I do not have opinions set in stone, and if about 100 people disagree with my view, I am prepared to believe that's a chance I might be wrong, however some of the comments as those I paraphrased above are not enough to swing my viewpoint in the other direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The candidate claims Sakurai's Object as a good article. This sounded interesting so I took a close look. It's an unusual type of star and the candidate seems to have participated as a result of an invitation from another editor. His edits all seemed to be minor copy-edits and they seemed quite debatable. For example, the first edit inserts the word "located". This seems to be redundant and is arguably incorrect as a constellation is not a location; it's a view of the sky. In this edit, the candidate seems to show some understanding of the nature of the lead but, in a later edit, he takes out details of the constellation on the grounds that this is repeating what the lead says, which doesn't seem right. I get the impression of someone who is eager to help but whose reach exceeds their grasp. In my view, this level of participation should not be claimed as a personal GA. Looking further, I notice that the candidate created another astronomical topic, NGC 3021. This was a solo effort and they got it wrong, stating the constellation to be Leo when it should be Leo Minor, per the NASA source, which states this quite clearly. It is then left to an IP editor to correct this mistake, a year later. I reckon that the candidate is too over-confident to be trusted with admin tools. Andrew D. (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose -- per Ritchie333. Lack of content creation; lack of editing from a writers perspective; too much time spent at the dramah boards... It's also good to see the same, usual behaviour continuing up above by people supporting and not explaining their supports. Personal favourite so far coming from Church: "Why not?". Well, why would be a good start? CassiantoTalk 12:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Cassianto So you'd like an admin who has never used WP:ANI, WP:AN3, WP:AIV or WP:AN? You do realize that is actually a big portion of what administrators actually do right? Wouldn't it stand to reason it would probably be a good idea for them to have experience in those places? I'm just not tracking with your logic. "Lack of content creation" Well by now if anyone recalls my comment from the RK RFA. Okay I get that people want content creation so they can show the understand wikipedia's polices. Oshwah has enough to show that. Content creation shouldn't be the deciding factor if someone gets the admin tool set. Yes content creation is important. So how many Featured Articles, or Good Articles do you want from an RFA candidate? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 14:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Cameron11598: I wouldn't go so far to suggest that you thinking so calls your judgement into question; but in the interests of accuracy, Cassianto actually said 'lack of editing from a writers perspective; too much time spent at the dramah boards.' I can't see how he at any point said (as you seem to suggest) that he should never use it. I think that's a trifle disengenuous to say the least. Strawman even more. Muffled Pocketed 19:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Cameron11598, come back to me when you've actually read my oppose properly rather than reading between the lines. CassiantoTalk 20:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Cassianto:, Respectfully, I take a bit of offense to you calling out my support statement. I am free to support who I wish for adminship. I do believe that content creation should be looked at when in regards to adminship, but I also thoroughly believe that adminship is not a big deal. The main question I ask myself is "Is this person going to abuse the tools?" in this case there is no reason to believe they will. I will then look in to what the person wants to work onto as an administrator. This person wants to work at AIV, they are the number one huggle user so I'm going to assume good faith that they know what they're doing in that area. So all of the criteria are met, so again I pose the question why not? Calling out my logic that way is not helping the situation. Regards.--Church Talk 18:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for providing a detailed rationale as to why you think this candidate should receive the tools. If you had said this the first time round then I wouldn't have felt the need to single you out. These are powerful tools, even more so in the wrong hands, and we shouldn't be just dishing them out willy-nilly. With regards to you taking offence, I can't help that; respectfully, that is your problem. CassiantoTalk 20:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) @Cassianto: I don't understand how a "lack of content creation" diminishes Oshwah's potential to be an admin. I don't believe somebody has to have created a large amount of articles to be a good admin. Oshwah is very active in help out with vandalism, closing discussion, helping new users etc., and has a great way of going about it, and it would be a benefit for the encyclopedia to have another person to actually take admin action when needed rather than wait for someone else to do it. I would rather have someone who's good at helping out with problems on Wikipedia with hardly any created articles than someone who has created a big bunch of articles but isn't good otherwise. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 22:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    "I don't understand how a 'lack of content creation' diminishes Oshwah's potential to be an admin." -- and there, ladies and gentlemen, is where RfA becomes the flawed process that it is. This is illustrative as to why we end up with a bloody huge separation in arguments between content creators and non-content creating, policy pissed admins. CassiantoTalk 23:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    It's not like Oshwah has created nothing at all on Wikipedia. What I meant was you don't necessarily need to create loads of stuff. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 23:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Possibly the suggestion- re. Article creation- is that it would be a bonus if somewhere less than 14% of it hasn't been deleted outright. Muffled Pocketed 23:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not discussing this anymore with you. So please do the decent thing. CassiantoTalk 23:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per all three above and the answer to Q4 – a rather key point was utterly missed (as it was by the IB Warrior who has added it to their hit list). – SchroCat (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. It is not the place of non-admins to decline unblock requests. Eric Corbett 20:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Per which policy? And what does this have to do with the adminship request? Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 22:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    "what does this have to do with the adminship request?": see question 9. – SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Unblocking can be a complicated issue, true, but I see nothing wrong with a non-admin declining unblock requests that are covered in snow. Blatant trolling (example) or blank requests don't need to be dealt with by an admin. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 22:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Even given the fact the template states that it's been reviewed by an administrator? Hey-ho; we're all different and—particularly given your comment above re content—your compass obviously points in a slightly different direction to others (not that there is anything wrong with that). – SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    The {{nac}} template helps solve that problem. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 22:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    No - then there's a direct contradiction. In any case, few - if any - other closing templates indicate "administrator", the fact that this one does is fairly important. ansh666 22:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Either way, it won't make any significant difference. I agree more genuine, complicated unblock requests should be left to an admin. Ones that clearly have no chance of succeeding, such as those that only serve to attack others, don't necessarily need an admin. My point is, users who make troll unblock requests aren't going to care who declines it. Experienced users will clearly see who has declined the unblock, and would not override the declining. It's all a matter of common sense. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    As an admin that handles a lot of unblock requests, I see no problem with closing these sorts of requests either in these cases. I would agree that the template could use some changes - and I see no policy yet that forbids this, especially in these cases. SQLQuery me! 23:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    "Any user may comment on block reviews, however only administrators may resolve the request (either declining or unblocking)" (see WP:BLOCK#Unblocking).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    You're a little late to the party, we established that below. Didn't realize it myself - figured it would have been in WP:UNBLOCK, not the first time I've seen non-admins decline. SQLQuery me! 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    @SQL: Normally I don't even go to parties, and on the rare occasions I do, I try to arrive late and leave early. And there's something about calling RfA a party ... --Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, I love a party. Especially one with good weather and a BBQ. And a successful RfA can be a party of sorts too - one of the few times Wikipedians come together to celebrate something and socialise a bit. Sort of. Vaguely. :D  — Amakuru (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per hat collecting vibe (thank you Ritchie), weak content work, lack of nuance in answers (especially number 4), and no, I agree with Eric, non-admins should not decline unblock requests. --John (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  7. Oppose as there have still been concerns of hat-collecting (an overeagerness of improving only a few articles still puts this to question) in the fact there's still an overeagerness of only working with vandalism, which should not be a user's only path of contributions. There's been very few parts of work at other areas where an admin would be expected to have knowledge, at least partially, of such as AfD, AfC, MfD or any of the others XfDs. The few comments at XfDs there's been have not been a convincing amount or are open to questionability. Because of this, not having a considerable amount at parts that are essential to Wikipedia such as judging an article and assessing its notability (not by simply saying, "Hey there are sources here, it must be notable") is still something open to scrutiny for a hopeful admin. Although years ago there was a leniency of having users become admins simply because of vandalismwork, the recent events at Wikipedia regarding paid contributions and the like regarding articles still makes for a question here, if the user has no history with that. In the fact there was the very questionability at the RfA poll yet pursuing an RfA still puts the hat-collecting to question; there's such a thing as good intentions and then having to question what type of user someone is and what changes as an admin (concerns such as WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc.). I will also note that examining his "areas to work in", he only cites RFPP and AIV which is actually handled at this time as it is. Instead, this user should focus with other better admin areas should they be interested to expand their Wikipedia activities, thus also then showing maturity and substance as a user. There have actually been offerings to him to work in other areas but it simply seems he's disinterested, thus that's not enticing for adminship. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    @SwisterTwister: "The few comments at XfDs,"? seriously? He has 386 !votes, with 94.4% accuracy. To get around "me too" voters I make a point of looking at the AfD's a candidate has actually nominated; he nominated 8 in the past year and all of them did get deleted. As you know, I attach a lot of importance to a candidate's understanding of deletion policy, and I evaluated his record at AfD, CSD, and PROD to be excellent. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Even then, that's still not anywhere convincing enough for automatic handing of adminship; even then, I know for certain 386 is not enough to cut it for me. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    What about John Cline and Yunshui, who you supported with 36 and 169 AfD !votes, respectively, at the time of their RfAs? These are the only two support votes I've been able to find for you with the RfA voting tool. ~ Rob13Talk 05:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  8. Very Strong Oppose A non-administrator doing a NAC[35] of a unblock request is a serious failure. Can't trust a USER with the tools when they fail something as simple as when a NAC is proper or improper....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Can you link me the policy violated, please? SQLQuery me! 23:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Can you not see the decline unblock request says the unblock was reviewed by an administrator?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not aware of that being a policy. That's a failure of the verbiage of the template at best. SQLQuery me! 23:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking explicitly mandates in the 'Block reviews' subsection: "Any user may comment on block reviews, however only administrators may resolve the request (either declining or unblocking)". So an NAC closure of an unblock request is explicitly forbidden by the policy. Nsk92 (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for finding that. So we have an administrator wannabe who has clearly violated Wikipedia policy multiple times. People at this RFA should also note Oswah's actions here[36] in this very RFA....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    OK - Admin of nearly 10 years here - and I didn't realize that either. So I can see where a somewhat newer user might not too. Do you disagree with any of those declines in specific? As an admin I can't say I'd have closed them differently. SQLQuery me! 01:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Even if this is a violation of the letter of the blocking policy, he may have a valid claim that addressing the unblock request is an acceptable use of IAR. I have not seen an unblock NAC from Oshwah that anyone has disagreed with on substance, or indeed that any reasonable editor could disagree with on substance. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    @WilliamJE: How is striking a support !vote of an obvious sock a bad thing? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    First of all Oswah didn't cite sockpuppetry as his reason to strike it. Just that something was amiss. Secondly, (criticism of third party redacted) ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    This isn't the place to criticize third parties, especially for old disputes long burried. I have removed that bit of your comment. Jehochman Talk 22:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    Bear in mind that, in the removed !vote, the sock claimed to be "a friend of him in real life", so I think that Oshwah would know whether something was amiss or not. As far as I can tell, he never claimed that the account was a sock - others brought it up and I confirmed it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  9. Regretful, moral oppose - I was going to support, as I've seen him around and he does good work. However, there is an undeniably strange vibe around this RfA; Ritchie among others describes it as hat-collecting, and I'd say that it feels wrong to me that a candidate who comes along and indicates (intentionally or not) that since he's already doing admin-only work - the unblock requests and AIV clerking, for example - it's something of a fait accompli and he should just be given the tools already. This does indicate a willingness to help, but also a willingness to overstep his rights and privileges (again, intentionally or not), and I'd be worried about this regardless of their temperament. That said, it looks as if this is going to pass, so I'll wish Oshwah a happy, dramahz-free adminship. ansh666 22:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Just to clarify the "moral oppose", Ansh666, if this RfA were close are you still certain you would oppose? Or is this more of a !vote to send a message type situation? ~ Rob13Talk 23:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    The closeness of the RfA would have no impact on my decision. I only added the word "moral" to indicate that I'm aware that it's likely to pass. ansh666 23:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying. ~ Rob13Talk 03:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  10. Weak Oppose -- An otherwise fine candidate who needs some more articles to his name. Update - I have struck "weak" as I do have some additional reservations about a non-admin declining unblock requests as a non-admin; that said, I think the candidate did it in GF as these were blatant trolling efforts. LavaBaron (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Until I read more of the oppose !votes, I was on the fence. No longer. Am opposing per all the reservations the neutrals have expressed and especially one, glaring issue brought up by the opposers: acting as an admin without being an admin by actually having the temerity to decline unblock requests. What the heck was that? Well -- I think I have an answer to that question: this is a demonstration of a presumptive mindset, an overblown sense of entitlement, authority, and power. Which confirms my previous reservations regarding hat collecting. As these incidents have been brought to the table here for Oshwah to discuss and explain, he has since apologized and stated he now recognizes that behavior was inappropriate. If someone is nominated for adminship, they should already have apologized and recognized that behavior was inappropriate prior to the RfA, not during. This shows me that it is too soon for an Oshwah RfA. Further, the attitude of an editor that accepting or declining unblock requests is appropriate for them is extremely presumptive and shows me, personally, they are in search of a power position. And that is exactly what we don't need more of in an administrator. Sorry, Oshwah, I think you're generally a decent editor and community member, but I just can't get past this significantly egregious behavior, what I see as the mindset that accompanied it, and the fact that you didn't see how wrong it all was until this RfA. -- WV 15:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  12. Oppose He hasn't answered questions in this rfa that were posted ~2 days ago iirc. I could make a joke, but that just doesn't instill confidence in me. Also violating policy is not cool.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    It was less than 24 hours from the time the earliest unanswered question was posted (#10 @ 21:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)) until you opposed. — JJMC89(T·C) 21:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, a well-meaning and helpful editor but too many causes for concern here. Way too much time spent at drama boards, particularly WP:ANI, and not just spent, but actually closing multiple threads there (which I personally already view as a red flag in admin candidate in terms of indicating their priorities), the really ill-advised behavior by the candidate in the AIV clerking incindent pointed out in the neutral vote by SMcCandlish, and, of course, the now infamous episode with the candidate declining an unblock request. In my almost ten years on Wikipedia I have never seen a non-admin even attempt to decline an unblock request, and the very idea seemed unthinkable to me, both on policy and procedural grounds. It took me all of one minute to find an explicit prohibition of this kind in the WP:BLOCKING policy. In any event, the candidate should have known better. Altogether, this adds up to a pattern of behavior of someone who is way too involved in the workings of various centers of mechanisms of powers and who is projecting an image of authority before he has earned it. In addition, I am still concerned about content creation by the candidate and I echo the comments in the oppose by Andrew D above. The candidate made a total of 13 edits to Sakurai's Object, 2 of which are marked as minor and 11 others are fairly small, mostly in the nature of copy-editing. Helpful but not really major participation in taking the article to the GA status. The other article, Windows Push Notification Service, was originally created by Oshwah, so he does deserve the primary credit for both creating the article and taking it to the GA status. However, as far GA articles go, this one strikes me as rather stubby and underwhelming. I must admit that if I were passing by and asked to rate this article, I would have probably rated it "Start class" or "C-class". There are issues with grammar in the lede (in particular with the usage of "it" and "its"), the article is written in an overly technical language, and more importantly, significant aspects of the subject are not covered. E.g. there are no reviews of WPNS; no mention of how well it was/is received by the app developers who are supposed to be the primary consumers for this product; no mention of how widely the service is actually being used (presumably some data is available); or what the front end ordinary Windows users think of the service. The Windows Push Notification Service article is closely based, in structure and layout, on another, earlier, article, Microsoft Push Notification Service, also previously created by Oshwah. There is some mild WP:CLOPping present in Windows Push Notification Service, and it would have been preferable to acknowledge this fact in edit summaries when Windows Push Notification Service was written; regrettably, this was not done. In my opinion, Oshwah needs to take a step back from the centers of power on the project (particularly NAC closures of any kind) and refocus for a while on article writing. Nsk92 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    To add to my already long comment above. Looking at the candidate's userpage, one can see some of the root causes of the problems here. The banner at the top of that page says: "Hi. I am Oshwah. I am here to help you!!". Later, in the `About me' section, he writes: "My goal is to continuously apply the knowledge and experience I've gained throughout my life in order to help improve (sic!) Wikipedia." This sounds nice on the surface but really indicates a problem. The real goal of being here should not be to be helpful to others or to help to improve Wikipedia, but rather to help to build Wikipedia. There is a huge difference. We help building Wikipedia first and foremost by writing or expanding articles. Oshwah has done precious little of that. In fact, it is astonishing that for an editor with over 100K edits and over 17K non-automated edits, the content creation footprint has been so light and so underwhelming. It is clear that Oshwah simply does not view serious mainspace work as a priority. Instead he seems to really view his mission here as helping wherever and whenever help is needed in projectspace, a kind of one-man project-space 911 brigade. I believe that this kind of attitude is profoundly misguided and indicates a serious problem in his priorities. That's not all what I want from an admin. The "I am here to help whenever and with whatever problem help is needed" attitude in an admin is a recipe for both a quick burnout and for making a quick mess of things. Nsk92 (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - I only oppose this candidate because of them overstepping their powers as a non-admin with how they declined an unblock request, which is something that only admins can do per WP:BLOCKING#Unblocking. This candidate is otherwise worthy of becoming an admin, just that one action is a deal-breaker for me. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 22:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  15. Regretful oppose: Essentially per MorbidEntree. I see a lot of good here, but what's come out makes it impossible for me to support Oshwah's candidacy. A failure to notice the unblock template directs that unblock reviewing is an admin action is not acceptable. That the instructive language of a template is not itself policy is immaterial: It should put any reader on notice that there is probably such policy and shift the burden in their minds that they may undertake most actions by dint of being editors. While normally one does not presume an action to be forbidden in the absence of policy forbidding the action, the notice the template provides, even if it is imperfect notice, should cause a reasonable person to presume the action is probably forbidden in the absence of policy permitting it. In this case, there are three possibilities by which we can explain the unblocks: (1) Oshwah neglected to read the template instructions and presumed the action was permitted; (2) Oshwah saw the template language but presumed the action was permitted without further research; or (3) Oshwah saw the template language, did further research, and improperly concluded that the action was permitted. Any of these strike me as probably fatal for an admin candidacy so soon after. The striking of an RfA vote, even though it was probably the right action, is simply not acceptable. Even if there were a clear explanation contemporaneous with the striking, Oshwah should not be the one doing it. While Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, RfA is probably the last time we will review any admin candidate's ability to properly carry out the expectations of the community. Oshwah should have left a comment on the RfA talk page. This strikes me as something like picking one's nose during a job interview. Even if the nose-picking were warranted on a biological basis, a job candidate's inability to recognize the inappropriateness of doing so in such a formal environment would raise red flags in the interviewer's mind. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Sorry, I can't get past "I was only trying to help." (Seemingly innocent and used alot, but unconscious verbal body language. Perhaps the most manipulative phrase in the English language. It aims to shield one's actions from criticism/challenge via preemptive or after-the-fact shaming of those who would criticize/challenge.) Big red flag for me re trust. IHTS (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  17. Oppose: I said at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 3#Oshwah that I would not be able to support at this time, and after more consideration I find I cannot. Eagerness is laudable, but it needs to be accompanied by care and prudence. Every time I look through this again I'm left with the impression of a keen editor, also extremely keen to be an admin, but too often lacking critical judgement skills. Whilst the declining of unblock requests is the deal breaker for me, there's also that recurring theme of overstep, apologise, promise to learn. This misses the point that whilst you can apologise for each result of an overstep, each time you do so, and promise to learn each time, you are learning the wrong thing. Don't learn that each overstep has varying consequences for which you can be repeatedly forgiven - break the loop and learn not to overstep at all.
    As a non-admin, the consequences are minimal, but as an admin this lack of judgement and acting outside your authority can be very damaging. On the current revision of Oshwah's talkpage, basically covering just this month, I count 9 or 10 threads which are basically users complaining about reverts, and Oshwah saying "Oh,yeah, sorry, I made a mistake...". These are just the ones who made the effort to complain. Many more, perhaps, did not, and perhaps just went away, discouraged. I do understand that Oshwah works at a high rate, with semi-automated tools, but the time to take more care is when the bullets you are spraying around are hitting innocent people, regardless of the number of "bad guys" you "take out". It certainly makes me nervous about what might happen with higher calibre weapons.
    I'm sorry if this sounds all very negative, and I realise this will likely pass, so I just want to urge Oshwah to take the concerns in this and the neutral section seriously. If he does so, and exercises care, I'm sure he can do fine. I'm just one of those who needs to see it happen before supporting. --Begoontalk 11:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  18. Oppose: Lack of content creation and meddling with unblock requests.--Catlemur (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  19. Regretful oppose This is a strange RfA, in that the headline !vote numbers do not reflect the powerful concerns brought up by aa growing number of highly respected colleagues who have brought cogent concerns to the table, both in the oppose and neutral sections. They reflect a considerable list of potential issues, and it is this that has brought me here. The candidate is an excellent asset to the project, who is great in the areas in which he chooses to work. However I do not believe the candidate actually needs the tools over and above what he actually has access to in order to continue to do good work. I am afraid the desire to gain the extra tools is almost palpable here. A major concern in addition to me is the granting of the block and ban buttons. Begoon puts it very well just above. The candidate does indeed work at a very high rate, and I too am concerned about the possibility of inadvertant collatoral damage, with potentially disasterous results. I highly admire the candidates work rate and length of tenure, and their dedication to vandal fighting and the lesser known areas of work vital to keeping the project on the road. However, being an admin is a heavy task, and it requires even more than that. I really wish the candidate good fortune, and would echo what many have said, that with a good heart he take on board some of the criticisms voiced here. Irondome (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  20. Oppose There are many fellow editors who's opinions I value greatly in the support column, and it appears certain that this RfA will pass, however I do have serious enough concerns about the candidate that I can't include myself among the supporters. There are several areas I work in on Wikipedia that are based on instinct, and I've learned that following my gut rarely leads me astray. In this case, although there are no specific discrete incidents that lead me to oppose, Oshwah's over-participation at the administration boards and, as Irondome noted above, their almost palpable desire to gain the tools, is setting off alarm bells for me. I find myself in agreement with Nsk92 above and Drmies's analysis in the neutral section. I believe that Oshwah can continue to do good work that benefits the encyclopedia without the need of administrative tools. I'm curious to know if they'd want to.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. (e/c) Primarily, candidate's lack of reserve. Yes, this is a strange RfA. It's not an editor's career arc that I expect, and that gives me a lot of trouble. First, I recognize Oshwah as being a prodigious vandal fighter: his welcome reverts often cross my watch page. Q1-Q3 left me a bit uneasy. Q1 is a little too expansive and seems to violate the rule of two; GeneralizationsAreBad's Q8 is along a similar line; the answer is good, but it does not allay my fears because it does not actually say what I want it to say. Q2 leaves me uncomfortable; it overclaims and has an unfortunate tone; I expected more about RfA v 1.0. Q3 is the primary source of strangeness. The candidate is a vandal fighter, and vandal fighters usually avoid conflict; why is there so much conflict? I like that Q3 gives specific examples, but the number of examples and their direction is troubling. Furthermore, I do not like that the candidate is excusing his own mistakes; that's not how apologies are supposed to go. The candidate's talk page has additional missteps. (See Begoon's oppose.) I'm willing to write off an episode or three, but there's a stable pattern here. From one talk page episode, I posed Q5, and the answer was disappointing. Oshwah did not understand what happened: "Obviously, I was incorrect with reverting the edit in the first place, as the math appears to check out and the edit looks to be good." The IP was half-right: the IP's conversion of 203 m was right, but the error was on the metric rather than the English unit side. Oshwah was too quick to act in both the incident and the Q. Oshwah also ignored the issue about the fast reverting of the IP's well-intentioned edits and how that would impact the IP. The IP's edits were reverted within a minute, and the IP's coherent missive to Oshwah was ignored/dismissed. (WP:BITING) The episode also suggests weak content experience. One reason some !voters like to see significant content contributions is content creators have probably received a wrong revert or premature CSD tag; being on the receiving end provides perspective. 78.26's skin-of-the-teeth support perhaps provides an explanation of Oshwah's behavior with "but a bit hasty with IP addresses". Although Oshwah is vandal patrolling, he's also reverting content. Maybe what is wrong is the recognition of vandalism. The WP:SNOW {{NAC}}s by themselves don't bother me; I'm willing to discard them as a benign mistake, but combined with other incidents, I'm not so sure. I want admins to be reserved: don't jump to a conclusion but rather take some time to think about something before jumping. Oshwah tells us he will do that, but the track record tells me something else. (While composing this oppose, Oshwah has stated that the NACs were WP:IAR: "I made the decision to IAR and perform them." That makes it worse to me; it takes it out of mistake land and into deliberate act territory.) I'm not sure where I stand on the Catch-22 hat collecting; there's some traction to that argument. There's a lot on the plus side of the ledger. The sheer volume of patrol edits and a low error rate could produce a number of abnormal situations. Some of the Qs are clearly thought out, and some even show reserve such as talking rather than blocking. I don't like being here, but I'm worried that Oshwah will be too fast on the trigger. Glrx (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Revisiting. My apprehension about reserve is much stronger due to the breadth of Oshwah's misadventures:
    • 11 May 2016, Oshwah is NAC declining WP:SNOW unblock requests.[37] Not such a big deal by itself.
    • 1 June 2016, Oshwah was closing AIV reports. BethNaught points out he both closes and removes some reports (skipping independent review violates rule of two).
    • 2 June 2016. Although Oshwah's main area is vandal fighting, he labels a vandalism-only report against XtraTacoman (talk · contribs) as "Not obvious vandalism. Looks like edit testing and rookie mistakes." XT has four edits, all to The Imitation Game. The first changes "Alan Turing" to "Alan Tubing"; the second reverts that change with the edit comment "noticed a spelling error of alan turing". The third edit inserts "Hey there Danny ;)." User:NottNott reverts that edit in the next minute and drops a talk page message. Twenty minutes later, XT changes "Alan Turing" to "Alan Turtwig" and does some extensive cover edits (showing significant sophistication). Apparent tag-team vandal partner IP 150.104.201.76 has also provided two distracting vandal edits before and after XT's edit.[38] NottNott is not fooled and reverts all three edits in the same minute and leaves another talk page message. Fifteen minutes later, User:Willondon reports XT at AIV. Oshwah examines the report and uses the template that says "Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting." (The "please ensure" part of the message stings; I wish Oshwah had been diligent.) Oshwah's previous edit (also an AIV decline) was at 13:34.[39] The not-vandalism pronouncement was at 13:35.[40] User:Widr indeffed the account as vandalism-only at 13:39.[41] At 13:48, Willondon left first of two messages on Oshwah's user page disputing Oshwah's actions; Willodon thought Oshwah was an admin, but realizes he is not.[42] Oshwah's apology at 19:54 states, "It's very easy to cross the line and into the mode of going too fast and not giving each recent change the careful review that it deserves."[43] The response also has the inexplicable, "I should have used a different response template or not have placed one on your report at all."
    • I don't know, but I'll guess that something caused Oshway to stop declining AIV reports
    • 9 June 2016. Oshwah starts AIV clerking. Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#Non-admin endorsement
    • 16 June 2016. ORCP starts.
    Oshwah's expertise is supposed to be vandal fighting, but it comes with significant false positives and false negatives. He is not a stellar vandal fighter but rather a quick and careless one. I would expect much more care when he first started declining AIV reports. Opposing is never easy, and Oshwah's prodigious production and positive contributions make it even more difficult, but the misadventures, quick action, and poor focus tell me this is not the right time for promotion. Glrx (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Not enough experience in creating articles, and what he has created are mostly limited to computing. He states that he spends time helping new and misguided users with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, offering mediation and insight towards disputes. That's admirable, but it's a bit like telling somebody how to drive through city traffic when you've never driven an automobile. Real-time experience on a variety of subjects in article creation help people understand why those polices and guidelines are there. And it would be a lot better if this editor had participated in at least one successful FA review as a nominator. I think this editor needs more seasoning on article creation and review processes. Blocking editors is a really serious business, and it needs admins who have been where the editors have been. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  23. Oppose I'm very sorry to be opposing this RfA because Oshwah is generally a very likeable and productive editor. However there are many concerns which prevent me from supporting. Some which have already been expounded upon by others: NACs of unblock requests (Mendaliv); high error rate with Huggle (Begoon); overeagerness to take on positions of power. Like Ponyo I have a bad gut feeling about it. To illustrate this, I want to remark on the following (alluded to by SMcCandlish above).
    In early June this year, Oshwah took it upon himself to invent non-admin AIV clerking, creating an "endorsement" template with which to mark reports (example). This was brought up on the talk page where it was pointed out that it was pointless and the admin would still have to check. On other occasions I have seen Oshwah decline AIV reports. At that discussion, Oshwah's response, that being criticised for overstepping the line implies that he should entirely cross it, and his participation in the young, cool-talk banter, demonstrates a lack of judgement and propriety consistent with adminship. (I'm not saying admins can't have fun, but there's a time and a place.)
    This RfA looks like passing, so I hope Oshwah will take the criticisms and advice on board. When I first got the mop, I was pretty terrified of screwing up and waded into adminship slowly; Oshwah's demeanour makes me fear he will get over-excited and cause a mess. So take care: verify all the edits of an alleged vandal carefully, brush up on the precise CSD criteria wordings, and if in any doubt whatever, do not at first act. BethNaught (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    See my comment in the general comments section for diffs regarding the inappropriate declining of AIV reports. BethNaught (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Based on the evidence provided by multiple editors above, I'm not convinced that Oshwah has shown care in his work so far. While many of these mistakes are forgivable on their own, they show a concerning pattern of editing first and asking questions later, which is tolerable in non-admin work but can cause problems (and drama) when applied to administrative responsibilities. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 02:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. (Moved from neutral) Too many really really disturbing problems noted by BethNaught and Glrx; plus the absolutely baffling decision to immediately strike a !vote in his own RfA (rather than pass a note on Talk to someone else). Original text of my "neutral" statement: Oshwah has done some good work at ANI, looking into matters and making clueful comments. Far from being a cause for concern, clueful participation in "the drama boards" is essential for an admin candidate in my opinion. On the other hand, the declining of unblock requests is a serious, serious breach – head-scratchingly, alarmingly so. It seems to speak volumes about power seeking, presumption, over-reach, hat-collecting, and general wrong-headedness. I do not wish to support the giving of tools to someone who has made such glaring breaches of policy and common sense. If successful I strongly recommend the candidate stick to AIV and also to clear-cut non-blocking requests, and completely avoid anything even remotely borderline or contentious (including blocking of anyone who is a reg, accepting or declining unblock requests, and so on). I don't have the confidence in this candidate that I would have in a number of mature, cool-headed, careful, non-power-seeking individuals who I think should be admins. I hope therefore that if successful the candidate will slow down, stick to what they know, avoid what they don't know (content issues), and completely avoid controversial decisions. Softlavender (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  26. Weak Oppose (moved from (weak) support) I'm not impressed with the now infamous decline of an unblock request. As stated by others, the policy on this matter clearly said it was only for admins to do. Looking at Oshwah's most recent contributions they are almost all automated. I would suggest you spend more time on improving articles. I was originally in the support section (although weakly) but the thing about the unblock is a deal breaker for me. Sorry, - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. I've seen your enthusiasm at AN/I, based on what I've seen there I would have voted in support of your adminship as you strike me as mildly overenthusiastic but sufficiently knowledgeable. Having seen the rationales of the oppose voters, I have to join them as I'm seeing that enthusiasm to help out being detrimental in some currently irreconcilable ways. First, you infringe upon acting as an admin when you aren't one. Striking a vote here, declining unblock requests, clerking at AIV, you shouldn't have been doing any of those things. Your reaction to the discussion at the AIV talk page does nothing to help your case here either; rather nonchalant in your response to being called out on it. Second, content creation, I'd reviewed your editing stats after Ritchie's comment, and while you have 132,000 edits only about 10% of those aren't semi-automated and as far as I can tell, you've only contributed up to GA (No A or FA articles). Those two things coupled together put me here. I think you need to slow down, if you get the mop I see you being too overexcited to use the tools and a few bad blocks/closes/unblocks can all lead to ARBCOM and you losing the mop. I'd also like to see more content creation, at 132,000 edits (17,000 non automated) I'd be expecting rather expansive work across a hundred articles not eleven (per your userpage). Mr rnddude (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. I see a number of points in favour, but also a number against, including a number of weaknesses in answers to questions above. However, there is one point which to me is so alarming that it completely rules this candidate out. That is the issue about closing unblock requests. Of course, it is possible to argue that IAR can be allowed to over-rule both the policy that an editor requesting an unblock is entitled to a review by an administrator and the fact that the decline template says that an administrator has reviewed the request, and we could spend hours debating that, but what really settles the matter for me is that the candidate makes it 100% clear that he did not think he was doing anything particularly controversial by declining those requests. If he indicated that he was aware that many editors would question his actions, but nevertheless thought that on balance what he was doing for the best, we could argue about whether he was right, but someone so completely out of touch with how such actions would be seen that he "never imagined ... that it would be viewed as a breach of policy this seriously" is not suitable to be an administrator. An administrator who is that much out of touch with the community will at times make decisions which are so drastically out of line with community thinking as to be unacceptable. Having given my reason for opposing, I would like to distance myself from the traditional "not enough content creation" pretext which is, as so often, given as a reason for opposing. The notion that having created a large number of articles is one of the main requirements for someone to be given tools to do a load of things other than creating articles has never seemed convincing to me. This candidate has created more articles than I had when I became an administrator, and while some editors may think that my administrative work has suffered as a result lack of "content creation", I don't, nor do I see any reason to think that Oshwah's will suffer for that reason if he does become an administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Seems like a candidate with good intentions, but he appears to not be up to scratch yet for becoming an administrator. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    Update: "per above" Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    This account is less than a month old.
    Can you provide a reason why he's not ready for adminship? Simply saying he's not up to scratch doesn't help the candidate to improve.—cyberpowerChat:Online 16:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    Why should Emir of Wikipedia give a reason when those who support fail to do the same? CassiantoTalk 20:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    I would take it they likely mean and include everything that has been said by comments here. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    When a supporter supports, they are asserting that they are satisfied with the the experience and temperament of the candidate. When you oppose, you tell the candidate you are not satisfied with something. Not mentioning what that something is doesn't allow the candidate to improve and fix the concern. Even a "per above" would be more helpful than nothing.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 22:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    SwisterTwister was right and I was agree with the above comments. Apologies for my ignorance.Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. I am uncomfortable with the block/unblock thing. Also, striking of SPA !votes is not done. Tagging them as SPA? Fine. Striking a !vote if somebody !votes more than once? Fine. But striking the whole SPA !votes is something I see here for the first time. Also, I'm not comfortable with A4 either. An experienced editor calling a newbie "fuckwit"? Yell "Fuck off"? Calls for a bit more than a warning to all three editors, including the newbie... --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    FWIW, that's nothing new that has been noticed from this user. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  31. Oppose.I don't like having to do this, Oshwah, but in what I believe is an unprecedented move for me in the over 300 RfA I have voted o, I am moving my vote based on the comments of other participants in the Oppose and neutral sections. Many users, myself included, and particularly, for example Drmies, Montanabw, SMcCandlish, Wehwalt, Chris troutman, MelanieN and others, have graciously placed their participation in the neutral section but with such detail, the strength of their arguments leans strongly towards 'opposes'. The 30 or so actual oppose votes are also based on serious research and concerns. Even under the new, more relaxed standards, these numbers taken together are not insignificant and under pre-reform circumstances, the caution expressed by these voters would probably have precluded a promotion, and therefore I am unable to remain the neutral section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  32. Oppose The NAC closures of unblock requests is the biggest issue for me, but a variety of other legitimate concerns have been raised above, including weakness in content creation. Cumulatively, these issues lead me to the conclusion that this is not the right time for this editor to become an administrator. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  33. Oppose (Moved from support) - The NAC closures of unblock requests is what brings me here - No unblock requests should ever be accepted nor declined by anyone except admins, Had it been a one time occurrence I probably would've let it slip but from the diff above they've declined 5 or more, I mean we all make mistakes etc etc but declining unblock requests is one mistake no one should ever make. –Davey2010Talk 02:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    ... which is why Oshwah says he didn't view it as a mistake at the time. Did you read the answer to Q9? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Well to be fair to Oshwah, if admins on enwiki weren't lazy or doing their job well, non-admins wouldn't need to step up to do their job for them..I like how many of the opposers for that reason seem to be admins...Hilarious but at the same time, so so very sad...People should ask two questions before voting here, Why do we even have RfAs in the first place? why do we need more admins even though we supposedly have nearly 1300 admins? if you never really ask those questions, then opposing Oshwah for stepping up is not really a valid reason..this isn't aimed at you only Davey, its for all those who opposed for this reason..--Stemoc 05:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Ed - I did but my point was they shouldn't ever be touched by non admins,
    Stemoc - In all fairness admins aren't on here 247 - Like us editors admins have lives too, I get where you're coming from I really do but I simply disagree with them touching unblock requests, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  34. Oppose Someone who exercises authority when he does not yet have it is likely to exert it when he does have it. While I'm troubled by the concerns of Girx and BethNaught, among others, the deal-breaker is his response to Question 4. Warning the participants and threatening a block would solve exactly nothing. Everyone involved would immediately start going at him, and I leave it to readers of similar past disputes to imagine what would be said, but it would be unpleasant and bordering on the personal or likely not bordering. I think I know which button he's going to reach for. More subtlety is called for in such circumstances. Blocking people who may not come back and for whose loss the reader would be the poorer is a bad idea, unless it utterly cannot be avoided. Maybe I misjudge him. But I prefer to be conservative in my votes for election to a position that has no further review. I'm not closing the door to a support vote in the future, but I need to see more.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  35. Oppose Per Andrew D., Ritchie and some others above. Editor needs more mellowing and more serious and careful content work. Kingsindian   09:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  36. Oppose I share the opinions of the editors above about the closes of unlock requests. This is something that non-admins should not be doing. The AIV clerking and declining, as shown in the links BethNaught provided below, is also a big concern for me. When reviewing reports at AIV, you should always check the deleted contributions before deciding what action to take. This is obviously something non-admins can’t do. Unfortunately I am seeing someone who is acting with the best of intentions but in their eagerness to help, and to beat other editors to the punch, they are acting without taking the time to properly assess all the information, and are being presumptuous about what they should be doing. This last thing is particularly troubling and I can see it becoming a problem if he starts making decisions on his own that should have had community involvement, or starts becoming involved at SPI or Arbcom. I’m sorry Oshwah, you seem like a really nice person but I can’t shake the feeling that, if given the admin tools at this time, it will end badly for you and I don't what that to happen because I think overall you are a good editor who is a benefit to the project. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. regretfully. I've always believed the admin bit is no big deal, but the more I reflect on the arguments raised in this debate and my opinions on what Wikipedia should be, and my journey on Wikipedia, I'm left convinced that we need our admins to have more time interacting with articles and article creation and spending less time interacting with drama. Apologies. Hiding T 10:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Hiding: How do the admin tools help in article creation? You don't need the mop to write articles. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    One of the reasons people want article creation experience in admins is because admins are frequently called upon to intervene in article writing disputes and, at its core, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A good admin needs to be able to see the difference between honest, though controversial or even harsh, criticism of someone else's article writing efforts and downright disruption geared towards advancing a POV or in settling some personal score. Experience in the mechanics of article writing and promotion mechanisms is probably the best indicator we have of that ability. It's entirely valid, though perhaps because it's a conventional criticism the reasons for it tend to get abbreviated. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  38. Oppose Regretfully must oppose. At first I wondered why there was an RFA on this user, having seen numerous block declines and comments at AIV and thought maybe they gave up the bit and were re-requesting it. A cursory run-through of talk page comments show that quite a few users also believe this person to already be an admin. Although we don't censor, the replies to Q9 borderline on immaturity and show a lack of control. I must agree with all the comments regarding overstepping lines and boundaries, from the unblock declines to AIV, NAC down to even editing others comments on this RFA. We have all made mistakes (I closed my own RFC being the most major) and have learned from it. Continuing to reach and push in other areas is just a simple transference of desire. The self-need/desire to click some admin command seems to be more important than the desired functionality.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 15:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  39. Oppose, with regrets. User:BethNaught probably lays out the essential arguments best, and others here, like Sarahj2107, say things very well. I don't see any satisfactory rebuttals from the candidate, or from the support !voters. There are times to be bold and times to be cautious, especially in determining and implementing consensus, and I don't think the candidate is ready yet to strike the right balance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  40. Oppose Concurring with Bethnaught and Softlavender. Lacks judgment, restraint, temperament and clue expected of someone with the tools. Keri (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  41. Oppose Andrew D. lays out my concerns about content creation quite well, but I think its a bit harsh to judge people by just that. There's lots of positives- he seems to be a motivated vandal fighter, and is certainly enthusiastic, but the unblocking debacle is too big to ignore. The template is quite clear that this is an admin's job, and along with striking out votes, ANV actions, the high error rate with Huggle and inventing more needless bureaucracy on the ANI dramafest board, seems to only confirm the general vibe of hatcollecting and power hungryness. I don't want to comment again on the content concerns, but perhaps getting away from the drama boards and writing some quality content wouldn't do any harm, after all Wikipedia wouldn't be where it is without its content creators. At this moment in time, I don't feel that I can support his candidacy. Sorry. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  42. Oppose I was previously in the support column. I rarely oppose. Wehwalt sums up perfectly, I think. Concerns about rashness and careless behaviour are enough to give one pause in granting admin powers at this time. Sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  43. Oppose My views reflect Mr rnddude's summary above. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. I moved here from support. In my now-indented support comment, you can see my concerns about the unblock request declines, balanced against my desire to AGF about the candidate's sincere desire to be helpful, and ability to learn from mistakes. But now I see the actions taken at AIV, and unfortunately that pushes me over the line. This was very recent, and there is a flippancy that comes across that, taken with the earlier concerns, becomes too much for me to let pass. I now think that, despite the very clear good intentions of this user, there is too much immaturity affecting decisions to overreach in sensitive areas. I still believe that this is someone who will learn from mistakes, and I wish them well, but I no longer believe that they are ready for the responsibility. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  45. I'm appreciative of Oshwah's contributions, but I land in this section for reasons similar to BethNaught. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. Africa Center for Strategic Studies was mentioned earlier in this RfA, where you reverted the removal of promotional chunks of content by an IP. I've made some additions, which you may review to see some of the sort of helpful content additions I made to improve the article to better meet Wikipedia's standards: add an external link to the organization's official website, recover a {{dead link}} by finding and linking to the archived page on archive.org, improve categorization of the page, remove a tag reporting issues with the article which have since been addressed, and find relevant information in a related article and copy it to to article to give better context to where this organization fits within the structure of US government agencies. I haven't seen evidence that you make these sort of improvements. I'm a bit puzzled by your lack of significant contributions in technical areas such as template and module space, given your recent BS in software, as indicated on your user page. However I am sympathetic to the argument that the RfA bar has been set too high, so we shouldn't expect too much experience or competence in areas that RfA candidates choose not to focus on. Given that, I'm taking a detailed look some of your work in combating vandalism, the area that you have chosen to specialize in. In that regard I found this page, which was linked in the general comments section below interesting – unfortunately, not in a good way. (1) In response to the report: "This user keeps vandalizing The CW Daytime. And I even gave him a warning about what would happen if he did it again.", you said that 2602:306:C5E4:24A0:392B:6F25:11B8:2AF8 "has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently." I see that 2602:306:C5E4:24A0:392B:6F25:11B8:2AF8 made only two edits, just one of which was to The CW Daytime, and has no deleted edits. They were warned, appropriately just once for their one edit, so "This user keeps vandalizing The CW Daytime." mischaracterized their editing activity. I would have advised that editors shouldn't be reported to the AIV noticeboard after only their second edit. I see that the user was CheckUser blocked, but that's beyond my authority as an admin to determine, much less yours. (2) In response to a report of the contributions of Danishyy (who also has seven deleted contributions), you said "This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to WP:ANI." This user was blocked for a week back on Feb. 28. Since then, they had three pages deleted, with reasons: vandalism, test page and copyright infringement. Their one remaining recent live edit "Constitution of Nepal 2072" was redirected to Constitution of Nepal 2015, though it could have been deleted as a recently created, implausible redirect (WP:CSD#R3). Surely this could be handled without an escalation to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. (3) In fairness to you, I confirm your next remark on that page: "Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. Only two edits made as well." That editors two edits were deleted, and then the user was blocked anyway, with a rationale that I'm not fond of: "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". I also see that they were tagged as a sockpuppet on their user page by an editor with only rollbacker rights, and the sockpuppet case given as justification for that was closed because the editor was "Already blocked and tagged". So, in conclusion, I'm reluctantly opposing, as I don't see sufficient competence in your core competency to give me enough confidence, though I don't really know how widespread the issues I see here are. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    This oppose rationale now holds the record for being the longest oppose !vote in the history of RfA. :p—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 21:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral. Moving to 'Oppose" I couldn't make my mind up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 3#Oshwah and I still can't make it up here. I gave a 50/50 chance of success; Ritchie333 makes some valid points in his oppose but the nominations are strong and come from respected and experienced admins too. Consider this 'neutral' as my simply registering the fact that I have participated in this RfA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I said I wasn't going to say much, and it's always hard to stay in the oppose or neutral section with such an overwhelming number of support votes, but I would like to endorse the comments below by Drmies. Before the RfA reforms early this year when user participation was much lower and the bar was higher, I still think this RfA would have possibly gone to a 'crat-chat; there are some strong comments and caveats in this neutral section that the candidate will need to take on board.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Moving to Oppose. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. I concur with the concerns of Ritchie333, but am taking a wait and see position. My concern is 1) That Oshwah may choose quantity over quality, 2) being too quick to make decisions, and 3) a continuing lack of content creation and thus I'm concerned this editor has a lack of understanding of what content editors face. Frankly, I'm concerned about a 91% success rate at AfD, too. That smells of "knee-jerk" !voting. I've been spending time at AfD and the place is a bastion of hardcore deletionists. It's easy to game the system there and rack up points by !voting delete as a default and otherwise just voting with the herd. Further, of all the articles where his !vote differed from the result, in all but one case, he !voted "delete" on an article that ultimately was kept or merged. That's just too easy. What's hard is saving articles with potential from deletion. I'd like to see examples where Oshwah helped save an article from deletion with solid arguments or by doing a WP:HEY to bring it up to better quality. I do see he !votes about 69% deletion, so he does seek alternatives to deletion sometimes, but with 19.1% "keep" voting, that causes me concern. I'm also concerned that he has only "created" 24 "articles" in article space but 17 of these are redirects. He is credited with over 30K "articles created" total, and over 100k edits, but nearly all of this is automated (looks like a lot of warnings to IPs, which is needed, but still...) and a lot was in his own userspace. I'm impressed with his technical abilities, but I really don't want a bot to be passing judgement on human editing behavior, a real live person is necessary, and one that has identified him or herself has having discernment to figure out what is going on, as opposed to a "you're all at fault" or even a "pox on both your houses" approach. Montanabw(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Neutral. I am parking here for now. Provisional stance. Irondome (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Neutral for now. The lack of article creation doesn't concern me much; near 50% mainspace edits is good (I'm not a huge article creator myself, preferring gnome work). I wasn't impressed by this, especially the candidate's comment 'I've heard different opinions from different admins regarding the recent "clerking" I've been doing. As sad as it is, I will stop clerking AIV if the consensus is reached that I should no longer do so. Maybe this is a sign that I should just go for it already... maybe...' When at least some people are telling you that your involvement in admin noticeboards and processes is not helpful, I'm highly skeptical that 'so you should become an admin' is the intended message, at all. The followup commenter's rhetorical question gets to the point: 'There needs to be a consensus to stop you doing what you should've had consensus to do in the first place...?! :p' That said, this is just one issue, and I have not looked at the other pro and con material yet, or done my own exam of the editor's contribution pattern, and have work to do today (of the off-WP kind, I mean). I concur from what I've seen first-hand so far that Oshwah is earnest, acts in good faith, and is temperate.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    Hi SMcCandlish, I thought I'd respond to this, though Oshwah may as well. His initial response "if the consensus is reached" was silly (as Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi pointed out). I feel, however, that his response to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi reflects a much more important administrator trait - a willingness to realize that he had done something silly and learn from the experience, indeed, with a good attitude. Waggie (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Still need to go over a lot of other stuff. This is a "neutral, pending more time to look and evaluate", not a "neutral, leaning oppose". LOL. I would love to see a GA in there (or of course an FA). I have few GAs and no FAs myself, because polishing the chrome is not my role, filling in gaping holes is, and I'm fine with Oshwah's being putting out fires. What I'll be looking for is approach to content disputes, correct interpretation of policies and guidelines, moderate enforcement recommendations, non-admin closure of discussions per their policy/source-based argument strengths not on "popularity contest" vote counting, and no enabling of WP:OWNish/WP:VESTED antics. So, I'll have a lot of reading to do.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    I did a regexp search for non-admin closures by the candidate [44], and all those that the search found are either a) closures of ANI threads (which is fine, but simply reporting what action an admin took who forgot to close the thread afterward), and b) declines of unblock requests in user talk space, which should definitely only be done by admins ("This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request."). I don't really have much else to go on yet, other than the editor's extensive and generally uncontroversial participation in the project, and positive demeanor. Guess I'll look at XfDs (other than AfDs, which Montanabw analyzed) next. I do have concerns now. Twice in a row when I've gone looking for the good stuff, I've seen the candidate taking inappropriate non-admin actions that are self-evidently not within WP:NAC scope. Why would this not translate into, e.g., applying discretionary sanctions where they are not authorized, making decisions that are properly the scope of ArbCom not a single admin, speedily deleting articles that don't actually fit the WP:CSD criteria, etc.? Repeated failure to realize the limits of one's authority is a general issue (possibly a serious one given the candidate's focus on dealing with disruptive parties); it's not somehow limited to one's admin-hopeful period. While I do think more admin tools need to be unbundled, until they are, they aren't, and Oshwah not "getting" this gives me pause.

    But the answer to the first question up top is good, and the editor's "radiate calm" demeanor in general is a huge plus; I don't want to make a mountain out of the mole hill of two minor NAC issues.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

    Content concerns, as ever. And per Kudpung and Montanabw. Expect to move to one camp or the other as the RfA develops but I might just wait it out here instead.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

    Moving to oppose, regretfully.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Neutral for now per all the reasons Montanabw stated. Further, I sense some desire for hat collecting and have seen some immaturity in decision-making that makes me wonder if it's not too soon for Oshwah. That said, even though he pretty much ignores me when I ping or ask him questions, I do respect MikeV's opinion on things and am leaning at this time toward support of this RfA based on his nomination. I'd like to see a few more reasons why Oshwah'd make a good admin from other editors whose opinions I currently respect - maybe that will bring me to support. -- WV 15:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Changing !vote to Oppose. -- WV 14:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Neutral for the moment anyway. Like others in this section, I note that editors who are experienced and who I personally respect support this nomination. However, I do find some of the issues brought up in the opposes and the concerns brought up by Montanabw and SMcCandlish are giving me pause and the answers to the additional questions (particularly Q4) are lacking some nuance that I believe was important. The presentation of Sakurai's Object as an expansion when his edits are small copyediting, which is needed and is always appreciated to be clear, and minor expansion--so, technically an expansion, yes, but the impression given here doesn't match the reality for me (also see Andrew D's oppose). Also, as I'm going through his talk page, edits like this reversion on BDSM particularly the restoration of wikilinking roleplaying to Mental disorder (this should've been a manual partial revert rather than a semi-automated full revert) and this reversion on Barry Stevens (therapist) (a little too quick to revert, though I'm greatly heartened to see the self-revert and its edit summary as well as an apology and ownership of the mistake). Still, these small things taken together chips away at my ability to support at this time because it speaks to me of someone who is a little too overenthusiastic and overconfident, rather than someone who is measured and thoughtful in their actions as I would expect of an admin. However, these pieces are (in my mind) small, hence why I'm sticking to neutral for now. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    As this RfA has gone on, I haven't seen anything that has instilled confidence in me. I entirely recognize that Oshwah acts in good faith, that he is a very good vandal fighter, and that he will be a wonderful addition to our vandal fighting front lines. However, I do still get the continuing and persistent impression that he is too knee-jerk to revert, especially IPs, and even though he marks it AGF (and it is genuinely in good faith), AGF alone doesn't negate reversions that are a little too hasty and it doesn't cover not looking at diffs long and hard enough, it doesn't cover failing to recognize certain content issues. While I don't believe that admin nominees must have a plethora of content creation or even a showcase of quality articles, but looking at this, I certainly understand why content creation is something people look for: content creation familiarizes an editor with tone issues, promotional material, weasel wording, why things as small as a stylistic dispute can snowball into edit warring and a painful trip to dispute resolution. I have immense faith that Oshwah is very good at the obvious vandalism, but on more subtle issues that require more time to sit on a diff and take a measured action such as a partial revert or taking an action that isn't a reversion at all, it seems to me that Oshwah moves a little too quickly. I am sure Oshwah is willing to learn, I am sure that Oshwah has worked to improve in previous problem areas, and I am sure that Oshwah will consider the concerns brought forth here. And, this is a lengthy diatribe about things that other editors with more clout in this part of town than I do have already written on, but I am greatly, greatly concerned about this. I am confident that Oshwah will be a good addition against fighting the trolls. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Neutral If I'm not mistaken, I think this is the first time I vote; thought I be a good Wikipedia citizen. Neutral on this one, taking it slow. --In Allah We Trust (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. This RfA seems to have run its course, and I have mixed feelings about it--I have faith in the nominators and in many of the supporters, among whom I find some really seasoned editors and administrators--aye, even arbitrators. And I know Oshwah to generally have sound judgment esp. in Recent changes etc. But I share some of the concerns by Ritchie and others. I don't want to say "hat collecting", but I see a lot of the kinds of edits that we typically associate with that, esp. on ANI. They're not bad by themselves, and I don't remember ever having quarreled over one of those closures--but if I had seen those unblock requests being denied I would have said something about it. By now, I gather, Oshwah won't do that anymore, but that's irrelevant when he becomes an admin. I thought that was really poor judgment. And I have another concern, one that I can't easily find the diffs for: on occasion I saw them revert IP edits without much (or any) justification; most recently there was this.

    That particular diff, the critique of which Oshwah sidestepped in this conversation, is probably the kind of thing that bothers the "content creators" as well, since it seems to show a lack of judgment, a lack of knowledge about sourcing, tone, neutrality, etc. Editors who have written content, esp. content which was peer-reviewed through GA or FA, are simply better judges of content than those who have not had that experience. Some of our best admins aren't necessarily prolific content creators, but they have shown sound judgment in that area--I addressed this for such editors in my nomination statements at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bbb23 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Writ Keeper. Sure, Windows Push Notification Service is a GA--but it's not a very ambitious or long one, nor is there anything difficult or intricate about the subject matter or the sourcing; by contrast, this, a birthday present from four years ago, shows me an editor who has skills and judgment. I'm not saying Oshwah doesn't have that, just that I've seen no real evidence of it in article content.

    Generally speaking, in the few years that I have known him I have been generally impressed, but I continue to have reservations. Sorry, Oshwah, that I cannot fully support this nomination, but I trust you'll take some of the comments from the nay-sayers to heart, and I'm sure you'll do just fine. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

    The Africa Center for Strategic Studies revert you mention had the IP removing well-written text and the candidate restoring it. So well-written it tripped my copyvio curiosity:
    Africa Center Website:[45]
    The Center’s first event was a Senior Leaders Seminar, held in Dakar, Senegal, in May 1999. The program brought together 115 senior-level civilian government officials, flag-level military officers, and representatives of civil society from Africa, Europe, and the United States for two weeks of intense academic work. Fifty African nations were represented.
    Wikipedia article:
    The Africa Center’s first event was its Senior Leaders Seminar, held in Dakar, Senegal in May 1999. The Dakar seminar brought together 115 senior-level civilians, flag-level military officers, and representatives of civil society from Africa, Europe and the United States for two weeks of intense academic work. Fifty African nations were represented.
    Glrx (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    This does also concern me. While I understand the concern that an IP was removing "vast tracts", and that Drmies had a point in guiding the IP to help at least resummarize, the IP was evidently correct in their explanation: poorly sourced and promotional (which is evident upon reviewing what the IP removed). It reinforces my perception that the nominee is a little too quick in reversions in recent behavior. Though, I am glad to see the AGF in the reversion, but it still doesn't inspire confidence to move from a neutral!vote. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    That article was basically a substitute for the organization's website. I'll look into the copyvio possibility--thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Funny you would say such a thing. Your buddy Beeblebrox is currently on a months-long wikibreak, with various admins making it obvious that they're (ostensibly?) watching his user (talk) page in his absence. I say "ostensibly" because a pretty blatant COI/SPA editor did much the same to Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association recently. Thus far, the response to the note I left to that effect on his page would be best described as "dick all". What sort of message does that send to me? Really, one of two things: either that you feel entitled to blow me off because I didn't come to one of your grovel boards and grovel to you about it, or that this is further evidence of my lingering suspicions that Wikipedia is really nothing more than a popularity contest and/or another wannabe media outlet and "who gives a fuck about an aquaculture association in Alaska, anyway?". I say that because of the number of times I've been accused of putting too much emphasis into covering what other editors evidently view as a "hillbilly backwater". I'll keep all that in mind the next time one of your sacred cows gets gored behind your back, okay? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Neutral: While Oshwah is clearly an experienced and well-rounded individual, Ritchie333 raises some valid points about hat-collecting, and I personally believe that Oshwah NAC'ing those unblock requests demonstrates that "hat-collecting". — Chevvin 22:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  7. Neutral pending further review. There are significant arguments both for and against.ZettaComposer (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  8. Neutral As of now, I cannot in confidence oppose what appears to be a good candidate or else support what may be a bad choice, the vote may change. Iazyges (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Have mostly seen Oshwah at AIV, where he seems generally clueful, but the lack of content creation underpins concerns I have about how he will judge content matters. I am also concerned about the NACing. Too many reservations for a support vote, I'm afraid. I'd like to see some real in-depth content creation and a reasonable time gap from the NACing before I'd support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  10. Neutral We didn't anticipate this situation at ORCP so I'm not going to oppose. I want to support Oshwah as a vandal fighter but I balk at seeing someone doing NAC of unblock requests as some sort of clerking. The clerking behavior really puts another light on the hatshop accusations. I hate to trample Oshwah's enthusiasm to contribute but I prefer my RfA candidates to be reluctant, if anything. I want our mop-swingers to be experienced editors with too much work done to care about adminship. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  11. Neutral The NAC declining of unblocks was worrisome, but when it was added to the uninvited NAC clerking at AIV - and the fact that in both cases it never even occurred to him that it might be at all controversial - I found I could no longer support him. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  12. Neutral I really don't like doing this. I like Oshwah, I think he does a great deal to improve Wikipedia, is an excellent vandal fighter and is very knowledgeable. With that being said (deep breath) I too, much like MelaineN and BethNaught, can't overlook the clerking at AIV. It's just a BIT too much for my liking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  13. Neutral (moved from Support) It's got to be a bit too much for me, too. I don't expect universal knowledge or perfection in candidates, and I don't look for voluminous content creation, but I do like to see toes in the water in the adminning areas. Not a headlong plunge. Still, if he keeps to the path and off the tempting grass for six months or whatever, he should be all right. If this doesn't get through this time, that is. I think he'll learn a lot from this either way. Peridon (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  14. Neutral. This is my first time voting in a RFA, so I'm pretty inexperienced when it comes deciding if someone is ready for adminship. I'm not sure yet if the concerns expressed by the participants in the oppose section is enough for me to oppose. —MartinZ02 (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  15. Moral Support - I wasn't initially aware of some issues raised above, so unfortunately, I had to rethink my position. I am still confident that Oshwah will be a net positive to the project as an admin if he chooses to pursue it in the future, but there are some things that need to be addressed before I can support his candidacy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  16. Neutral This RFA has been one of the most controversial in recent memory. I was willing to overlook the declining of an unblock request as a mistake but when I initially supported, I only looked at their work at AIV in the context of reports Oshwah filed themselves. Even then, they were prone to the occasional mistake or quickness. Now that I'm aware of the situation whereby they were declining other editor's AIV reports, I don't think this should have been done without community consensus to first allow non-admin declines. More importantly, the structure at AIV would have needed to be changed to accommodation this new dynamic. Clear processes and instructions that specifically outline when these reports can be removed and by whom. Oshwah accounted for some of this in their message they left, but it did not become a formalized process at AIV whereby all non-admin declines were mandated to use that template. For me, this shows an eagerness but also a recklessness that I cannot support. I think Oshwah will eventually become an admin but they need to carefully consider the impact they have and contemplate their place in the community. Mkdwtalk 18:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  17. Neutral. Moving from support. While I don't feel that Oshwah will be excessively detrimental to the project if he were to become an admin, I can't support wholeheartedly when reviewing the seemingly hasty, borderline careless actions taken, from the unblock requests to the non-admin clerking at AIV. His actions themselves are not so problematic as the fact that he took those actions in the first place; while the results of the unblock requests would (arguably) have been the same if an admin had handled them, they should have only been handled by an admin. The lack of judgment shown by a non-admin in taking such an action is what troubles me; had Oshwah read the relevant portions of WP:BLOCK, he would have known that such an action was inappropriate. Not familiarizing oneself with the relevant guidelines before taking action shows a lack of foresight, which is problematic for a non-admin but downright inappropriate for an administrator. While my heart tells me that Oshwah will be a net positive to the admin corps, my head says something else; thus, I land here. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
General comments
  • Some commenters here seem to be saying that it's OK for non-admins to respond to unblock requests. This probably isn't the place to debate that, but I can't see any justification for such an attitude. The power to block and unblock is the most powerful tool granted to admins; a person (even a troll) asking for a review has the right to expect it will be handled by someone who has been vetted by the community to make that kind of call. Besides, an admin can shut the troll down if that's what the situation calls for; a non-admin can only set them up for the next unblock request. The template clearly states that the unblock request has been evaluated by an administrator. The policy at WP:UNBLOCK says "An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted." IMO the point should be clearly made here that while this may not be a deal-breaker, it is something he should not have been doing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Lesson learned. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Moreover, Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking explicitly mandates in the 'Block reviews' subsection: "Any user may comment on block reviews, however only administrators may resolve the request (either declining or unblocking)". Nsk92 (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, BethNaught. Troubling indeed. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, BethNaught, The participation of new and/or less experienced editors in areas that are strictly speaking reserved for admins and/or experienced users is a fundamental issue on Wikipedia. We see it not only constantly at ANI, PERM, AfD, etc., but even here at RfA. While it's absolutely not forbidden, it is not always conducive to obtaining the best consensus. Then there are those who believe it will improve their prospects of attaining he dizzy heights of adminship. Sometimes, it causes them to throw caution to the wind whereas leaving those areas largely alone would actually enhance their chances for gaining a new hat. I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to the current candidate, but it's worth mentioning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just a general comment here, but it seems a bit silly to me to be opposing the candidate over procedural reasons. I only see one problem in all of the clerking examples given, and that's not a bad error rate; I would consider that case to be borderline myself. As someone who considers all clerking and NACs to be ridiculous, I can understand the concerns, but this is sounding like a bunch of government bureaucrats debating over whether form 234c section 18b was filled out with the proper variables. Fun and somewhat relevant reading at WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. He didn't realize it was wrong in the first place, in many cases he was on IRC and an admin gave him the go-ahead to do that, and he has now apologised and committed to not doing it again. So I'd ask those concerned: other than proper procedure, what is the actual concern here? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They also oversee local change usernames venues in conjunction with the team of global renamers and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages - this is generally not seen as canvassing.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.


Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages