Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/oren0

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

oren0

(67/21/13); Scheduled to end 23:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

oren0 (talk · contribs) - Active editor requests adminship to help fight vandalism and sockpuppetry and use other admin tools. [Note: this summary was added after the process started. I thought this section was meant to be filled out when nominated by someone else] Oren0 (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Wikipedia seems to be in need of more administrators in several regards, most notably in dealing with vandalism/sockpuppetry, admin backlogs, and AfD. I have been dealing with vandals on several of the pages I frequent for quite some time and I'd like to be able to institute protections and blocks that I've otherwise had to ask for. One major reason I'm applying for this is that the recent unprotection of several global warming pages and the subsequent retirement from the issue of a checkuser admin has left a void which needs to be filled by more admins to protect from sockpuppetry and vandalism.

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

A: At the risk of sounding a bit arrogant, I believe that I've contributed most to settling disagreements and acting as a voice of reason when people become unreasonable or enter edit wars. Many of the areas I edit regularly (most notably global warming and some video game-related pages) frequently result in discussions that require compromise and I believe that I've always kept a level head and worked towards a fair resolution. I have also improved many articles in the areas of college sports and video games which I am now quite proud of.

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 don't shy away from controversial pages and topics and I have been involved in many disputes. A look at my edit history will show a lot more talk edits than most people have. I believe that things can be talked out and it's better not to disturb the mainspace while compromises are being hashed out. One illustrative example would be this and its related ANI page. I believe that the editor in question overstepped his bounds without proper discussion and I tried, in sequence, talking at his User Talk page, building consensus on the talk page, and taking it to ANI when he refused to listen to consensus. I'm willing to accept situations where people disagree with me, but I believe that the collaborative nature of the Wikipedia project means that if we can get varied and unbiased opinions on a matter of dispute we'll end up in the right place. I also believe that it's highly important to respect one's adversary and try to understand things from his/her point of view.

Additional questions from Haemo:

4. You mention that you want to help out with sockpuppetry; but I'm not clear what experience you have in this area. Could you mention some?

A: My experience in this regard is fairly recent and comes from the case linked in the ANI above. We had a case where a certain user's sockpuppets became such a severe timesink for a particular editor that he decided to fully protect about 10 pages to curtail the problem. Before the protection, even despite this user's best efforts, some of these socks would get through and start putting up the same edits. On their own they weren't vandalism, but they violated consensus and were an attempt to reinstate a banned editor. These edits were usually one of a few identical changes that this guy always makes so they were easy to spot. If you were first, you'd revert the change and if you had time you'd hunt through his contributions and undo them all. Here is a recent example of a situation where I would've blocked this user on site if I had the tools to do so. Oren0 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

5. To follow up on the above, sockpuppetry is an area where there is a significant amount of debate between admins; where do you draw the line? When does discussion become disruption — for example, suppose I posted messages to a board which I knew to be sympathetic to my views about my trouble on Wikipedia and some of the members register and start supporting me. Is that meatpuppetry? What if I'm an expert and it's a board with other experts on it; does that change your assessment? How do you weight assuming good faith and sockpuppetry; with dynamic IP addresses, are people's claims that an account was a friend, or someone else entirely credible? Is "behavioral" similarity enough; or are we simply censoring people with unpopular opinions who live in the same area?

A: Obviously the meatpuppet issue is a judgment call. Of course we want more expert editors to join the project and improve our pages, but at the same time recruiting new editors to join your "side" doesn't really build accurate consensus. What it comes down to is the purpose of the account. If I was having a dispute and all of a sudden brand new accounts started weighing in on the issue, I think I'd count their opinions less. That doesn't mean those users should necessarily be banned (as long as they aren't using each other to skirt WP:3RR or otherwise disturb the mainspace) but if they're not contributing anything new to the discussion then I'd take their contributions lightly. Discussion is about consensus based on Wikipedia policies rather than voting so it's not clear to me that more bodies will generate a different result anyway. I think the best way to handle this situation would be to look into any of the various venues for outside input such as WP:RFC and get the opinions of neutral regulars rather than partisan newcomers. Simply, it comes down to judging intent: if it seems that the editors are trying in good faith to persuade others that what they want is right, it's discussion. If they're trying to "pad the vote" so that it seems that their position has consensus when it doesn't, that's disruption.

As for sockpuppets and good faith, we should never assume that editors are sockpuppets unless we're given good reason. If you and your roommate are both editors who frequent different pages, or even if you edit similar content but you're among the 99.9% of editors who never get checkusered then it'll never be an issue for you. But roommates should be careful not to support each other's controversial actions too strongly or else they may raise suspicion and be checked out. Unfortunately blocking by IP does create the issue of potentially singling out innocent victims. Again, it's a matter of common sense: If two editors from the same or similar IPs start disruptively advocating an unusual position on a page, I'd assume they're sockpuppets even if they claim otherwise. If someone wants to register an account on an IP that was blocked two years ago, I'd probably assume it was a new person and allow it (checking up after a while to make sure the edits seemed legit). I do believe that blocking editors with similar views who are on a similar IP range takes things too far (especially if it was a known range such as a school). As long as editors aren't disruptive and aren't obviously reincarnating banned accounts, I say we should generally give the benefit of the doubt. Oren0 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Since you work in the global warming areas on Wikipedia, could you give a run down of their state? How do they stand right now — is fringe material contained? Or are minority views being censored? What's your assessment of how it stands, and what do you think the community should do to help fix it (if anything)?

A: People seem to be constantly complaining about the state of these pages. Full disclosure, I edit these pages as a skeptic. I do believe that there is some credence to the complaints that some editors tend to WP:OWN these pages. But I don't think it's that these editors are unreasonable, rather they just have a large burden of proof. My rule of thumb here is for anything but the most minor change I take it to talk before even starting. I would say that fringe material is presented roughly appropriately; the skeptical side is a minority opinion in both the scientific literature and the popular press and is largely discussed as such. It is mostly confined to the global warming controversy and "the list" with reasonable mentions elsewhere and in those spots it is discussed in a way that doesn't give it undue weight. I can think of individual instances where WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE were used to keep out contributions that I think belonged on the pages, and some of the outer GW pages (An Inconvenient Truth and Climate change denial being two examples) could use some work from a neutrality point of view. Overall, though, I think the pages maintain proper balance pretty well. Oren0 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from PeterSymonds:

Thanks for your nomination and willingness to help out. To show a knowledge of the tools, please answer these questions about when it would be appropriate to:

7. Speedily delete a page?

A: There are several criteria for this. Without looking it up, some of the more common ones would be the request of the only major contributor, patent nonsense, blatant copyright violations, or obvious promotion/advertising.

8. Block a user/IP?

A: A user should be blocked when they have shown blatant disregard the rules or policies of the encyclopedia. Some common things that might lead to short term blocks include repeated vandalism or blanking (especially after multiple warnings), personal attacks, or WP:3RR violations. Longer blocks might be instituted for severe or repeated violations of similar policies. An account could be blocked indefinitely if these violations continued, the username was inappropriate, or it was an obvious reincarnation of another blocked account.

9. Protect a page?

A: Semi-protection is an effective tool to use for pages that deal with heavy IP vandalism (I'd say a handful of incidents in an hour after some sort of news or a handful per day over a sustained period as ballpark figures). Often this is the result of a major news event or just a controversial or popular page in general. Full protection is generally reserved for halting very heated disputes or edit wars, and allows the editors involved to take a collective deep breath and work towards consensus so the page can be unprotected. Obviously editors aren't supposed to protect pages if they are parties in the dispute. Full protection can also be used for highly visible templates and the main page to prevent massively disruptive vandalism. Both types of protection should generally be used for finite and reasonable amounts of time. Restricted editing access, while necessary at times, is contrary to the idea of the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Optional questions from xDanielx:

10. Suppose you come across a mainspace article that seems to meet one of the article-specific criteria for speedy deletion. Should you go ahead and delete the article, or tag it with one of the speedy deletion templates and let another admin handle it?

A:: As I understand it, I'd be allowed to delete it myself provided I wasn't involved in editing the page previously.

11. Is consensus determined by evaluating where editors stand on an issue, or evaluating the merits of their arguments? Both? Neither?

A:: Mostly by their merits. Discussion is about consensus rather than voting; 100 people saying that list of hilarious lolcats was a cool or useful page doesn't make it a "keep" per WP policy. But numbers do need to be taken into account somewhat as well; I'd have a hard time closing an AfD as keep if there was 1 keep against 10 deletes, no matter how poignant the keep argument was.

12. Are there any particular policies, guidelines, processes or norms that you have grievances with? If so, please explain briefly.

A:: I can think of a few. I think people overuse Wikipedia:Other stuff exists to allow inconsistency when they're really just trying to support their views. Some editors try to view every article as its own sandbox rather than allowing precedent or discussions from other articles to affect their decisions. I think Wikipedia benefits from a level of consistency and fairness across articles. Another one of the top of my head is I think that some of the individual notability requirements (WP:PROF and WP:MUSIC for example) are often interpreted overly strictly such that articles that may meet general notability are deleted or never created because they fail the more specific guidelines. It's easy for a band, for instance, to be covered in multiple reliable sources without meeting the guidelines in WP:MUSIC and I wish people would use the general notability criteria first.

Questions from User:J.delanoy

13. I am not sure I fully understand your response to Q10. Speedy deletion is only used for articles that represent, by merely existing, an immediate threat to the integrity of this project. I cannot see how you could possibly have any prior contributions to a legitimate candidate for speedy deletion. If you did something like rewrite a blatant copyright violation into a suitable article (which, from what I can see, is the most plausible situation where a legitimate CSD tag could be declined), it would no longer qualify for speedy deletion. Can you elaborate a little more on Q10?

A: I was thinking about the general policy of not using sysop tools on an article you have participated in. I hadn't really thought of specific examples of this in terms of the CSD. Maybe, for example, I tried to fix up an article about some commercial product but further edits by the creator made it clear that the article was only useful for promotion. I think in that case it might be better to let an uninvolved admin make the deletion to avert any accusations of impropriety.

14 Also, just for my peace of mind, in your response to Q11, you said I'd have a hard time closing an AfD as keep if there was 1 keep against 10 deletes, no matter how poignant the keep argument was. Is there any way that you would close an AfD as keep even if only one person said "keep" and ten said "delete"?

A: It'd be tough unless the case was completely clear-cut per WP:SNOW (if some vandals tried to delete George W. Bush and the vote was 10 against 1 I'd still speedy close it without hesitation). I think that in the unlikely event that the keep voter was the only one making sense and the deletes were all bad arguments I'd relist the AfD for more discussion (or perhaps vote keep myself).

Optional question from Mr.Z-man

15. What is your opinion regarding a policy requiring all edits by banned users to be reverted?

A. I support it. "Banned" means "disallowed from contributing to the encyclopedia." If the user creates a new account and starts editing we can't allow their contributions to stand just because they weren't caught yet, as those edits should never have been made in the first place. That being said, if another editor likes those contributions there's no reason that editor couldn't re-add them, realizing that the second editor would be fully responsible for them because it would be as if he/she was the original author of those contributions.

Optional question from User:BlechnicUser talk:Blechnic

16 Moving onto consensus reached deletions, how do you think it benefits the encyclopedia to delete encyclopedic topics and do you think that editors should nominate articles for deletion simply because the article does not assert notability, when a quick check might[1][2][3][4][5] show the topic is notable? Is this to the advantage of Wikipedia, deleting a notable topic, rather than requesting with existing tags that it be properly sourced when "no sources, no evidence of notability?" Example from your edit history,[6] River crossing puzzle. The issue concerns me because of your somewhat weak answers about speedy deletion policy. --Blechnic (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A: I did search Google at the time to try to find some reliable sources on the issue. I didn't doubt that the Fox, goose and bag of beans puzzle or the missionaries and cannibals problem were well-sourced and notable but Google didn't turn up any sources indicating that the overarching idea of a "river-crossing problem" was a notable concept itself (rather than being an inherited neologism from all of the common river crossing puzzles). I didn't search Google scholar, which I should have. I also realize that I should have tagged the article with {{unsourced}} and {{notability}} rather than tagging for deletion at that time. As a more general answer to your question, I do believe that it is the job of the deletion nominator to do at least a cursory notability check before nominating an AfD based on notability. I also think that notability tags should usually come before an AfD in general (which I do pretty much every time, I'll admit that AfD was premature).

Thank you, I will accept this as understanding of the intent of the AfD guidelines. Please read the speedy deletion criteria much more carefully to understand what it going on with speedies, though. --Blechnic (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

17 Suppose a certain editor makes mention of a (to my knowledge, non-existent) theory that global warming is caused by extra-terrestrial beings from a distant galaxy aiming a giant microwave ray at the earth. You delete and ask for sources, but the user reverts and claims it's "common knowledge" that the theory exists. You revert once more and ask him to direct his comments to the talk page. No further remark is heard from that user, but a few days later a similar, but not identical, IP reverts and adds a source: an online forum that purports to be run by a John Johnson, PhD, professor of science at Littlesville University in Georgia that discusses the theory the user on Wikipedia is trying to mention in the article. You do research and find that there is no Littlesville (school or town) in Georgia, both the US state and the country in the Caucasus. However, a John Johnson has written a peer-reviewed article on the evolution of the global warming theory and teaches at Smalltown U in Alabama, which you confirm exists. The user both has not violated 3RR, except if the similar IP is a sockpuppet, a case for which there is no other evidence. There is a source, but unless information was copied down wrong, the source is bogus. What do you do? (Feel free to not respond if you wish).Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A: That is quite the fantastic scenario. Let's see what I can do with it. As written, there's no 3RR consideration because the editor in question waited a few days. I'm not really concerned about sockpuppetry either because the guy doesn't seem to be editing using both IPs simultaneously and he could just be editing from a dynamic IP or they could be different people. Obviously this content can't stay for numerous reasons: first off the forum violates WP:RS because it's hard to ascribe authority and editorial fact-checking to a forum attributing a theory to a non-existent university (not that forums generally meet RS anyway, but I'm not sure if forum means website in this context). Furthermore, WP:BLP requires even stronger attributability for us to say anything about this professor, meaning that this source is pretty much useless for any Wikipedia purposes. If material from Johnson's peer-reviewed paper asserts this theory as well, then we'd have to evaluate the venue (Nature holding more weight than Extraterrestrial Quarterly), mainstream-ness, and response to the theory to determine whether it merits inclusion.

After my reversion of the addition, I would add a new section to the talk page explaining my findings about the professor and forum and explaining the relevant policies that led me to support the exclusion of the material and inviting input from the IP (I might drop a line on his/her talk page linking to the discussion). Since the GW pages are well-watched, I'd expect many editors to weigh in their opinions and knowledge of the issue and move according to consensus, which I expect would favor exclusion.

Questions, optional as usual, from Cool Hand Luke

18. Can we infer from you answer to #1 that you would not have unprotected the pages in question? Or more generally, do you think full protection is an appropriate response to sockpuppeteering? Cool Hand Luke 23:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A: I would have reduced the protection to semi-protection, as was the consensus at ANI. Those pages were barely seeing sockpuppets (one or two instances a week); pages I deal with in other areas see much more vandalism and are often still left unprotected. In general, I don't think full protection should be used on any article for longer than a short amount of time. Only in cases where vandalism/sockpuppetry by registered users is so severe that it's crippling pages should full protection be used in response, and even then only for a short period of time so that the socks can be found and blocked. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Full protection hampers this and therefore should only be used for short periods of time where the page is so volatile that it's absolutely required. Full protection for long periods of time degrades the quality of articles and hurts the project.

Thanks. I obviously agree, not that it means I'm right. :) Cool Hand Luke 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

19. I take seriously the issues raised by WMC in his objection below. Three sub-questions: (1) How would you, as an admin, deal with fringe science sources? (2) Would you agree to not use your admin powers in global warming topics (and would you agree to be open to recall if you do)? (3) If it's not too far afield or political to answer, what do you think of this proposal for a central sourcing board from the Arbitration Committee? Cool Hand Luke 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I think WP:Fringe and WP:Weight have it right: we can write about minority theories if they are covered enough in independent sources so long as we cover them with appropriate weight. I'm not sure what I would do in regards to this "as an admin" any differently than I do now, since admins don't have any more say over content than anyone else. If someone violated 3RR or something trying to add a fringe source, I'd obviously take action but otherwise I think that my previous record of dealing with fringe sources stands on its own.
2. I wouldn't agree to that. I'm not sure why the fact that I have "non-mainstream" views on a given subject should have bearing on my ability to use admin tools fairly in that regard. Per WP:AAAD: "If a comment in support or opposition relies on a user's support or opposition to a particular issue, it is particularly useful to make clear why this may affect their suitability to be an administrator." Even the most staunch pro-AGW editors generally say that they think I'm reasonable so I don't see why I should be restricted in this way.
3. Without having studied it in great deal, I think I would only support it in very limited circumstances similar to those where ArbCom has already acted. One example is ArbCom's decision regarding the reliability of LaRouche publishings. I'm concerned about the idea that some "shadowy board" would have to approve or disapprove of sources and that those kinds of decisions would be commonplace and binding. I think as editors we can use our judgment regarding sources and only in extraordinary circumstances should a board have to make that call.

• To follow up on 2, there are in fact GW who don't trust you on this (see below). I'm not one of them, but as a follow-up question, don't you think it's wise for admins to avoid the appearance of bias, even when they are behaving impeccably? There are a lot of admins who can work in these areas, and I would frankly prefer that none of the regulars use their admin powers here. You could set an admirable example, while also diffusing the concerns of some of the opposition. Cool Hand Luke 00:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

an you point out whom you're referring to? After rereading all of the opposes I don't see anyone who says they oppose me because of my POV regarding global warming or anything else. If you would, have a look at my contributions regarding the latest Scibaby sock (User:Threop) yesterday. Would you suggest that if I were an admin it would have been inappropriate for me to block that editor? I'm requesting adminship for the whole project and if that means anyone must oppose me then that's something I'll have to live with.

In response to your follow-up, I believe that avoiding the appearance of impropriety is why admins don't close their own AfDs or otherwise use their sysop privileges in conflicts they're involved in. But if every admin was forbidden from using admin privileges on an article about which they had an opinion nothing would ever get done. Oren0 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Brian Dell

20. How would you vote on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons Do you believe that WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:NPOV are insufficient to ensure good bio articles such that WP:BLP is necessary?Bdell555 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the ArbCom case to comment. As for BLP, I strongly believe that it's necessary. While IANAL, my understanding is that inaccuracies in biography articles open the Foundation up to significantly more legal liability than inaccuracies elsewhere. There are several situations where I might slap a {{fact}} tag on a contentious unsourced statement in a non-BLP article but remove a similar statement from a BLP article. The policy mandates stricter standards for BLP articles for good reason and I wouldn't agree to removing that policy.

As an aside, the underlying case was totally irrelevant, since it concerned footnoted quotes to an article of a deceased person. As a follow-up, what is your view of a WP:NPOV article that causes harm, distress, offence, or otherwise generates formal or informal complaints versus a POV article that does not cause these things? Which do you prefer? What is the role of "do no harm", if any, in BLP policy?Bdell555 (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

21. What are your views on the use of WP:OFFICE? Do you believe you have a mandate to advance or protect the interests of Wikipedia's founder(s) or the Foundation?Bdell555 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously protecting the legal interests of the people who keep the servers running is important. I believe office actions are at the discretion of the Foundation and should be used whenever the Foundation feels it necessary to protect its interests. As an administrator, I'm not sure how much I would have to do with protecting their interests, other than helping to ensure articles (especially WP:BLP articles) are well sourced and free from incorrect or potentially libelous information.

22. Would you consider yourself an inclusionist or a deletionist?Bdell555 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I generally try to decide each AfD on its merits, and a look at my contribs will find several keep !votes and several delete !votes. In a borderline case (say, reasonable but not great notability, especially when it comes to some of the specific notability guidelines) I'd probably lean towards keep because I don't like the idea of deleting potentially good content via a technicality.

Optional question from bwrs:

23. Have you written any good articles, or brought any pre-existing articles up to GA status?

General comments

• See oren0's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for oren0: Oren0 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/oren0 before commenting.

Discussion

• I'm putting this here, rather than as a question, but I'd like to clarify that you do know admins don't have checkuser rights? Pedro :  Chat  23:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand that. But the user in question said he'd no longer deal with those sockpuppets, meaning we need more admins there to deal with the vandals. He was apparently using his checkuser to preemptively block dozens of these sockpuppets. Without that, the editors of these pages have expressed an expectation that vandalism and edits from these socks will greatly increase as a result, meaning we need more admins. The other day we had to wait a significant amount of time before sockpuppets were blocked after I initially flagged them. I'll admit at that time I should've put my suspected sock on the admin board at that time but I wasn't positive until he made more edits. Oren0 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your reply. It wasn't some kind of silly trick question, I was just unclear from Q1. Again, thank you for clarifying. Pedro :  Chat  00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral Support This RFA will close, and I suggest that you go ahead and withdraw it, not to be mean, but to help this become a positive experience. I suggest Admin Coaching and more importantly an editor review. If you have any questions, ping me on my talk page. Dusti^SPEAK!! 00:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   AFD? Soxred 93 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think we can safely assume RfA. Unless it's admins for deletion... PeterSymonds (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I was on my way to bed when I wrote that, my apologies....admins for deletion :) Interesting thought. Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Support Alright, there comes a time in each editors life when he has a gut feeling about something, and then it turns out to be wrong. I struck out my statement above because I assumed that this RFA would fail immediatley, and be closed under Snow or Not Now. I was wrong and I apologize to you oren0, for not having faith in your editing skills and the chance of you succeeding in this RFA. I think that, after reading the other support votes and your answers to the questions above, you will make a fine Admin. I wish you the best of luck, and I again apologize for my above statements. Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Support. My primary criterion is "Is this user trustable with the tools?". As I see no clear reason not to trust you with the tools, I will support this RfA. That said, I think you would do well to do some non-admin maintenance work, to show us how you would probably act with the tools. Your mainspace contributions are great, however, they don't give me the clearest pictures of how you would use the tools because the tools aren't required or necessarily helpful for most of the contributions you've made to wikipedia. I suspect on those grounds, this RfA won't succeed. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 01:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for the support. I'm still unsure what maintenence work people are referring to. Any examples would be helpful. Oren0 (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   For instance, who you report to WP:AIV or WP:UAA gives us a clearer idea of who you would block if you were able. What you request at WP:RPP gives us an indication of what you'd do with the power to protect pages. As an example of where you're doing that well, your AfD discussion contributions are excellent. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

3. ...he's here for the right reasons. It's a sad day at RfA when 3184 edits is not enough experience. giggy _(:O) 02:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Moral support Per Giggy. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support As Giggy said. Been here for one year, ten months, got experience. BrianY (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support on the grounds that you don't jump in and use the tools without doing more research and maybe doing it under a close eye of a fellow admin. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support, no reason to believe that this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC).
8. Support From looking at your contributions I have come to the conclusion that you are fit to be an administrator on English Wikipedia. You have demonstrated that you would be an active admin(but not the most active), you have demonstrated you won't misuse the tools either intentionally or unintentionally, and your attitude is good. Since you have demonstrated those three things, the concerns that have been brought up thus far don't really bother me much.--SJP (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Support The answers to my questions show that this user understands policy. I'm confident that they will be able to use the tools effectively, and sparingly. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. I believe that the answers given to Peter's questions are well considered and indicate that they would use the tools in an effective manner. As for experience: if a user is able to show that they understand our policies regarding blocking, protecting, deleting etc. in a thoughtful and practical manner, they have enough experience for me. Any user can make 5000 edits in a month if they so desired, but I do not believe that that necessarily conflates with "experience". Rje (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - I would like to have seen more posts to AIV, RFPP etc to demonstrate your knowledge of the tools, but I think you've got enough edits to demonstrate that you're familiar with Wikipedia and your answers to the questions demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. No problems here. ~ mazca ^talk 10:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
12. While experience isn't immensely great, answers to the many, many questions move me to Support. Wizardman 13:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Weak Support per Wizardman. --Cameron (T|C) 13:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support due to no negative interactions and also per User:Oren0#Awards. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
15. This user is trustworthy and had good answers to the cheatsheet questions. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Strong Support Despite the fact that this user's experience is not as good as it could be, I am absolutely astonished at how well this user responded to the questions. Oh, and his/her contributions are good as well :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    "His" for future reference . Thanks for your support. Oren0 (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

17. Support. I'm usually not one to support without seeing solid contributions to various admin related areas, but Oren0 seems to have a thorough understanding of policy. His answers to the numerous questions above are all on target, and I believe the project will benefit with Oren0 as an admin. - auburnpilot talk 19:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Appears to be a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - see no reason to believe this user would cause a problem. Was rational, helpful, and well composed in the two AfD that oren0 was heavily involved in.[7][8] --T-rex 00:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Per giggy, and I think Oren0 could do fine. Spencer^T♦C 01:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Support I can "trust" this user. Vishnava _talk 01:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - changed from neutral. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Support. No problems here. Excellent answers to questions left me feeling like this editor would make a fine admin. The ever-rising "experience bar" (where's this going to be in six months? 10,000 edits?) opposes don't worry me. Tan | 39 05:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Support YahelGuhan (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
26. Support' User seems like he would be a good addition to the admin team. Answers to the question satisfy me enough to not care about whow long he's been here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
27. Support per PeterSymonds Kauffner (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Your edit count has just right, and I have seen improvement in your edit summary usage. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
29. Support, no reason to oppose for me. Neıl 龱 12:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
30. Of course. Al Tally ^talk 15:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Support Obviously competent. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Support, no reason to suspect this editor will misuse or abuse the mop. Shereth 15:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Support, actually, what's weird is that I was snooping through your contribs a week ago (not sure where I came across your name). I am always on the search for good editors that could use the extra buttons for the betterment of Wikipedia. After looking at your contribs, I added you to my list of people that I was going to approach to see if you wanted a nomination. Just haven't gotten 'round to it yet, sorry :) Excellent, thorough, well-spoken editor. I've vetted your contribs extensively and find your style refreshing. You are not afraid of contentious areas, you keep your cool at all times. You easily meet my criteria and I'm glad you've decided to ask for adminship. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
34. Support per above, I believe this person can be trusted as an administrator. RFerreira (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Support, trustworthy. Although I feel that standards are creeping further up, we are yet to have a problem with admins with low edit counts. If you're competent enough to go through an RfA, you should be fine as an administrator. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. Wizardman makes a good point about your answers. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Less entrenched in wikiminutia than most candidates. Probably will be quickly repaired, but might consider the human factor for a while. --Blechnic (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
38. Eager Support Wonderful answer to an extremely challenging question, demonstrates knowledge of Wikipedia policies, has good mainspace edits, a sizable edit count, and over 250 user talk edits show an ability to communicate crucial to an admin. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
39. Support per well-reasoned answers to the Qs above, and other editors' comments on the contribution history. I may not agree with all the answers, but I don't see anything that worries me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
40. Support. I think oren0 (despite having some different views from me on content) is a mature and sensible editor who would improve the general quality of the sysop pool. --BozMo talk 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
41. Support Good knowledge of policy, the objections are not in my view based on really significant problems. DGG (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
42. Support, good, reasonable editor. Everyking (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Nothing to indicate possible abuse of tools. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
44. Support as per SJP, giggy, ∫ÆS, Rje, Auburn Pilot, Dusti, Keeper, DGG, and many others. — Athaenara ✉ 14:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
45. Support See no reason not to. LittleMountain5 14:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
46. Support — self noms demonstrate the boldness demanded of an admin. –xenocidic (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    I strongely agree!! America69 (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

47. Support -- After a review of the user's contribution history and answers to the questions above, there is no good reason to oppose at this time. JeanLatore (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - In my experience (which is both limited and out of date), Oren0's role at the global warming articles is valuable, in that he challenges the pro-science consensus without engaging in tendentious editing or violations of WP:FRINGE (i.e. he understands that NPOV in that context doesn't mean "Global warming might be happening, but lots of scientists think it isn't."). And please note that I say this as somebody who's pro-science generally and who trusts the scientific establishment on the global warming issue. Besides that, I find the oppose rationales wholly unpersuasive - the answers to questions 12 and 15 look fine to me, and, while there may or may not be a need for more Scibaby fighting admins, more couldn't hurt. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
49. Support: I view self-noms as people who want to improve the encyclopedia enough they're not waiting for someone to push them into it.  RGTraynor  21:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
50. Supportthose opposing because of answer to Q15 need to look up what banned means here on wiki. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
51. Support - Although we have different opinions on GW related topics, I have find him to be easy to work with. His recent reverts of fringe stuff supporting his POV has impressed me. He can be trusted with the tools. Brusegadi (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - In my time here at Wikipedia my assessment of OrenO is that he strives to reach agreement and is open-minded regarding both sides of any conflict. I can remember times where he supported me on some things and supported my opponents on others. I find him to he a person of integrity which I believe is one of the primary characteristics we should be looking for in an Administrator. --GoRight (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - No evidence that this user will abuse the tools, and is sufficiently experienced to know when to use the tools and mature enough to know when not to. I'm also impressed by some of his edits to topics (such as global warming) in which he adheres very well to policy and maintains NPOV , even if it means removing content that may support his views. CrazyChemGuy (talk · contribs) 00:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
54. Support WP:AGF]... I see no reason not to trust them. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
55. Support a good candidate. As noted, he'll be an open-minded and fair admin. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
56. Weak support Some concerns raised below do give me pause: it is true that the answer to Q15 and signs of dogmatic application of Wikirules are a bit worrisome. On the other hand, I don't think this is a fatal flaw and a little bit of guidance from fellow admins should suffice to correct the situation. As for the lack of project-space edits, adminship is not rocket science: if you have decent judgment and if you are patient and careful enough to read admin-guides, to ask for help and to be extra conservative when you get involved in an area that you're not too familiar with, you'll be just fine. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
57. Strong Support. I got to know oren0 from his good contributions to the project. I find him to be a person of integrity and balance, and I believe that is what we should be looking for in an Administrator. --Kaaveh (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
58. Support. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
59. Support Maxim_(talk) 14:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
60. Support RMHED (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. Looking at a random selection of Wikipedia: (but not this RFA) and Talk: contributions, you seem like a level headed editor (you do lose your cool sometimes, but we're only human). The random sample of User talk: edits I hit looked mostly like templated and automated warnings and notifications, but this doesn't much bother me given the Talk: edits (there is nothing wrong with discussing articles on article talk rather than user talk pages). None of the issues brought up by the opposes seem vital to me, besides your answer to Q15. In regards to that I completely disagree with you for mostly GFDL reasons, but I think that it's not a big enough issue to cause you to elsewhere make large mistakes. Otherwise your answers to the questions are thoughtful (though I think you could've said "I can read the WP:RFACHEATsheet" to numbers 7-9) and you look like a great editor. Cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
62. Reading question number 17 made my head spin, but you answered it with grace, and heck, your answer made sense! You have my support. L'Aqùatique[review] 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
63. Good user. Acalamari 01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
64. Support Ceoil ^sláinte 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
65. Support Although your answer to question 15 made me pause, I see no compelling reason to oppose. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
66. Support. Many of the objections are about "weak answers" to RfA essay questions than about his actual editorship experience. The question is "Can he be trusted?" not "Can he write exquisite essay answers?". - grubber (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
67. Support -- The mop isn't that big of a deal. You appear minimally qualified. --Sharkface^T/_C 23:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose. You do a lot of mainspace work, I like that. You've fixed your edit summary usage, I like that. Your work is good, I just want to see more of it. You say in your answer to Q1 that you want to work with vandalism and sockpuppetry, but you have only 1 edit to WP:AIV (the IP you reported was subsequently blocked, so it was a good report). I think you'll be a good admin in the future when you get a little more experience under your belt. Useight (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Lack of project space contributions in areas where the candidate wishes to work. Also, per MB in the neutral section. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose Lack of experience, and lack of trust. Follow what Wisdom89 says. It's good advice. I also strongely oppose his answer to Question 15. America69 (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   While most power hunger RFAs are indeed self noms, there are still a lot of self noms that aren't, surely you should look through the contribs to find some backup that he's power hungry? And anyways, what's wrong with power hunger? Who says power hungry admins will be bad?--Serviam (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Un-Suprisingly Dull and Repetitive Oppose per lack of experience in admin-areas. Doesn't solidify any kind of trust.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose → (switched to neutral). I looked though many of oren0's contributions and I can attest that, ignoring reverts and such, his mainspace work is quite good. I don't see a lot of content writing, but he's a clear communicator and his knowledge of our content-related policies and guidelines is more than adequate. That said, a few things concern me: his inclination toward involvement in content disputes, and the (moderately) combative mindset he tends to carry. Various policies and guidelines prohibit or discourage admins from exercising sysop capabilities when one is involved in a dispute, but that's a concept that many are guilty of neglecting. I can't say for certain that this would be a problem with oren0, but he certainly shows all the symptoms -- a tendency to use terms like spam/vandalism/etc. broadly (e.g. [9][10][11]... even his comments here to some extent), a strong topical focus, and the (again, moderately) combative demeanor in general. I would prefer that this user continue his work in mainspace, where he's doing a good job already. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Without trying to argue too strongly against your examples, (1) was in response to this edit, which was a friend of mine who was messing with me (she knew I created that page and wanted to see how quickly I'd revert random vandalism) and I just wanted to remove all traces of her edits. (2) was a known sockpuppet who had been flagged but not yet banned, therefore I think the edit was vandalism. As for (3), I'd say that putting up that left-handedness is a result of "neglect" and that is is "almost considered [a] normal...symptom" is vandalism, but perhaps you'd disagree. If I come off as combative, I don't mean to. I've always thought that I exercise pretty good restraint in the face of persistent vandals and unreasonable editors. Oren0 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for explaining. I disagree somewhat regarding (2) and (3), but I'll strike (1) per your comment. (That brings it down from 4 to 2, as I removed one earlier.) I'm kind of undecided at the moment; I'll indent my vote for now and come back later. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Giggy is indeed right when he says that 3000+ plus edits is a sad day when it isn't enough to show experience, but when spread over the time this editor has been hear (20+ months), that's not a an awful lot of experience I'm seeing (especially in the Wikipedia namespace). Rudget (logs) 09:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Would you prefer the 2000 edits be spread within one week, using WP:HUGGLE? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Reluctant Oppose, on the grounds that reply #12 (to xDanielx in the above shows (to me) that Oren0 hasn't understood why an article must stand on its own merit, and that argumentation from one article, shouldn't be transported to another. Originally i was going to vote support - because although we've been on opposite sides of some issues, i've always felt that Oren0 was a rational sceptic, and one who (imho) has the best interests of WP in mind. My basis for this is the discussions on An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle, where people seemed to think, that if one of them had the description "controversial" then the other must have the same, since they where both (superficially) about the same subject.(these discussions [12][13][14]) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not saying that we should blindly apply rulings from one page to all similar ones, but that doesn't mean we have to completely ignore everything that's ever happened on other pages either. I think there are situations where the idea of precedent has merit. As you probably know, I have upheld the "controversial" consensus (yes in the lead of TGGWS, no in the lead of AIT) despite the fact that I disagree with including it in either case. I am glad to hear that you've considered me rational though. Oren0 (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I can't argue with that - i find you both civil and a person who takes consensus seriously. But i feel that this particular point shows a blind spot. How would you have handled it today? Do you still think that there is merit to the statement that if one film is controversial (or not), then the other must also be? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I've just reread the threads you linked above and (aside from some sarcasm that I could've done without) I don't think that I handled that situation badly. My point was never "we must call one controversial because we call the other controversial." I did bring up the other pages but my primary arguments were from the point of view of WP:LEAD and the point of view that "controversial" is an opinion that doesn't belong declaratively in the first sentence of an article. If I were to have that situation to do over I'd argue strongly for the exclusion of "controversial" from the opening sentence and the inclusion of controversies later in the lead in both articles. If, for example, an editor claimed on one talk page that "controversial" should never go in the opening sentence and at the same time argued for it on another page, I don't think it'd be a violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to point out that hypocrisy. Oren0 (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   And that is the reason for my oppose. It should always be the merit of the case and the context of the article, that determines what goes into the lead (or elsewhere). Not whether similar articles do or don't. And i have a very hard time ascribing it to hypocrisy. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose; weak mainspace contributions. Rock Band and TGGWS don't add much to the project, in my opinion. A featured article on a worthwhile topic would help change my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Contributions to any article add tonens to the encycloedia, even pokémon articles.--Serviam (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   With respect, Wsiegmund, what would you classify as a "worthwhile topic"? Acalamari 16:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose per answer to Q 15, user seems to find wiki-politics more important than content. As long as content is good, it shouldn't matter how it gets there. While questionable edits should be reverted, there's no reason to remove obviously helpful edits. Reverting and re-adding is pointless process and one editor acting as the author of edits originally made by another is legally questionable under the GFDL. Wikipedia's readers don't care how content gets here, as long as it is here. Mr.Z-man 02:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   I see where you're coming from on this but I disagree. Users that are banned were banned for a reason, and the effect of a ban is to bar that user from participating in the collaborative project. As WP:BAN says: "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." I believe that it's inappropriate to reward users who circumvent their bans by allowing their work to stay up and be forever credited to them. Any while I don't pretend to be a lawyer, we agree that all of our contributions may be "edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others" so I don't see a copyvio issue with allowing another editor to reinstate the edits. The following scenario happens every day: editor 1 adds something, editor 2 reverts, editor 3 reverts editor 2, readding the material. I don't think you'd suggest that this scenario is a copyvio, so why would doing the same with a banned editor be a problem? Oren0 (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   Your reply demonstrates my oppose reason exactly: "reward users who circumvent their bans by allowing their work to stay up" - Our readers could care less if a sentence was added by a "banned user." The point of a ban should be to prevent disruption, not to punish people. Common sense and the goal of improving content should always prevail. No, edit warring is not a copyvio, but in your scenario, editor 3 is not claiming authorship for editor 1's content. Mr.Z-man 04:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   As for copyvio, I guess a better way of saying what I mean is that the reinstating editor would be responsible for the edits rather than taking credit for them. As WP:BAN says: Editors can edit on behalf of banned editors if they "have independent reasons for making" the edits. If the edit is really so spectacular, another editor can vouch for it. Oren0 (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   Totally disagree Z-man. Banned means banned. I'm a user and I DO care if a banned user circumvents his ban. People only get banned for long term repeated disruption after being given multiple chances. We don't need them. We spend way too much time already dealing with these types of users (disruption, vandals etc). oren0's answer is spot on. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'm talking about the reversion of obviously helpful edits. I'm certainly not advocating circumenting bans if that's what you're suggesting, but if a banned user reverts some vandalism, fixes a typo, or adds a reference, how does reverting that help the encyclopedia? Isn't that the point of policies? Reverting then re-adding is pretty much the pinnacle of process-wonkery and a waste of server space. Mr.Z-man 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose per Mr Z-man. User has lost sight of the spirit of the project in his quest to become an admin. One should not set out seeking adminship, but instead find that he/she needs it in order to better the encyclopedia. Juppiter (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Juppiter, your oppose has an astounding level of negative assumption in it. Astounding. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'm actually surprised to see this kind of comment from you Keeper. It appears to be a valid point, from a non admin perspective of course. This comment doesn't strike me as negative nor ABF, but an opinion after consideration. Cheers. — _Maggot^Syn 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    And I realize I said (actually directly to you before) that I am restraining myself from questioning the opposes. The two assumptions that I'm reading here that compelled me to add this are "UserX has lost sight of the spirit of the project" and "User should seek adminship for the betterment of the encyclopedia" (sic). They are assuming that UserX doesn't have the right mindset. HTH could Juppiter know Oren0's mindset? Assuming he's just after the title and doesn't know what Wikipedia is for? Egregious enough to get me to post here. No diffs, no experience with the user, just a blanket statement about another human beings character, and not about their contributions. Egregious. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    While I agree that diff's should be provided, I am to the understanding that his oppose is, as I stated above an opinion after consideration and quite possibly done so with AGF in mind (I have no reason to assume otherwise as I say this only because hes been here since 2005, so hes isn't entitled to sway you with his opinions, as it were). I've seen this same type of rationale in other RfA's with more popular candidates. Your reasons for posting here, are the same as my own. — _Maggot^Syn 09:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

11. per Q15 - user neither understands the point of Wikipedia, nor the GFDL, both highly undesirable traits in an administrator. Nick (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Curious. I fully support his answer to Q15 William M. Connolley (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'd suggest you re-read the question, a few times if necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'd suggest you reconsider your prejudice that only one opinion on this question is reasonable, a few times if necessary William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    And I'd suggest that your judgement is clouded - unless you were speaking of your-own-prejudice. AGF. It has everything to do with concerns regarding how to look at (certain aspects of, including the spirit of) policy, including the intended effect on Wikipedia - our free-content encyclopedia. Mr Z-Man is spot on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Q1 - the statement One major reason I'm applying for this is that the recent unprotection of several global warming pages and the subsequent retirement from the issue of a checkuser admin has left a void which needs to be filled by more admins to protect from sockpuppetry and vandalism is nonsense. There are plenty of admins watching the GW pages William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comment I have grave concerns that this negative opinion has been solicited per this talk page comment. Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Then clearly your understanding of canvassing is in error. Raul654 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Of the last 4,000 edits William M. Connolley has made 5 contributions to WP:RFA / WT:RFA of which all but this were concerning just two RFA's. Per this evidence William has little interest in RFA. Yet after Raul654's request (as diffed above) he suddenly turns up and opines. If you think I'm in error of the letter of the CANVASS guideline then good for you. But if you think I'm in error that this is a gross abuse of soliciting comments, when none would otherwise have been forthcoming, think again. The evidence lies in the contribution history. This is poor behaviour of administrators; however I will rely on the 'crats to evaluate it accordingly. Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed, I don't watch RFA. But I have a strong interest in GW articles. I thank Raul for bringing this to my attention, but his comments haven't affected my opinions. Given that the candidates primary motivation for this was GW-related, I think a note of the RFA should have been posted to t:GW. The arguments re canvassing seem mad to me: do you want only habitual RFA watchers and those stalking OrenO to vote? How else are people supposed to know? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    That's not really the only issue. The concern lies primarily with the tone and the partisanship of the comment to your talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, I can't do anything about that. FWIW, I wish Raul had just notified me without any other comment. I have now left a note on t:GW so other interested parties will know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC) BTW, you have noticed that Raul hasn't voted oppose, haven't you? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Global warming is only one facet of things I edit. WP:CANVAS forbids me from giving notice at, say Talk:Rock Band (video game), where I know several editors who would support me but haven't found this RfA. Why should William be allowed to solicit potential votes against me in only one area in which I edit? Oren0 (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Why would you assume that GW will produce votes against you? As far as I can tell, you have earned quite some respect from the pro-science side at least. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Of the GW regulars I recognize 2 out of 3 have opposed me. No offense, but I did expect before this started that you, WMC, KDP, RA, and Raul would all weigh in against me (if you found your way here) just based on some disagreements we've had in the past. I can't think of anyone I've had much contact with in other arenas that I'm confident would oppose me. I do think that I might get some support from some of the skeptic editors as a result of this canvassing as well, but given that William opposes me it seems that the action might be an attempt to gather more opposition. PS, I'm not sure how how I feel about labeling your side as "pro-science" based on the implication that I'm therefore "anti-science" but that's a discussion for another day. Oren0 (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    See below for why, although "your side" is anti-science, I don't think you are. You are just deluded ;-). KDP has apparently found out about this on his own. So far, the score is 0/2/2, as far as I can make out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    William, per this edit summary in which you rhetorically ask "what am I supposed to do?" . The answer is - Make up you own mind. I believe firmly that your own POV has spilled over onto this RFA at the urging of Raul654. If you could back your argument up with more evidence (i.e. other than "heck, there's loads of admins over there, we don't need no more") then it might win more support. Sorry, I know this is abrupt, but if you view it without passion you will see how unbecoming and tainted the background and thrust of your oppose really is. BTW (as you put it) I've not "voted" either. Pedro :  Chat  22:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    I think WMC makes a good point thought. That is, self selection bias is very bad. WMC's comment on GW talk was fine. It is neutral, just alerting editors in an area that Oreno promises to be active. I might be considered "pro-science" but I think I'll give Oreno a chance with the tools. Raul's comment on WMC's talk is also fine. Raul knows policies very well and I think that if he wanted to canvass, he is smart enough to send an email (I am just being realistic.) In addition, anyone who "knows" WMC would tell you that it is no easy task to influence him. Brusegadi (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Theoretically, then, would you say that it wouldn't be canvassing for me to post something neutral on other pages I actively edit? [Not that I intend to do this] Oren0 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    The situations would not be parallel because it would be you posting the message. Also, you have an explicit interest in applying the tools to GW articles, so it makes sense that editors there weight in. From what I gather you were under the impression that "pro-GW" editors would oppose loudly, but from what I see, there has been a wide range of opinions, and mostly positive towards you. Perhaps this stems from an unfounded view of "GW articles" as being ran by a gang, when in fact the editors that edit those pages edit a wide range of articles, have a wide range of opinions, but happen to have a common view in GW, which is not unlikely since their view is the dominating view in the scientific community. So, to answer your question, as long as the editors reached are pretty heterogeneous, are not reached by you, and contribute to an area that you plan to heavily use the tools (eg area plagued by conflict, socks, etc) and have explicitly said so, then it seems fine. Brusegadi (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    The point, of course, is that the community has no desire for editors or admins who are either pro or anti anything - indeed we don't even want them to have a "view" when it comes to putting finger to keyboard. WP:NPOV is policy - and I believe it can apply to RFA, XFD, and RFC just as much as our articles. If WMC believes oren0 does not adhere to NPOV he should say so, backing it up with diffs, rather than making weak "we have anough admins" arguments. Pedro :  Chat  07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    I used the phrase "pro-GW" in quotations for a reason. It was not meant to be taken in the literal sense. I guess I made the comment thinking mostly of those familiar with the long interchanges in climate related talk pages. "Pro-GW" is a label that has been applied to editors in the GW articles who defend wikipedia policy, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. I am sorry if you read the wrong thing in it. So, feel free to replace "pro-GW" with "enforcers of WP:WEIGHT, WP:Fringe" or think of it as the term "evolutionist" that has been applied to those who try to clean up the mess created by POV (creationists) pushers in evolution related articles. Concerning NPOV; we all have POVs, and our job is to keep them off the keyboard, as you say above. However, I dont think NPOV is highly relevant in this oppose. It is my understanding that WMC opposed based on a statement the candidate made. The candidate brought the issue of socks into the table and the need for more admins to fight it off. It is fair game to oppose based on a statement made by the candidate (the basis of the "oppose" we are discussing); specially when the candidate has very little experience in other admin related areas. Brusegadi (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    (dedent) I'm trying not let this drag out too much here. We all have our POVs and beliefs that affect how we edit. That doesn't mean we violate NPOV. Maybe I'll be more likely to find and add a new source criticizing climate models and William will be more likely to find and add a source supporting them. That doesn't mean either of us is in violation of neutrality, it just has to do with, e.g. the different sources we might subscribe to. If anyone believes that I've acted non-neutrally or non-fairly, I invite them to post the diffs. But the idea that I'm being opposed because of my personal beliefs bothers me if people can't point to times where my POV has led to inappropriate actions. Oren0 (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Thats what confuses me. Where did he say anything about POVs? He is opposing for a different reason, is he not? I expanded on this on the talk page of this rfa. Brusegadi (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Just read this thread and some of your own comments here. The majority of the discussion on this thread is POV oriented. (And yes I know you have voted Support, which means you should be commended for keeping your POV off the keyboard just like the text of your support suggests that OrenO is not only capable of the same but puts it into practice). --GoRight (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    I think this protest against the various postings by Raul and WMC is completely ridiculous. The postings were neutral in locations which were neutral and I for one (as an admin who edits global warming pages from time to time) learnt of the RFA from them, came, thought and voted support. The postings did what they were supposed to be which was bring open-minded people from the relevant pages here. I think the reason given on wanting to be an admin for global warming was provocative but I also think on balance O will make a good admin. I particularly like his avoidance of spurious arguments to support his POV. On the "how people hear about" it that's how its supposed to work, it was properly done. --BozMo talk 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

13. Oppose I don't like the answer to Q15 at all. Keepscases (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Weak Oppose I don't believe Oren0 is biased, in fact I think he's shown he's quite evenhanded in his mainspace edits (although he calls them vandalism reversion rather too often), but this user is over-focused on trying to improve Wikipedia by rule application as opposed to conventional editing. As question 15 indicates, he'd revert a good edit based on who the editor was instead of the edit. In my own case, after writing more than 750 words on an article Talk page yesterday and not being responded to by the most problematic party reverting me, Oren0 slaps a 3RR template on MY user page that tells me, a user who has also edited a Talk page more than 500 times, to "use the Talk page". I'd think it ought to have been reasonably foreseeable that I would find this unsolicited advice both unnecessary and impossible to accomodate. The associated accusation that I'm edit warring and "disrupting the article space" was repeated such that a dispute arose in addition to the one in the mainspace. I don't think any reasonable person could have expected a minimization of the conflict to result from this "laying of charges" as opposed to the magnification that occured. It could be that I'm a problem user who needs to be confronted, but it could equally be that Oren0 is going to end up in some unnecessary confrontations. Wikipedia is ultimately going to be made better primarily through edits, not by bringing down the hammer on editors. There is a time and place for the hammer, of course, but not everytime and everyplace calls for it. I think Oren0 will acknowledge the feedback from this RfA exercise and his Wiki experience generally such that he could be considered for admin again sometime in the future.Bdell555 (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'll admit that in your case my warning was a bit strong. But you were edit warring with two other editors and using the talk page (which you were doing well) isn't license to revert war. I don't have a problem with you as an editor nor do I have a problem with your edits (I've told you I actually agree with you). But when I see 5 edits back and forth with two other editors in the same section in two hours (realizing that they weren't all technically reverts), and then I see multiple 3RR warnings on your user page, I think a 3RR warning isn't unreasonable. Oren0 (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    But if there is already a warning, assuming I read my messages I'm already aware of the policy. So you are in effect conceding that the warning wasn't intended to inform me. Taking it upon yourself to tell a user what the rules are when he already knows them makes less sense to me than just applying the rules (i.e. just put me on the 3RR noticeboard if you think that's warranted). A person can't edit war with himself (it takes two to tango) and the other two were far less inclined to use the Talk page than I (one didn't use it at all) and you had no admonishments for them, not even to advise them that you thought they were wrong on the merits of the actual edits, an opinion that might actually have gone somewhere in terms of helping to address the real dispute as opposed to process issues (although I grant you spoke up later). Those two editors also didn't want the same thing, so you are conflating two exchanges into one. That's no excuse under the technical rules, of course, but it is relevant in terms of identifying what the real problem is. In any case, an edit war that drags out over a week or more with 2 edits a day illustrates more intransigience than an exchange over 2 hours that stops (as it did). The mindless edit wars are ones that persist after the argument provided by both sides has clearly dwindled away, efforts to accomodate the other in phrasing and sourcing are not or no longer being made, and generally both sides are just entrenching themselves. In other words, there is a big difference between two users reverting each other with no accompanying commentary and when the edits accompanied by new sources, new phrasing, and/or new argument. In any case, I think your views on this get at what I'm talking about re an overfocus on the rules vs the substance of what is occuring.Bdell555 (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose. Based on his answer to Q15, I think he loses sight of some fundamentals, including reading spirit vs letter of policy. Therefore, I'm unimpressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. I'm also less than impressed with the amount of heckling that has gone on against oppose "voters". Stifle (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose - contributions on GW-related articles makes me question his suitability. Guettarda (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose - I hate 'per' votes, but everybody posting before me has said what I wanted to say many times already.  Asenine  08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose: Based on the nature of Oren0's contributions in mainspace as well as his comments on this page, I find a certain rigidity in his positions that would hinder his ability to be fair as an admin, IMO. Sunray (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose - lack of experience, lack of crucial Wikipedia-space contributions and some unclear answers to the questions, which display a lack of policy understanding. This candidate is just not ready yet. Lradrama 19:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Weak oppose There is a good bit to commend the candidate—he seems, to be sure, to possess, at least far oftener than not, sound judgment, a deliberative disposition, and the sort of cordial demeanor that well lends itself to collaboration—but certain of the answers to the questions and some other comments suggest an unfamiliarity with various aspects of policy and practice and, more significantly and disquietingly, a lack of appreciation of that unfamiliarity (oren does not always seem to know, that is, whereof he does not know), such that, even as he is sure not to abuse or to misuse intentionally the tools, he might avolitionally misuse the tools, and on the whole I cannot conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive; my analysis brings me close to that degree of confidence, though, and so my oppose is "weak". Joe 21:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I'm seeing a troublingly low amount of ANI/AN participation (9 edit I think), some owork at RFPP/RM, but not much as a "dispute noticeboard", a low overall edit count, which I could forgive if this editor primarily needed to the tools to work content, but I'm not seeing that, also the lack of an introductory statement makes me question how well this individual knows major Wikipedia processes like RFA, maybe I'm missing something. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

   I've generally just undone vandal edits and placed warnings at talk pages, generally stopping short of actually reporting them at AIV, etc. Oren0 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think the point being made is that a report to AIV should really coincide with the point when, as an admin, you would have blocked the user - ie after they've been warned adequately. If you haven't encountered the need to report to AIV very often, it suggests you wouldn't often come across a need to wave the block stick. ~ mazca ^talk 10:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral AIV is not hard to learn so I think you would be just fine jumping in with only 1 previous report and you seem to show a general common sense but I think a little more experience in general maintenance is required. — Icewedge (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   What would you recommend in terms of this? I can only go to AIV as often as I find vandals who have been persistently warned and still vandalize. And I don't think there's much to do at AIV not being an admin. I do expect to be spending more time reporting sockpuppets soon though. Oren0 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think you misunderstand me; I said I think you would be fine at AIV. — Icewedge (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I guess then I don't know what you mean by "general maintenence." Oren0 (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

3. I'm not going to oppose, and I like the answers to my questions, but some of the other ones (like Q15) are troubling. --Haemo (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral - Adminship is more than just "fighting vandals and sock puppetry". Be creative, and think about why you truly need the tools. Aquarius &#149; talk 07:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Hmm, wanted to support but I'm always a bit wary when people want to work in sockpuppet areas. Naerii (complain) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral reccomending withdrawal. If you become more active at AIV, you'll gain much more experience in the admin's role in vandal-fighting. Other than that, I think you'll make a great admin. Keep up the good work, and remember, there's always next time. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 18:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. I will most likely support, but I would like to see how the candidate answers xDanielx's questions first. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   That was slightly embarrassing :) While I was looking over your contribs you answered the question.... So for now, Neutral pending response to my questions. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to support @ 19:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral This is a very close call. Two years of experience is a big plus, regardless of edit count, and the candidate seems to have a decent grasp of most policies. (In Q9 he mistakenly says that "both types of protection", i.e. semi and full, should only be used temporarily, implying that at some point in the future he would advocate to unprotect the Main Page and some high risk templates; but that's obviously not what he meant, so I won't fuss over that.) What bothers me is that he doesn't have significant contributions in the main areas of interest to him, namely, vandal-fighting and sockpuppetry. As noted, he has one report to WP:AIV, and as not yet noted, he has zero edits to WP:SSP and has not the faintest clue what I actually do when I receive a request to review an SSP case. Basically his argument for needing the tools can be summarized by noting that Raul654 quit on the Scibaby mess (a decision which I supported on Raul's talk page), so Oren0 wants to take over with shooting down Scibaby who is a massively disruptive vandal and sockpuppeteer. That seems more like a single issue than a general mandate to manage administrative affairs across the board, so I am ambivalent about granting full administrator rights in all contexts. For now, I would advise Oren0: if a Scibaby sock needs blocking, find someone else to do it; and get some more experience in administrator areas before you can expect my unconditional support. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I respect your opinion but I wanted to clarify a few things. First off, your interpretation that I wasn't talking about the main page, etc. when discussing limited timeframes for protection was correct. Secondly, my decision to request adminship is something I'd been considering for a while, the Raul/Scibaby situation was just a catalyst for requesting it now rather than waiting longer (what's the rush after all). Oren0 (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   With that second point clarified, I'll support. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Neutral (switched from oppose). I'm slightly dissatisfied with Q#11 but overall pretty content with the answers the to questions that interest me. I still hold to the sentiments expressed in my oppose vote to some extent, but not enough to warrant an oppose. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral While I can't say oppose, I also can't say support. I think the user needs some mainspace milestones (FC, GA, DYK).--LAAFan 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral - seems to be a long-standing Wikipedian with an interesting user page. However, this user just does not meet my standards quite yet. Sorry, maybe later. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral - want to support, but just can't bring myself to overcome discomfort over various answers. A shame because I suspect you probably will be a good admin. If this passes, great and good luck. If it fails, please run again (and drop me a line when you do) in a few months, with some Project space experience under your belt, and you'll waltz through RfA. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Neutral - This is tough because I'm really impressed with Oren0's willingness to revert garbage edits, even from those who share his POV, and because we share a desire to keep tendentious editors off the global warming pages, but I'm still pensive given his lack of work on the various noticeboards and also per the response given in KDP's oppose. Would likely support with a little more experience. Jason Patton (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Neutral - Jason stated it very well. I'm impressed by Oren0's willingness to revert crap even if it supports his POV. I'm less impressed with his ability to recognize said crap. I do think that 3000 edits over two years is plenty, but what keeps me from support is that I've not seen much of him outside the GW discussion and in particular miss contributions in the WP namespace. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Answer to Q15 is good except that it does not show an understanding of GFDL – which is understandable since GFDL is rather complicated. I would support but for the fact that a user that I highly respect opposes. Will mull this over for a while, but am neutral for the time being. Bwrs (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.