Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oxymoron83

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

Oxymoron83

Final (92/2/0); Originally scheduled to end 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear community!

I'd like to nominate Oxymoron83 (talk · contribs) for the mop. He's registered since May 2007 and has made more than 36,500 edits during these months … more than 1,100 (!) of these edits on WP:AIV and more than 17,000 on namespace 0.

As you can see, he's one of WP's most active and accurate vandal whackers. But he's not only an excellent vandal fighter but also writes (and translates) articles—e. g. about the U7—one of Berlin's undergrounds.

He generally wants to help out with blocks on WP:AIV and a faster (and more economic) revert but is nevertheless able to write articles. In my opinion he's a perfect candidate for the mop! —DerHexer (Talk) 13:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination by KnowledgeOfSelf

Oxymoron is as DerHexer said above, one of the most accurate vandal fighters around, his reports to AIAV are perfect. I trust his reports so much that when I see one listed, I go straight for the block because I know the vandal was warned properly, and is still active. I then check the contribs for any reverts that were missed. I've never had to decline a report from Oxymoron because the vandal was incorrectly warned, or not warned at all. He also correctly identifies articles that should be tagged for speedy deletion - just look at all the red! I trust Oxymoron with the block and delete buttons, and I do not believe he'd abuse them. He is also one of the most polite user's I've ever interacted with. He's always quick with a friendly coup or quip, and he always keeps an even head when being insulted, he simply reverts and warns. He's also able to explain his actions when when complaints happen, and they do happen. It is time for Oxymoron to get the mop he deserves. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Oxymoron83 21:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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: Mainly I intend to take part in places I am adept at: Watching the recent changes and patrolling new pages. In this matter the admin tools would definitely be helpful as my edits to WP:AIV show. Since I watch this page, I see that it gets backlogged several times every day. I would keep the CSD backlog down by deleting pages qualifying for speedy deletion. Furthermore I would protect m:the wrong version at WP:RFPP and help out at usernames for administrator attention.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are the reports to WP:AIV, which resulted in >99% of all cases in a block to protect Wikipedia against further nonconstructive edits from that ip/account. I'm not a great writer, though I've expanded e. g. the articles about the current shortest and the longest subway line of Berlin as well as geographical articles about the area I decent from.
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've had numerous edit conflicts with ClueBot in the past. I've dealt with it by closing the browser tab and will do the same in the future ;) Moreover when patrolling the RC and NP you have several conflicts every day, but I can't really say that one has caused me stress. It is important to be polite and respectful towards others. I strongly oppose using administrator privileges with the intention of forcing the result of a discussion.

Optional question from Spartaz

4. This is a four part question:
a) How much time do you think we need to give a new user to develop a new article before tagging it for deletion?
b) How do you balance the need to avoid biting a new user with eradicating crud?
c) What checks will you do with a new article before deciding whether to tag it for speedy deletion?
d) Can you give a recent example where you have improved an article that superficially qualifies for speedy deletion rather then tagging it for deletion?

Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: a) In cases where the article would be empty if you remove all attacks, rumours and copyvios and/or the intention of the creator is obviously not to built an encyclopedia, a csd tag can be placed immediately. It is impossible to mention a fixed amount of time for other situations. Instead it is important to use common sense and consider this from case to case in the range of days to weeks.
b) I try to AGF on every edit. I explain the reason for every revert at the talk page of the reverted editor, using a proper (reason + level) template out of the broad variety of available ones, or with a personal message. I'm always open to clarify or resolve questions. If there's specific evidence of malice (various examples), I simply revert and ignore them; no need to act uncivilly.
c) First of all I read the article. If the article then already qualifies to be speedied (test, attack, pure vandalism as well as pages that fall under G8, R2), I tag it. If the article looks like a possible copyvio, I check random parts of the content using a search engine or via copyscape, investigating also the license there. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects with no assertion of significance can be checked using a search engine; nevertheless it is necessary to keep at the back of one's mind that there are other sources outside the web and no GHits isn't synonymical to non notable.
d) Especially as a non-native speaker of English it is very difficult to develop such an article when pressed for time — as it's very likely that another editor will tag it. That's why I've improved only self-chosen articles at self-chosen times, often with several saves on my hard disk in-between. I think all the pages I tagged contained malicious content or needed a start from scratch due to the lack of keepworthy content.

Optional question by lucasbfr

5. What is your stance on policies? How far are you willing to follow, or not to follow them? To help you think about it, let's consider the kind of borderline example you will often encounter:
  • An AfD that has only 1 "Delete" vote, but you agree with the nominator that the article doesn't meet the notability criteria;
  • a {{db-a7}} tagged article stating that Kevin, 13, from Missisauga is the CEO of IBM;
  • a {{db-reason}} "obvious hoax" article about Die Hard V stating that in this upcoming movie, John McClane will save Bin Laden;
  • an article that was speedied under A7, that has been recreated and that is now {{db-repost}} tagged
  • a user that has been {{uw-vandalism4}} warned in January, edited once today, got {{uw-vandalism4}} warned again and immediately reported to WP:AIV
Of course these are only food for thoughts, you don't have to answer to all (or any of) these case studies :) -- lucasbfr talk 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A In addition to the core policy, the foundation issues, most policies are generated through consensus, so it's generally a good idea to follow them. It is also obvious that they can't cover every possible variation of problems.
The result of an AfD is based on consensus, when deciding an AfD it doesn't matter what my opinion about the article's subject is. Only 1 vote isn't enough to demonstrate consensus and I would relist the AfD.
The issue in your second example is checkable with the verifiable result, that Samuel J. Palmisano is the CEO of IBM, who isn't 13 and doesn't have Kevin in his name. I would delete this article, soonest under db-g1.
"Obvious hoax" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. In the example case I would tag the article with {{hoax}} and nominate it for deletion. In some other cases the article could meet another criterion, e. g. I tagged Quadnitrogen trioxide with db-g1 as the content was copied from nitrous oxide and a contradiction in terms.
{{db-repost}} is valid only for articles that were deleted after an AfD discussion. If that article falls under db-a7 again, I would delete it for that reason. If controversial, I would list the article at WP:AFD instead; or remove the tag if the content was changed since the last deletion and claims of notability have been made.
Regarding your last example case, soonest I would make an edit under the correlative AIV entry that describes this situation and watch the next contributions from this user. But my actions would also depend on other circumstances: For example if it is a school IP that starts vandalizing again after a 9 month block as of January has expired and nearly all edits from before January are vandalism, a {{schoolblock}} would be appropriate. If in another case useful/good faith edits can be found since January and the user continues to vandalize, I would block for a short time (8-31 hours). If the user doesn't continue to vandalize, fortunately a block isn't needed at all.
6. Upon becoming an administrator, how much time would you spend on specifically admin-related duties compared to just editing the encyclopedia? Thanks! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The admin-related duties would be an integrated part of my work and for example replace the AIV or UAA reports. Regarding the proportion of these duties in the past and adding the time I'll spend to handle requests by others, I suppose it would be 10-15% of my time.
7. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The policy about unblocking can be found here. If I disagree with a block, I would contact the blocking admin at his talk page and discuss the issue. If he isn't around anymore or we still disagree, I would post the issue to AN and wait for comments from others. Starting a wheel war is never indicated and will damage the resolution process as the past has shown. That's why I intend to adhere to it.

Optional questions by Alansohn

8. You have been making a staggering number of edits per month in a very short period of time, most of which revolve around the much-needed fight against vandalism. Will you be able to sustain this pace in addition to your admin responsibilities?
A: As with every area I am new at, I will act with extreme caution. Furthermore, the desire to make fair decisions, as well as the time spent to answer the expectable higher number of requests at my talk page regarding deletions and blocks, will lead to a slight decrease in edits. This might be balanced later on the basis of my experience. On the other hand, often the availability of the admin tools will change only the result of my already proper decisions, e. g. deleting a speedy deletable page instead of tagging it.
9. Can you point to any articles that you have created and/or significantly expanded as examples of your work?
A: Please see my answer to question 2 for links and also DerHexer's nomination for a diff.

General comments

  • See Oxymoron83's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Oxymoron83 before commenting.

Discussion

  • See Oxymoron83's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Support
  1. Super mega strong support as nominator. —DerHexer (Talk) 21:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as co-nominator of course. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support One of the best vandal fighters we've got. :) GlassCobra 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WOW Definitely support. I like that you will work at WP:UAA cause that gets backlogged a lot. Good luck!
    Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support civil, super vandal fighter and has very sound knowledge of the policies and guidelines. I can't see any reason to oppose this nomination. AngelOfSadness talk 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. You really weren't an admin? You should definitely become one! A very good vandal fighter. Bon Courage! Icestorm815 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Viel Glück! This user has done a lot of good vandal fighting in my experience and clearly needs the ability to block vandals in my opinion. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support- as the original nominator a few months back, but he declined the nom. The sunder king 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support If ever someone could use the tools... Davewild 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support One of the most prolific vandalfighters we currently have. I thought he/she was already an admin!-MBK004 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I've been waiting for your RfA to show up. Support. Wizardman 22:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support He's one of our best vandal fighters -- and I wouldn't be surprised if he starts beating out DerHexer once he has the tools to do so. He's civil, and intelligent too. And he adds content to articles? There's little else you need to be an excellent admin. Gscshoyru 23:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support ... Yes, Sir! --Petar Marjanovic 23:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petar Marjanovic (talk • contribs)
  16. Support That's what en.wp strongly needs, vandals' enemies. ;) --Thogo (Talk) 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Yo. --Bjoern Mailbox 23:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support, he's needed. --Complex 23:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Very competent vandal fighter. Contribs suggest he knows what he's doing elsewhere also. WjBscribe 23:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support AS per DerHexer and the user is a incrediable vandal fighter and has a very good track with over 17000.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Excellent vandal fighter would make a great admin. TonyBallioni 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes, people. I checked the user rights log. He really isn't an admin already, to my surprise as much as yours. Here's to you, Oxy. Maser (Talk!) 00:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Indeed, somebody you felt was obviously an admin almost certainly deserve support. — Coren (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - of course. Addhoc 00:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support - An excellent vandal fighter. Hammer1980·talk 01:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support - great vandal fighter, and he didn't mind that I stole his (and DerHexer's) modified Twinkle tools. Jauerback 01:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. One of the users I have noticed most around Wikipedia. His activity at AIV suggest a good knowledge of the vandalism policies. Good luck. -- Jack 02:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Accurate reports to AIV. I have no worries when it comes to Oxymoron83's use of the block tool. Acalamari 02:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support John254 03:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Hey, someone beat me to nominating this user. 5X support! NHRHS2010 talk 03:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support No concerns here. A great vandal fighter, most probably the greatest Wikipedia has ever come across! --Siva1979Talk to me 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support Oh very much so. Jmlk17 04:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Normally, I'd expect more article creation/expansion work from a candidate, but Oxymoron83 has been an excellent WP:AIV reporter and vandal fighter. utcursch | talk 04:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support great vandal fighting, I fully trust him with the mop. Oysterguitarist 04:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support -- Gogo Dodo 05:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Phenomenal vandal fighting. Recurring dreams 05:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support — The horror of vandals. Carlosguitar 08:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I happened to catch this one pre transclusion (:)) and looked around a bit. Happy with the nominators, happy with the work of the user - should be a good admin --Herby talk thyme 08:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Seen him around; his reports to AIV are precise and will definitely help with some of the more strenuous of administrator tasks. --DarkFalls talk 08:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, will be fine. Neil ☎ 09:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose - makes me feel somewhat redundant. Just kidding, at least the spammers will keep me busy. No concerns here. MER-C 10:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - certainly one of our more prolific vandal whackers. Watch out CSCWEM! ;) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Great vandal fighter. Is quick and accurate. Will make a great admin. King Lopez Contribs 11:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Minded to support Just waiting on the results of my questions. Please feel free to nudge me on my talk page if I don't respond after you have answered them. Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Changing to support - good answers to my questions. Spartaz Humbug! 14:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Of course Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. No reason not to:) Good luck!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 16:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - even though it's another user that has succumbed to automated edits. :( Rudget zŋ 17:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support: Knowledge of Self's description of Oxymoron83's AIV contribs is correct and shows why the latter should get the mop. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support keep on comming accross this user while doing anti vandlism work, knolegable, and has a good amout of experence! Tiddly-Tom 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Crap I had this one on my watchlist and didn't see it sooner support -- lucasbfr talk 18:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 19:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support No reason not to. - Shudde talk 20:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Hell yeah! brill user!--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support as a good (not great) editor, but certainly an excellent vandal-fighter, who will be needed in the days to come. Bearian 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Looks to me like he will make a great admin. I'm sure he'll put the block too to good use. SorryGuy 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Experienced and knowledgeable vandal fighter. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support A very worthy candidate... — Scientizzle 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, easiest decision since God was nominated for deletion. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Oh yes, no question about it...although I will truly miss one of the most prolific and trustworthy AIV reporters I've ever had the pleasure of working with. Will make an excellent admin! Dreadstar † —Preceding comment was added at 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Effective, hardworking, and valuable an excellent candidate. - Modernist 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - what this user has achieved in his/her time here is simply mindblowing! A regular vandal fighter myself, I have encountered this user many times and his work is simply excellent. I think he's one of the people I've awarded a barnstar for their efforts. :-) Lradrama 14:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support An excellent candidate with extensive vandal-fighting experience. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support absolutely unreservedly. Truly an outstanding candidate who will continue to be a valuable asset to the project as an admin. -- Satori Son 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support User's activities inspire me to fight vandals, great user. Ryo 22:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose He has beaten me out three times to vandalism; this is unacceptable.—Cronholm144 00:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Dammit there goes one more vandal-fighter whose reports I don't need to check at AIV :/ ~ Riana ⁂ 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Experienced user who'll make very good use of the tools. Húsönd 02:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support absolutely. —Anas talk? 03:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Reviewing this person's edit history, I'm amazed Oxymoron83 isn't an admin already. Doczilla 09:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support--MONGO 11:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. I thought for a few minutes before commenting here. I'm very impressed with the edit count and general edits, and I strongly believe you will be an assett to AIV, but there is a lack of article work and building the encyclopedia, so call this as weak support. Qst 11:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support- no brainer support - Alison ❤ 16:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support — Save_Us_229 17:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Thanks for answering my question! Good luck! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Great vandal fighter, great contributer. Dadude3320 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. 100% Support!: One of the best vandal fighters i have ever met, very civil, many reports to WP:AIV, extremely civil. Give em' the mop! Tiptoety 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support excellent vandal-whacker and reporter. About time. Hut 8.5 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support! excellent record thus far, definitely seems trustworthy. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Wow support Good luck! The Rambling Man 07:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose - This user already sneaks too many reverts from under my nose - I don't want to lose any more! ;) On a more serious note, This is one of a few users who I would trust with Developer/CheckUser/Steward Tools, let alone those of an admin! Keep up the good work - :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support: I've seen you around. Definite support from me. - Rjd0060 15:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong support Absolutely! I've had the pleasure of edit-conflicting with Oxymoron so many times I've lost count, while on Recent Changes patrol, and he is always professional and courteous. I highly respect the nominator and co-nominator, and have absolutely no doubts at all that Oxymoron will be a most excellent addition to the current administrative team. Ariel♥Gold 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support ON WHEELS!!! Great user. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Vandal-Stalking Predator Support. While I understand the desire to see more article creation, I feel the candidate is clear on where their strengths lie, understands policy, and will not abuse the tools. Am particularly impressed with the high quality of WP:AIV reports. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support I confess, I've gotten so used to blocking the users Oxymoron reports at AIV, that sometimes I just skip the usual precautions before blocking (checking time of last vandalism/warning, and block log). I beg for mercy. · AndonicO Talk 17:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Omg I see a nice list of reverting vandalism! Way to go! Heights(Want to talk?) 00:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Pile on Support! Greswik (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Great anti-vandalism efforts, has many anti-vandalism barnstars--AFUSCO 14:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support While Iwould be concerned about a candidate with no article experience, IMHO this candidate has enough, given his other qualifications.--Bedivere (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - not that it matters. A fantastic user who will make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I have given this issue extensive consideration and thought and come to the conclusion that I cannot support this nomination, and must raise potential concerns. While the nominee has reached staggering heights of edits in a short period of time (over 36,000 edits were recorded since starting in May 2007!), and has done wonders in fighting vandalism, this has been mostly through the use of automated tools by which as many as ten edits per minute (or more) are registered. This means that many of these edits involve no more than seconds of thought, or as much as 10-15 seconds if paired reverts and warnings are included. I haven't found any examples of articles created by the nominee, nor were any offered in response to my Q9 above. The mainspace editing offered by the nominee as examples of his work also raise questions: U7 (Berlin U-Bahn) involves three edits that covered translation of text from the German Wikipedia (I'm not sue if there are any GFDL issues there) and the other article cited U4 (Berlin U-Bahn) involves a single edit. Being an administrator involves more than the automated process of reverting edits that the nominee has been doing almost exclusively. It requires careful consideration of issues relating to consensus and some measure of understaning of the process by which articles are created. I have seen nothing in this editor's edit history that demonstrated this knowledge, and 99.9% of what is being done by the nominee could be done just as effectively without administrative powers. I applaud these efforts and wish there were more people devoting time to stamping out vandalism. But while I don't have any evidence whatsoever that this is a prospective problem admin, I see no evidence of the skills needed to merit the mop. I reluctantly oppose the nomination. Alansohn 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally accept what you say but "99.9% of what is being done by the nominee could be done just as effectively without administrative powers" is still a totally wrong argument. Beeing an admin means that you have to possible to use a revert which spares the database because won't add a new version and modifies just an entry. And if you can block a vandal you can spare edits because it's not needed to ask an admin e. g. on WP:AIV to block him. All in all you can stop vandalism significantly faster. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admire your zeal in picking up the one element in which there might be some benefit as an admin, but admins must do more than a singleminded focus on vandalism. The far more fundamental issue raised in my opposition is that the candidate seems to have no experience in creating articles and hardly any more in editing them. The nominee has provided no evidence that he has any meaningful understanding of the article creation process, appears to have created not a single article and to have made only minor edits in mainspace. A review of the nominee's edit history shows no meaningful participation in any AfD or that he can make informed judgments on any of the issues presented at XfD, where an administrator needs to make a considered thought that lasts more than 5-10 seconds, and where issues are rarely black-and-white, as they often are with vandalism. Oxymoron83 may well turn out to be an excellent admin, but seems to lack broad swathes of some of the basic skills and experience needed to be an effective admin. Alansohn 23:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's all true but I've not complained about it, but your thoughts that admin tools won't help vandal fighters. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. oppose Insufficient content creation. I don't believe a person who presfer to fight vandals to writing content can be a good judge in fighting "good guys" who may be occasionally mistaken or got excited. `'Míkka>t 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fight neither vandals nor "good guys", I fight vandalism. --Oxymoron83 09:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Minded to support Just waiting on the results of my questions. Please feel free to nudge me on my talk page if I don't respond after you have answered them. Spartaz Humbug! 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Changing to support. Spartaz Humbug! 14:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Oxymoron83&oldid=1087653199"