Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Otto4711

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

Otto4711

[edit]

Final (1/20/4); ended at 21:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Otto4711 (talk · contribs) - Otto has been an editor for a year now, focusing mainly on fiction, including comics, TV series, and characters. He puts a lot of work into consistency and simplification of our category system. Overall he is a competent and courteous user who knows his way around, and would make a worthwhile administrator. >Radiant< 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes, I accept the nomination. Otto4711 16:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have been pretty heavily involved in AFD and CFD and would continue working in those areas. I have also been active in anti-vandalism and would try to get more heavily involved in that area as well. Otto4711 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As far as writing and editing, I am most pleased with the work I've done on articles relating to LGBT-related topics. I've added a number of articles on films and TV shows and helped with various categorization and listification issues. I realize that this isn't exactly the most vital area of human knowledge, but it is an area of scholarship which has been historically undervalued and under-researched so I'm happy to help present it here. From a project standpoint, I think I've made valuable contributions to the continued consensus-building of various aspects of the categorization scheme and contributed to the discussion of other polices and guidelines to streamline and clarify them. Otto4711 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have unfortunately allowed myself to get drawn into conflict, notably with a particular editor who I won't name as it's not particularly relevant. I felt like the editor was being deliberately disruptive and in trying to mitigate that I inadvertantly overstepped the rules. I feel that I've learned from that experience to remove myself from situations involving that particular editor and recognizing similar situations as they arise. Otto4711 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonstandard questions
4. Are you planning to do any technical administrative work (e.g. history merges, maintaining high-risk templates, editing the interface, creating accounts)? --ais523 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Otto4711 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Nominate and support. >Radiant< 11:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Have encountered this user multiple times on XFD discussions, his arguments are always well thought out and displays a firm grasp on policy. I support giving this user the mop. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I find Otto egregious, and sneaky at times. For example: this CfD; Otto removes articles from category, then claiming it only contains characters. Then edit wars to push his POV when somebody (and I) re-add articles back to the primary category. I don't have enough fingers to count how many times he's done this.[1][2] Also lacks knowledge of 3RR (making partial reverts). Also lacks knowledge of our non-free content policies.1 Edit: Otto has good intentions, but his actions are often performed wrongly. Matthew 16:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose due to serious civility issues. For example on his last block due to 3rr, he made the following edits to his talk page [3] with the choice edit summary "fuck admins in their fucking necks because they fucking suck." and [4] with an edit summary "especially fuck that billington cooze and that yamla douchebag plus that el c cock", managing to insult three admins in one go. He has also been extremely incivil to other users such as here [5] telling Biruitorul "If your stream of crap helps you make it through the day then more power to you", and called User:Mister Jinxy a dick in an edit summary [6] here. When it comes to CFD, Otto4711 shows an unhealthy relish towards deletion as evidenced here [7] with the totally unhelpful comment "Let the Festival of Cast Category Deletions begin!", and instead of showing any remorse, we are treated to a verbal barrage here [8]. In short, Otto is totally unsuitable candidate for administrator due to failure to work with other editors in a civil way, and unlikely to be able to use the admin tools wisely. Tim! 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely Not. I wish I could support for the every-day contributions, including those to LGBT-related articles, but the responses to conflict like those posted above are simply not acceptable. Can not handle stress and can not be an administrator. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: I'm sorry, I'm not a big fan of opposing based on a few diffs, but in this case I feel compelled to do so. Probably the single most important trait for an admin is coolness in the face of heated discussion. You'll face much more provocation as an admin than as a regular user. The recentness and level of incivility in those diffs, and the recent blocks for revert-warring, concern me. You've done good work, and I could see supporting you for adminship in the future if you can stay civil, avoid revert-warring, and demonstrate that those episodes were an aberration. MastCell Talk 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Oppose per Tim!. This user's reaction to a 3RR block is absolutely inexcusable, and his incivility issues will definitely be problematic if he is an administrator. You need to have good communication skills, and this includes being civil and courteous to other users, and not blowing your top. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose in the strongest possible way. Two 3RR violations in the last six months (plus a third block overturned due to WP:AGF) as well as the patently unacceptable incivility and lack of remorse. User doesn't display even close to the sort of temperment an Admin should have. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong oppose per those diffs.--Wizardman 17:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per User:Tim!'s diffs, the user's subsequent lack of contrition following his block: "I've served out your 24 hour crap punishment. Unblock me now."[9] --DeLarge 17:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose Spammed all RFAs yesterday with awkward comments, quite a worrisome behavior. Not to mention all of the above. Sorry, but no. Húsönd 19:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC) per above. Húsönd 21:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you got this user confused with User:Oo7565 (regarding the spamming RfAs thing). - TwoOars (T | C) 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I apologize for the rather embarassing mistake. Still, I'm opposing as per above. Thanks for noticing this. Húsönd 21:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong oppose I dont tend to oppose to often but the diffs provided above about your incivility and inability to accept your policy violating actions are a serious worry, I dont think you would know what to do if in a difficult decision and you would insult people other then try to resolve it, I do not think your an admin material, at least not a the current time. Regards — The Sunshine Man 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Oppose Observed arrogant and abusive comments towards User:Johnbod a few days ago, Modernist 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Oppose per reasons Tim! stated. --pIrish Arr! 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Are you kidding me? Barely suited to be an editor, not to mention one with access to sysop tools (!). El_C 19:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose with this worrying incivility and behavior. No way, sorry. —Anas talk? 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose This uncivil as an editor, I shudder to think what he would do when being uncivil as a sysop. Very sorry, but no. Jmlk17 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Incivility as an admin just won't do in my opinion. I am not willing to trust this user with the tools, I may assume good faith if reasons can be given behind the diffs that Tim! provided. GDonato (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong oppose on civility issues. Otto does some fine work on XfD but his attitude towards people who disagree with him and his habit of claiming superior knowledge of Wikipedia policy are unacceptable. Take for instance this exchange with a user complaining (with some aggression) about some of his CfD nominations. There's absolutely no reason for Otto4711 to reply with this, this, this, this, this and this. I have no trust whatsoever in Otto's ability to accept disagreement with others and to de-escalate conflicts. I also am concerned that he would try to use his admin status as a tool to steamroll opposition from newbies. I'm not sure what Radiant! was thinking.Pascal.Tesson 21:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose A sysop who behaves like that would damage the project.--Runcorn 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Oppose per Tim!. -Lεmσηflαsh(t)/(c) 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Oppose-Without even looking I know the user has 3 blocks in his log. Oh wait, now there's four. And some are for 3RR, in fact, one just last month. This is unacceptable. I also remember talking with him many times and he has been incivil almost every time. Also, I remember he was once blocked and his unblock request was an incivil command (the diff is above in some else's comment). Lastly, one time when I was arguing with him about something on a page, he just gave up. Admins must not give up just because they don't feel like getting into something. All of these combined lead me to watchlist this page before it was even created. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Withholding my above support until some reasonable explanation for the behavior demonstrated in the diffs given by Tim! is given. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, I don't care enough about being an admin to go into a big conversation about my past behaviour. Radiant was kind enough to suggest nominating me and, mindful of the issues, I agreed. It's not worth it to me to deal with this any further. Otto4711 17:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral This is a good editor but appears too ready to show the sharp side of their tongue against admins and vandals alike. I'm not confident that they can keep their temper in check when dealing with the fraught situations in which admins can find themselves. (aeropagitica) 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Adminship is no big deal, but I am a little concerned by some of the diffs provided above. I recommend that the user try to moderate their language in future. Walton Need some help? 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral He seems like a nice editor, but the issues above make me not support.--TREYWiki 21:47, 17 May 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/Otto4711&oldid=1085412935"