Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ozgod


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Ozgod
Final: (20/11/8); ended 22:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

- I would like to nominate myself for this RFA. I have been perusing for a few years now, and only began to edit on Wikipedia last fall - mostly sticking to the subjects I knew. Back in February I became involved with the Wikipedia Biography Project and began exposing myself to the wikignome culture of Wikipedia. At first I stuck to the simple assessment of biographical articles, but as my experience on Wikipedia grew I began to become involved with AFD, and within the past month CSD. I try to take time, if not every night, at least a few times a week to search for Vandals and report and revert appropriately. I cannot say that I know every policy and procedure off of the top of my head, but I am a fast learner. Ozgod 22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nom; I accept. --Ozgod 22:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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: Currently I hope to start out by helping with CSD and AFD, but I am hoping to broaden my scope and take part in any area that has a backlog that needs work. I am mostly invigorated when I am dealing with a task that has a large volume of work to be done.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I consider my best contributions to be an ongoing process - helping out with the Unassessed backlog at the WPBiography project has been a favorite, but my work on Judy Garland and some of my smaller efforts, like organizing the biography of William G. Thrash.


 * 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: Most of my conflicts tend to be any article I nominate for AFD - but that is merely a nomination and for the community to decide. Other times it is when simple tagging of new articles with {expand} or {unsourced}. Some editors feel it makes the article look unattractive, and while I understand how they feel about it I do it to in hopes that future readers and editors will know what the article needs for improvements. I cannot recall any time where I have been stressed by Wikipedia - after all, I have a life outside of the internet.

Optional question from User:William Henry Harrison


 * 4. If you were given the power to have complete control over wikipedia what would you do, what would you change, and why?
 * That is always an interesting questions - I suppose I could write volumes on it. Firstly, what would I do? I would give articles a "development" period - where the creator could theoretically sandbox an article; develop, layout, expand, reference and fine-tune it before publishing it and potentially have it speedy deleted or tagged with a {prod}. Creating an article is sort of like writing any essay - it is impossible to get it correct on the first try, but with Wikipedia it is out there immediately and can come under immediate scrutiny - and as mentioned - speedy deleted before its importance or notability can be adequately established. What else would I change? I think one of the big things I would change, although I imagine it being out of the realm of feasibility, is to hide other users votes during any AFD, RFA, or any other matter which relies on community opinion. I think when people see an argument has more on one side than the other, it can influence their decision; had they not been influenced by that factor they may have vote a little more objectively. When I went to participate in one my first AFDs - I cannot lie - I was influenced by how many people I had seen vote to Oppose was greater than those had voted to Support. Being new to the whole process it definitely influenced my decision - but had the votes been "masked" or "invisible" I would not have been influenced by the popular opinion and may have judged the article a little more objectively. I think seeing those tallies can certaintly affect some people and where they decide to stand on the issue. Yet, conversely, I also see the good in being able to debate and discuss when voting. My only solution to this would be to have an initial "vote" period followed by a discuss and debate, if necessary, a second "voting" period. --Ozgod 03:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Wooyi


 * 5. What is your stance on WP:BLP and how will you treat editors who insert poorly sourced information into biographical articles?
 * I do not see myself treating editors in a different manner from any other were they to insert poorly sourced or unverifiable information to an article; unless it were to become a habit. If the information falls outside the category of vandalism, but is still speculative, or a rumor, then removal is the best option (with an explanatory edit summary). Were it to become a persistent habit where an editor continually submits poorly sourced/unverifiable information to an article(s), then a discussion is always the best route - maybe they are unaware of the Wikipedia Culture and a lot of the policies (like WP:BLP) and merely want to furnish an article with any bit of information they come across and/or hear. You cannot fault someone for being unaware of procedures on a project as a large as Wikipedia - and being human, we all make mistakes. Education, not punishment, is the better choice.
 * As far as my stance on WP:BLP - better to have guidelines, especially when dealing with people where information can change in a moments notice. When Anna Nicole Smith passed away there were a flurry of updates, most of which were reverted in seconds (a few of mine, before a proection was placed. Rather than have her article become a live news feed or become a carrier of misinformation, I am grateful for WP:BLP's policy for the removal of poorly sourced or unsourced information. With any biography, especially living people, it takes time before any information becomes concrete.
 * As a whole, I support WP:BLP - I would rather have it there than not having any guidelines for biographies. Wikipedia being the ever evolving project it is I know in a few months it all may change - I may not like what is added to it, or taken away - but if it is policy I will follow it. Should I feel bold enough - offer a suggestion to change it. --Ozgod 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Geo Swan


 * 6 Do you believe administrators have a responsibility to set an example, and should make a special effort to comply with WP:CIV and WP:BITE?
 * Remember, with great power, comes great responsibility.
 * With any position that bestows any additional "powers/user rights" there has to be some degree of integrity of how well-intentioned and benevolently that editor will use them. The hope is that they will use them not only wisely, but appropriately to aide the project as a whole and not for their own personal projects, or in rare cases, vendettas. Since administrative powers are something that can editor can be granted one day, should they so desire, it is in the best interest of the community that the perception that they have of administrators are that they are editors who can rise above their foibles, be objective, and do what is best for the community as a whole. However, since administrators and editors alike are both human, no person who is part of this project is exempt from errors - thus the old adage; to err is human.
 * Personally, I feel administrators should be conscious of the example they set, but more importantly, should they make an error, or have a lapse in judgment, or in any particular case breach WP:CIV/WP:BITE - be humble, admit their transgression and make peace with those they have offend or newb they have bitten.
 * Do I, personally, feel administrators should make a special effort to comply with WP:CIV and WP:BITE? Yes - I prefer peace over warfare. Do I expect an administrator may once, or occasionally, breach those policies? Yes. More important than their error is the ability, when if called out on their blunder, to own up to it. --Ozgod 00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Ozgod:
 * Wannabe Kate's edit summary of Ozgod.

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

Discussion


Support
 * 1) I've got to say the wikipedia space edit count isn't great, but I've seen a lot of good things from Ozgod and I think he could use the tools wisely.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Only positive experiences with this editor. I have full confidence they would use the tools wisely. Er rab ee 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, I've come across the contribs of this user multiple times and I'm feeling pretty confident it's a good addition to the admin team. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, this user is good and they had a great non-political answer to my question--William Henry Harrison 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User has since been blocked as a sockpuppet.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, I've seen some of the stuff this user has contributed and it's all good, so I believe Ozgod would be a good part of the admin team. ~Sushi 09:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Majorly  (talk | meet) 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support —Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) (drop me a line) 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Seems experienced enough, and adminship is no big deal. Walton Assistance!  19:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I believe the tools will be used for good. I don't feel that the candidate's inexperience in certain areas would lead to misuse of the tools, and that the candidate will continue to seek out new Wikipedia experience regardless of admin status.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, all my experiences him have been good, the quality of his experience outweighs any time problems.-- Wizardman 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, good user and nice answer to my question. WooyiTalk to me? 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, helpful contributor to the WP1.0 project, Ozgod has shown good judgment in all the work I've seen. Walkerma 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, Sure, there's a learning curve but he'll do fine. No concrete history to suggest he'll be a problem.  Jody B talk 02:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support "I am mostly invigorated when I am dealing with a task that has a large volume of work to be done.". Best of luck at WP:CSD then!!! Seriously, enough strength and civility here and some actual justification of the need for the tools, something a bit rare in a lot of RfA's. Pedro |  Chat 09:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Terence 09:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support The user seems to have knowledge of policy, and admits to minor faults, which is refreshing. He seems like a good person who will assume good faith and do his best to make Wikipedia a better place. This user will certainly never abuse the tools.  hmwith  talk  11:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support No problems exist that would cause me to vote oppose. Captain panda  18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per above. Arnon Chaffin Reveiw me?   Talk 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Why not? Ab e g92 contribs 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Event though you opposed my Rfa I think you would make a good admin. You seem to know what your doing and you have a fairly good amount of experience. Mattl2001 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Changed from neutrality. Ran back through your contributions, and decided I liked the quality of your editing.  I am excited to see what you could expand into as an admin.  Jmlk  1  7  04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support SNAAAAARF! --Infrangible 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This person really does not have enough experience here. He/she has not really proved themselves.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - a look at some random AfD comments don't inspire confidence in me. Examples are here and here - I just don't think you're ready to be judging, and closing, AfD's, something you say you'll be doing.  G1  gg  y  !  23:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *Perhaps I am just dull but I have difficulty understanding your concern with the second diff. Could you explain? Christopher Parham (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose G1ggy's examples and candidate's answer to Question 4 both demonstrate a lack of experience of the sort needed to perform routine admin tasks. More seasoning required. Xoloz 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do understand G1ggy's examples and the points he brings up, but I am curious what is at fault with my answer to Question 4? --Ozgod 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The first part of your answer, the article "development period," already happens at user subpages all the time. That's a good thing -- but the fact that it showed up in your answer to Q. 4 shows that you're inexperienced: you thought a standard part of wiki-practice was your own new idea. No problem, except that it shows you need to hang around a bit more to get the swing of things. Xoloz 17:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point on that - but I have never been aware, nor have I ever, used a subpage for developing an article before releasing it, nor do many new users that enter Wikipedia practice that either. I have some people register for Wikipedia and immediately begin generating articles on their topic of choice at a steady pace - without really asserting their notability or making it entirely acceptable for an entry in an encyclopedia. What I was suggesting as a more of a "draft" phase - and while editors can use subpages under the profile to do so, I am not sure that many new editors are aware of their capability to do that. I certainly was not aware of that for a long time when I first started using Wikipedia. --Ozgod 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Xoloz, I have to say that I don't think you're being entirely fair - some people certainly do userfy articles and work on them there, but I don't blame the candidate for being unaware of this practice; Wikipedia is so big and complex that it's not necessarily fair to expect admin candidates to be aware of everything, IMHO. And as Ozgod said, most new users who create articles wouldn't be aware of that feature either, so the candidate's idea for a formal "article development stage" is not by any means a bad one. Walton Assistance!  19:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose Seems a bit inexperienced. Skimming a list of his AfD votes I seem to find several votes that demonstrate confusion regarding policy. Particularly after reading question 4 I was surprised to see many "per nom" votes, and those were the best justified when it comes to policy. Goodnight  mush  Talk  02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose this user last February he had like 2200 edits but in the following then not as active. the user seems to needs to look up polices as his recnt afd votes seems he not look at them resently like the afd for William Spaniel to mention one of them.Oo7565 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, poor AfD votes demonstrating lack of policy knowledge are a bit too recent for me to be willing to entrust this user closing AfD discussions. Would certainly be willing to consider again in a couple months. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I have trouble believing this user understands Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines given the above evidence. Put frankly, I can't trust this user to be an effective administrator on Wikipedia at this time.  Daniel  10:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - concerns regarding judgement. --After Midnight 0001 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - fortunately, voting is not blind, and I find myself rather convinced by my peer's arguments above. However, I'm probably an anachronism in that I see AfD as an actual attempt at measuring community consensus rather than a vote. Cool Hand Luke 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - not impressed by some of his AfD contributions, and IMO lacks general experience.HeartofaDog 00:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - not sure you're quite familiar enough with how Wikipedia works yet. Looking through your AfD contribs, a lot of them do seem a bit confused and I'm not sure (given you propose to close these discussions) that you're ready to do that. I also share worries that you see them a little too much as a vote. The fact you hadn't considered the use of userspace for drafting (though not very relevant to adminship) seems to me a further indication that you could use more time familiarising yourself with how things work. There may be policies that similarly you haven't come across and that may be problematic if you were to be an admin. I also worry based on your answer to Q.5. that you won't tough enough in applying WP:BLP - inserting poorly sourced material about living people is far more serious than in any other article given our high google rating - it can make someone's life unpleasant very quickly. I hope you won't be discouraged but I think you need a little more time before adminship is a good idea. WjBscribe 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose I commend Ozgod's wikignome activities, but I think he's a bit muddled at times. There's no point putting an expand tag on a stub a few minutes after its creation. He replied on my user page instead of my talk page and formed the conclusion that I had taken this personally. He stopped replying, and ignored a request which I hoped would be just right for him. I think he needs more interaction with other users and more experience. He has the promise of admin material, but not yet. Tyrenius 14:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if it came off that I was ignoring your request, but the WPBiography Summer Assessment Drive kicking off and with 110,000+ Biography articles that need assessment, as well as the Wikipedia Review team, I have for the most part recently been focusing on those two projects. --Ozgod 14:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Looking at the breakdown of your stats, you've only really been making substantial contributions since February of this year. I'd like to see two or three months where you also participate in the policy space and demonstrate your knowledge of the policies and guidelines in your contributions to debates.  Apart from that, I don't see any cause for concern with you. (aeropagitica) 23:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Just a bit too new to the project for me to support. I like what you have so far, so just keep it up.  Jmlk  1  7  00:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to support. Ran back through some of the user's edits and contributions, and liked what I saw.  Jmlk  1  7  04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I'm also on the fence. Giggy's diffs aren't too much cause for concern, but the comment on the football player doesn't really show the experience in dealing with non-notable biographies to recognize that it might be one.  I'll stay out of the main issue: playing in a professional link counts, but the article linking to another article doesn't prove much - after all, suppose I write an article saying "YechielMan lives in the United States of America" - that doesn't make me notable.  The reason I'm not opposing is that AFD is really about evaluating consensus, and if consensus is unclear then trying to weigh strength of arguments.  Overall I don't see this skill being a particular challenge for the candidate. Yechiel Man  01:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral 3988 is a bit to low of an edit count for me to support someone. I would vote to support you if you got active in fighting vandalism, and were active in AFD'S. Sorry about that.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, I agree with Sir james paul. Your count is kind of low, but that is not my principal concern. The fact that you do not have any real experience fighting vandals, is what worries me. However, I like everything else I see so I will not opppose. --  Random  Say it here! 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral for the moment. I'd like to ask you about Q4, for I think it doesn't take into account the dynamics at AfD. Most of the information in these discussions comes from the interplay of comments: One person questions Notability, and another responds, and then the others have something to build on, & the discussion explores all the issues. Might having a "voting phase" or multiple voting phases detract from the already fragile principle of deciding by the best arguments, not the most supporters? DGG 03:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting a "masked" voting phase (where tallies and votes are not displayed), and then a discussion phase would help an administrator get a clearer idea on consensus. As I stated, I feel when people approach any issue - for instance, an AFD - and see 8 people supporting to keep the article and 14 voting to delete, it may sway how they feel rather than letting be objective about the issue. After the "masked" voting period has finished, an open discussion and debate. Should no clear consensus be reached in either phase, then a second, final, voting period. Personally that is how I organize it (being the Virgo I am) - and I recongize that is not Wikipedia Policy. My rationale is that people, especially newcomers to AfD, can be pretty affected by the tallies of Delete/Keep, and to avoid ruining their objectivity of the issue, splitting into two parts, and if necessary, a third. As I stated, I base this on my own experience when I encountered some of my first AfD's and did not want to be on the "wrong" side of the decision making process. I do understand your point though, how it could clutter up the process. --Ozgod 03:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Ozgod I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing in the diff links provided by "G1ggy". Your "development period" suggestion (in question 4) might have some potential in avoiding situations where an article is overzealously deleted because the user has not finished writing it. However, that is one of the many applications of user-space, we just need to advertise that more, especially to new editors who may not realize their work is immediately visible. I know this is written in big bold letters, but those big bold letters are far below the edit box and possibly difficult to notice. What's this about secret voting? I mean... what's this about formal "voting" of any kind, and why should it be kept secret? The strength of the arguments is much more important than the number of people supporting a position. Changing the software to facilitate secret votes — in matters as trivial as AFD! — would only cause more people to lose focus on the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy! I don't see why you would consider that bit helpful, or why you think the developers would want to micro-manage us like that, or if you were half-joking for lack of any obvious response to such an open-ended (but thought-provoking) question [[Image:Smiley.svg|15px]]. Please explain! — CharlotteWebb 00:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern with displaying tallies or votes for Keep Delete Support etc, is it can influence people before they enter a debate. I tend to micromanage - and any sort of system that facilitates that is a winner in my book! When asked what I would change on Wikipedia, I proposed the aforementioned voting/discussion system - this is not to say I would ever push for this to become policy. I was being honest, for in my mind it helps keep participants of the discussion objective without seeing so many bold lettered votes potentially influencing their stance on issue. I whole-heartedly agree that the strength of an argument should outweigh votes, but so many decisions are reached on consensus. Knowing that people can be influenced, in my mind it would seem best to have a system where people can vote on an argument/debate/matter without being influenced by what the "popular" vote may be - thus masking the votes until the matter is settled. In retrospect a discussion then vote system would be better than the reverse I originally suggested. Again, this not a policy I would actually ever push for - as I see it being infeasible to work within the current Wikipedia system (then again, I have zero skill at programming languages so it may easier than I presume!)
 * As for the using user-space to "draft" articles - there a lot of things that can be done on Wikipedia that remain a mystery to some, even being here for ages! I know at my job, for two years, I am still learning new things on our computer system. It would be nice if for when new users register their talk page automatically pre-loads with a very nice box that explains some of these hidden tips and tricks. --Ozgod 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Pace WJB, I'm not sure that Ozgod's general understanding of BLP and the fashion in which it ought to be applied is all that inconsistent with that interpretation of BLP for which a consensus exists, and I would observe relatedly that even one who advocates for the strictest construction of BLP would suggest that even as one removes edits the contravene BLP, he should be civil and understanding in explaining policy to those good-faith editors (typically quite new) who make such edits, lest we should lose a prospective contributor over a misunderstanding; I suppose I interpreted Ozgod's response as reflecting such a disposition. On the broader question, though, I am convinced on the whole the candidate is possessed of good judgment, a deliberative temperament, and a cordial demeanor, but I am not certain that his conversance with policy is such that he should not avolitionally misuse the tools (e.g., by acting whereof he does not know in ignorance of such lack of knowledge), and I can't at this point, then, conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of Oz's being sysopped should be positive, and so I am rather regretfully unable to support.  Joe 06:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, leaning towards support. I'm slightly dissatisfied with insufficient experience (not edit count proper). Please try again later. Ukrained 10:34, 3 June 2007 (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.