Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2

Edit stats
Oshwah's edit stats using XTools as of 16:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC):

First edit:	Jan 5, 2007, 8:51 AM Latest edit:	Aug 22, 2016, 3:22 PM Live edits:	132,256 Deleted edits:	4,593 Total edits: 	136,849

Unique pages edited:		92,309 Pages created:			30,952 Pages moved:			222 Ø edits per page:		1.4 Files uploaded:			15 Files uploaded (Commons):	1 Reverted edits:			323 Edits with summary:		132,193 Number of minor edits (tagged):	62,830

Semi-automated edits using nonautomated edit counter as of 20:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC):

Totals for the main namespace: Total edits         60702 Automated edits     57996 (96%) Non-automated edits 2706  (4%)

Totals for all namespaces: Total edits         132262 Automated edits     119676 (90%) Non-automated edits 12586  (10%)

Troll vote?
Could a patrolling clerk or bureaucrat please evaluate the !vote (currently #119) by Ctwill761? IMO this is an obvious troll troll. They just registered today. They have made no serious edits. Their fourth edit was to put "hi" on the talk page of a user that has not yet made a single edit. Their fifth and sixth (and so far final) edits were to this RfA. The wording of the !vote is obviously not serious. Oshwah himself struck the !vote, sensing "something amiss", but the user restored it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this the diff you're looking for? I'm assuming the CTRL + C didn't take? The link doesn't seem related (other than that user's page is one Ctwill761 edited.) ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, the notorious troll strikes again! (humor) ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The account is a sock of a prolific troll. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed votes

 * Support No reason to oppose. GustavoRomeo68 (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This account has been blocked as a sock of Kumioko. Mike V • Talk 21:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Oshwah is a great guy on Wikipedia. He is great at reverting vandalism. He also makes great contributions on Wikipedia. I am a friend of him in real life and he is just a great guy. Please make him an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctwill761 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ehh, sorry. I'm going to strike out this vote. I sense something amiss here...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Ctwill761 is a CU-confirmed sockpuppet, and has now been blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment to commenter
What you said about WP:IAR in the back-and-forth on question 9 isn't really on-target. IAR was not created as a way for people contribute without knowing the rules (already covered by WP:BOLD and WP:AGF; it has nothing to do with that at all. It's entirely and only about ignoring a rule (that one knows and understands) that does not make sense or produce a useful result by following it, in a particular narrow circumstance, if ignoring it this time improves the encyclopedia. Oshwah's doing admin-only things as a non-admin is just a WP:AGF issue, not an IAR one.  The only reason I brought it up in the neutral section was because it was so very recent, so it is applicable to assessing the candidate's more-or-less current judgement.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what I said there agrees with everything you just said. You said It's entirely and only about ignoring a rule (that one knows and understands) that does not make sense or produce a useful result by following it, in a particular narrow circumstance, I said From the fact that you link to ... WP:IAR, I'm assuming that you knew that this was against policy when you did it, and decided that ignoring that policy was for the good of the encyclopedia.. Oshwah in his long response made an argument about it being "created as a way for people [to] contribute without knowing the rules", and, whilst I maybe should have specifically corrected that, I don't really see where I was "off-target" in what I did say. He specified IAR as his justification for the unblock declines, I said it was a poor application. I then went on to ask him how he would apply it as an admin, because I was concerned he was invoking it incorrectly, in the way you describe, and wanted him to reassess his understanding, which I think, to a good degree, he did. Anyway, regardless of the finer points, I'm happy with the outcome of that discussion. I'm sure he'd appreciate further education from you on the misconception I failed to address, though - he seems very receptive. -- Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

, besides misapprehension re WP:IAR, it seems to me the candidate also misapprehends WP:BOLD. At least his understanding of it is way different from mine. (He states that WP:BOLD serves to free users of worry regarding knowing "all the rules" when making contributions. I've always thought BOLD meant adding or removing content, modifying article layout, ... adding or removing or changing things that might not find consensus, but about which the contributor thought improved an article. These are very different interpretations of WP:BOLD.) IHTS (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's correct. I do have doubts about the way Oshwah uses "bluelinks" without understanding them fully in several places. He's hardly alone in that, though - it's pretty common. In a question/answer session that was about "unblock declines", though, I was already conscious of excess length, and topic-creep, and the new guidelines discourage "sneaking in" new topics, so perhaps I left a few things unsaid. I didn't want a single question to become a self-contained mini editor-review, and I'd already said more words than most on the page in general. Hard to know where to draw the line, sometimes. -- Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It refers to writing content, but could it not be applied as a general principle to the community management side of the project as well? Though of course, as the page says, "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted." (or in this case taken to task) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Out of time
The 189th vote is OUT OF TIME, so it is not actually just 75%.  333-blue  09:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I know, RfAs last until they are closed and even !votes added after the scheduled closure time count. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo is correct. Until the RfA is closed, people can continue to express their opinions on the RfA page. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)