Wikipedia:Administrator review/OlEnglish

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OlEnglish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Well I suppose I may as well take advantage of this process and get some feedback on what my fans think of me ;) I think I've been kinda slacking lately in some areas.. but.. either way, should be interesting to learn if the community has anything to say about any recent contributions I've made or how I could improve. Thanks, œ ^™ 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I just about always think it's commendable to participate in this page, so thank you for asking. I've been seeing you around pretty regularly since your RfA, and I have never seen you do anything to which I would object. You always appear to me to be very sensible and constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clueful, helpful, etc. I haven't seen any concerns. —fetch ·comms 15:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that I've seen a bunch of your edits lately and they all appear to be very productive and well thought out. Keep up the good work! EW_{_i}kist^Talk 20:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You had the amazingly good judgement to give me rollback, so how can I complain? :P But seriously, you've been doing fine lately. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OE, Your thoughtful, timely and knowledgeable edits and modifications to my article were greatly very valuable and greatly appreciated.Your encouragement , too, from the very start, made a world (a Wikipedia World) of difference. So, Thank you and keep up the great work! Jonathan Levey (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your many edits on the help and project pages ( including many little touches that many don't think of or bother with) are always sensible and it is reassuring that, with people like you, they will one day be easily readable and make sense! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? You help people, you take care of several administrator tasks, and you're definitely doing a fine job as an admin. Keep up the good work! The Utahraptor ^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping out on my first article! PS: Have checked that this comment adheres to WP:NPOV & WP:COI :) NetsWiki (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose OlEnglish receiving admin status. While I don't know much about his wider edit history, I do know he acted very recklessly in my case.

User:Aglabal is a vandal who has been trolling and harassing me under various IP addresses for nearly two years. He vandalizing edits to my user page every few weeks or months. You can view the whole history by looking at the IP addresses who have vandalised my page over the years here. [1]

Unfortunately for me, user OlEnglish saw one of Aglabal's actions and made the completely illogical decision that he must be a sock puppet of my account. No evidence whatsoever other than the similarity of our user names (which was itself part of the trolling).

He didn't even do me the courtesy of leaving me a note on my talk page. He just left a template on Aglabal's user page. Ironically, the template he put on Aglabal's page said it was an acknowledgment that I knew about the policy on sock puppets and further abuse would be punished more severely. Keep in mind, I probably never would have even stumbled on the page for month's more unless I noticed my page had been vandalized. This could have gotten me banned if the guy had kept making accounts in names similar to mine and I had already been labeled a sock puppeteer.

Very reckless. Algabal (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at my talk page. (btw that action was made before I became an administrator so it really doesn't have any relevance to this "Administrator" review.) -- œ ^™ 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked over some of your admin reviews seem to be calm and level headed. I will say that when I first read your response in this matter that it was before your were and admin. While admin reviews are here to give review of admin work, they are also a chance for growth of the admin. I looked at the review of and comments of the alleged interaction. It seems that you have taken the time to look at the actions, and addressed them. Keep up the good work. Jsgoodrich (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this person having administrator privileges. No further comment. 113.162.171.139 (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Comment - This is an administrator, and more importantly, a Wikipedia User (emphasis on user) attempting to get feedback on their work for the betterment of themselves which ultimately could lead to an improvement of their work and an improvement of the project. While this is not a poll in any way, shape, or form, just a vote is not a response that can be counted. One should take the time to outline their opinion. Especially in the case of an anonymous IP editor posting oppose generically, then disappearing. In that sense, it almost appears as socking. Just throwing that out there. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foregoing (since restored) comment indicates that you must be doing something right. RashersTierney (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work, you've got my support RashersTierney (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.