Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/O keyes 2

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

O Keyes

FINAL (0/8/2); closed early in accordance with WP:SNOW by Camaeron 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O keyes (talk · contribs) - I am a student from London who's been on Wikipedia for just over two years. I'd previously applied for adminship and was turned down, but i believe I've corrected many of the flaws which led to that. I mainly focus my attention on categorising pages, but i also spend a lot of time on the Recent Changes page looking for vandalism and browsing the random articles to find spelling/grammar mistakes that might have been missed. I believe I could do these jobs better with sysop tools, such as being able to delete obviously nonsense pages i find in the Recent Changes section and any uncategorised pages that cant possible be brought up to a useful standard. O keyes (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2008 (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: I'd like to do a bit of everything, but mainly WP:AIV. I'm normally up till 3-4 AM GMT, so i can help at hours other admins might not be around to. The speedy deletion backlog can also be quite busy so i'll work on that; i'm more of a wikignome than anything else and big flashy displays arent for me. I usually spend most of my time doing mind-numbing, menial work here anyway so i'll help out on odd jobs wherever needed.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'd say probably the categorisation of articles. The backlog normally averages out at about 2 months worth (including the current month) but of my 3162 article edits i'd say most are to do with this, and i'm quite proud of helping cut it down; with 3000 more articles it'd be a lot more difficult to sort out.

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 don't think I've got in any large edit conflicts since my kind of work doesn't allow for much interaction with other users other than thanking them and the occasional "don't touch that" on a vandals talk page. I got in a minor conflict over a rather rude edit summary i wrote while under stress, and which i now realise was completely inappropriate of me. I apologised, and in future would probably do the same; long edit wars simply cloud the issue and stop us doing our real job, of putting easily accessible knowledge on the Internet for the whole world (or at least those people not using dial-up).

General comments

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

Links for O keyes: O keyes (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Oppose Sorry to be the first. You still don't seem to have learned the importance of edit summaries, even though this was an issue identified in your first RFA. You state you want to work at WP:AIV yet I see no input there at present. You have almost no contributions tagging articles for C:CSD. No input at WP:AFD or WP:RFPP. No real article writing either. This is hard, and I implore you to take this well, but you really need to 1)Force edit summaries via "your preferences 2)Work in the "traditional" admin related areas I identify above and 3)Gnomish is good, indeed greatly welcomed, but some article expansion will really help you get "under the skin" of Wikipedia. Admin coaching may help, I feel. Very best, and again, my thanks for your hard work so far.Pedro : Chat 21:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable supporting this RfA. In your first RfA, I opposed citing your extreme inactivity around the project and saying that I prefer my candidates to be a bit more active on the project. In look at your edit stats, you edited all of 4 times in January, and 9 in February. That's really not what I hoped to see, and so my original opposition rationale remains the same. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, you really need to use edit summaries. Furthermore, when tagging articles for speedy deletion, you especially need to use them to properly alert people as to what you're doing; it's something you've failed to do in the past.[1][2] Tagging articles "under the radar" like that can be unfair to the authors, who may not know that you've tagged it for deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per the directly above...sorry...and your worryingly low usage of edit summaries. --Camaeron (t/c) 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per above Not ready yet. Please set your preferences to require edit summary completion before saving. I saw a few vandalism reversions. You are not using the standard templates. If you use Mozilla, you can use Twinkle to help with the vandal reversion. It will fill out the edit summary and give you a selection of templates. If not, you can set up a text page from which you can copy and paste the substituted templates, or apply for vandalproof. You have a large number of edits not related to admin tasks. Hopefully, this means you are article building. Also, I saw a concern about an incivil edit summary. It is best to maintain a certain detachment to avoid stress. You might also want to review WP:DR. I don't believe one must have had a serious conflict to demonstrate a knowledge of conflict resolution, but familiarity with the process will come in handy. Admin's inevitably are drawn into conflict because of their use of the tools. Participation in other admin areas will be helpful because there is overlap between the areas. Also, people look to us for advice, and it's good to be able to know the answers. Hope this helps. Hope to see you back in 3000 edits. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per EVula. Very few edits in January and February. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 21:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Just not enough experience yet, take the comments made above and improve. I will be happy to support in the future. Tiptoety ^talk 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Edit summaries help other editors (such as Recent Changes Patrollers) quickly determine what changes you made. The more descriptive the summary, the easier it is for me to figure out if the edit was in good faith or not when I have Special:Recentchanges pulled up. Cheers, Glacier Wolf 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above concerns. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Per Dlohcierekim. Please use more edit summaries, a high percentage is vital for an RfA candidate. Also, if you decide to do much vandalism reversion I would recommend Huggle, it is a very useful tool. Regards, EJF (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'd like to see more work around the projectspace and in admin-related tasks. An admin coach would also be a big help for you. Malinaccier (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (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.