Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orashmatash 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it.

Closed as successful - Clear result (with or without my !vote). -Barras (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Orashmatash

Orashmatash (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

End date: 16:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. It's been some time since I've nominated someone for adminship here on simple, but I think it's time now to do this again. I'd like to present Orashmatash (talk · contribs) to you. He's been a very active and overall helpful editor here on simple for quite some time now. Orashmatash has done many edits to the different namespaces, helped with improving articles, joined discussions on ANI and ST. As an editor he's helped on every area and tagged many pages for deletions as well as he reported vandals to the current admin team, not only on-wiki, but also on IRC. He's done really a lot here and I think he's ready to become an admin to help us a bit more. We surely would all benefit from him having those few extra buttons. I hope you agree with me and comment positive on this. I wish you good luck now! -Barras (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept Barras' kind nomination and thank him for it. Orashmatash (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Optional questions

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

   A: Deleting pages in C:QD (and occasionally CAT:TWU), blocking users reported to WP:VIP and dealing with any protection requests and edit wars/content disputes are the main areas where I can see myself being most active in.

2. If there were an article at WP:RFD that had been sitting around for more than two weeks, with marginal to no consensus, would you use your judgement to keep or delete it? Albacore (talk · changes) 22:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

   A: If there were only two or three comments, I would either extend it for about another week for more input or draw attention to it on IRC. However, if there was quite a large amount of editors discussing and there was still no consensus, I would probably ask in the IRC admins' channel for some more opinions since I think that decisions such as this are better made with some input from fellow admins.

3. Should request such as these be limited to opinions of registered users only? (Voting is obviously limited for valid reasons, but should this also apply to comments?) Also, how should the opinions of non-registered users be considered in general matters? --Creol(talk) 06:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

   A: No. Although IP users can't vote, they can leave comments with their opinion on the request, and this should be taken into account by whoever closes the request. In general matters, the opinions of IP editors, in my own opinion, are just as important as registered users' because they're still users of this wiki, they just don't have an account.

4. Is a student planner like that advertised here a reliable source for the statement "The world's busiest bridge is the Howrah Bridge in Calcutta. It transports 57,000 vehicles a day", given these facts are located in the planner? Goodvac (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

   A: Well, I have come up with a checklist for reliable sources. 1) Lots of people citing and talking about the source can be a good way to tell if something is reliable or not. After doing a search of the link and the company name (on this website) and getting nothing, the source fails this. 2) Make sure that the publisher is not associated with the thing being sourced, and no COI's can be there. There is no mention of the bridge on the publisher's website, and there is no visible COI. 3) No wild or biased statements. For a bridge of this size, 57,000 vehicles a day is not a lot. This also means that it is absolutely not the busiest bridge in the world since this government source says that this title belongs to the George Washington Bridge in New York. It may be the busiest bridge of its type in the world, but not out of all bridge types. Also, the BBC (a reliable source) says that the Howrah Bridge transports 100,000 vehicles a day (link), not 57,000. From looking at what we already know are reliable sources, we have determined that the so-called "fact" in the planner is false, which means that we can't trust this source. And so, to answer this question, no.

   Follow-up: Good checklist and analysis, but this question wasn't so much a research one as a judgement one. Suppose "The world's busiest bridge is the Howrah Bridge in Calcutta. It transports 57,000 vehicles a day" really is a fact (despite your invalidation of it); is a student planner a good source for it? Goodvac (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

   A: No. The publisher has not said anywhere on the website, nor on the planner itself, where they have gotten their information from. Also, there is the matter of if the planner even mentions this. You would not be able to find that out unless you went to a school which has received planners from this publisher, or have relatives who have, so only a very small amount of people would be able to find out if this can be used as a source, and most of them may not have an account here. To sum up, student planner ≠ reliable.

   I still have doubts on your judgement of reliable sources, but that'll do. Goodvac (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

5. Question on notability Please comment on this statement: at RfD, "The problem is not whether [the subject] is notable, but rather what is important is whether the article describes the notability of the [subject]." Do you agree or disagree? Goodvac (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

   A: Agree. The person, group of people, company, or website can be the most notable thing in the world, but if the article doesn't explain why it's notable, it can be deleted either by RfD (when not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or has been taken to RfD before) or A4.

Support

1. Sure, as nominator! -Barras (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
2. I see no major problems; good luck! Goblin 18:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!
3. Yottie ^=talk= 18:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Certainly. πr² 22:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - Yes, definitely. Normandy 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
6. --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Since he paid me rather a lot of money. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Weak support - I was a bit uneasy while looking through his project namespace contributions because they suggest that Orashmatash is a person who tends to avoid conflicts and is hesitant to defend his own position when challenged, though I am not implying that he has an inability to do so (he has shown otherwise). In either case, he does good article work and has demonstrated that he can be trusted with the tools, and I believe that this is a net benefit to the project. I also think that being empowered with the new tools and the trust of the community will allow him to step out of his "comfort zone". Chenzw  Talk  02:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support. I think the user knows that nothing official is to be done on IRC, I think he just uses IRC as a crutch for confidence. I agree with Chenzw above, that he will eventually be able to step out of his comfort zone after some time with the tools. As a new admin, it may not be a bad thing to be extra cautious and want advice on IRC. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - I like the "think first, act later..."a strength for admins. Not many decisions have to be made immediately.Peterdownunder (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

    QFT^ Normandy 14:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

11. Strong Support – without a doubt DJDunsie (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Strong support – finally.. TBloemink _talk 20:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Strong support Very good user --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 20:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Since there are a number of others with the same concerns as me I think I am going to move into the oppose section. This is definitely a not now situation but am open to them in the future. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose I have serious doubts about the candidate's knowledge of reliable sources and notability. In particular, in question 5, Orashmatash agreed with this erroneous assertion: at RfD, "The problem is not whether [the subject] is notable, but rather what is important is whether the article describes the notability of the [subject]." RfD is where the community decides whether the subject is notable by WP:N, which hinges on significant coverage in reliable sources, not describing notability in the article. If notable topics are deleted at RfD, merely because significance was not asserted, that's unfortunate. Also agree with Djsasso and those below that Orashmatash's intention to resort to IRC when closing a divided discussion evidences an incapacity to judge consensus, the opposite of which is an integral quality of an admin. Goodvac (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• overall, not seeing much of an issue, but the answer to #2 brings a point to mind. "When in doubt, ask IRC". While at times it is good to be open to other opinions, one of the main strengths of an admin is to be able to make the right call in the worst situation with no outside opinion. When you only have yourself to count on, when there isn't time to reach out for feedback and you have to choose yes or no, right now and live with that call you make (good or bad, defend your call or accept you made a mistake and own up to it), that is the job. You don't always have the luxury of a quorum. At times you need to step out, make the call and be willing to defend that position. And when you are wrong (That time will always exist...), you need to be willing to accept your fault, deal with it/correct it, and move on from it. IRC isn't the answer. Anyone can take a list of opinions there and do what they tell you. What matters is what you will choose to do yourself when the time come. I have the feeling you can make that call, but i'm not entirely certain you have the faith in yourself to be willing to make it. You're answer comes across as more willing to follow others opinions than to do what you feel is right and defend that action until proven wrong.

Look at the RfD for Gopakumar R. Cover up the final decision, look at all the facts given and make the call. Think about how you would defend your opinion if challenged. Then compare that call to the one given. Is that the answer you came up with? Are you comfortable with your answers to all challenges? If so, you are on the right path. (Cause that answer was freaking brilliant in my opinion :) ) Its OK not to agree all the time, as long as you have faith in your own call and are willing to live with the actions you take rather than just give in to follow the crowd you know to be wrong in "this case". You may have to accept the disagreement, but you have to be willing to make your own call and believe in yourself. --Creol(talk) 06:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Like Creol I am a little concerned with the answer about heading to IRC. Not sure if candidate knows that nothing official can or should be done on IRC. Makes me somewhat hesitant. Also a bit concerned with their tendency to act before thinking which I have seen in the past. All of that coupled with my thoughts that we don't need any admin at the moment makes this just a comment but pending other comments that may change. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that when he says IRC, he means that he's always on IRC and would ask before doing something he's not sure about, which is actually a good thing imo, asking first. "We don't need any more admin" is not really fair. Its not something the editor can control. Normandy 20:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with both Creol and DJSasso on the answer to question number two, and I feel that it's certainly not the best answer and there may be some misunderstanding. If an RfD has already run for two weeks it really shouldn't be running for another week, and a decision really should be made. Asking for opinions is always good, but, again, an admin needs to act on their own judgement, often at short notice. Of course, new admins are often hesitant at first, so asking is a good idea, however the fact that you've cited asking in answer to a question does make me a little more wary than I was previously. It's not enough to swing my vote, but I do just want to record that I will be paying more attention for the duration of the RfA and, if I get time, digging a little deeper. Goblin 21:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Orashmatash!

• Once again, I am unsure. This RFA makes me think back to Clementia's RFA. As with Clementia, I have no doubt that Orasgmatash will not abuse the tools, however I'm once again afraid he won't be able to make the tough decisions that we often face as admins. I love IRC as a way to get second opinions, but it can't be used as a place to gather concensus of the admins on a deletion/block. With Clementina I felt she was to nice and wouldn't have the backbone to make tough calls, ( I was proven wrong) and today I'm afraid that Orashmatash doesn't have the confidence in himself to make the tough calls. I'm not sure if that is a reason to oppose... I opoosed Clemetina and that was probably the wrong move... Maybe haven written this down will help me clarify my own thoughts and help me place an actual vote later. In any case, wishing Orashmatash luck!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:37, 2 January 2012 (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.