Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ohmpandya 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Ohmpandya

[edit]

Final (3/7/7); Withdrawn by WjBscribe at 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmpandya (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to present you Ohmpandya. He went through another RfA a few weeks ago which he withdrew. Some users there thought he wasn't experienced enough at the time. Since then, he has spent a large amount of time new page patrolling [1] and alerting the users [2]. He often finding copyvios [3], [4], and spam articles [5] (just a few examples; only admins can view these, unfortunately). He also will sometimes participate in AfDs, and has gained some knowledge there. He even created numbers of redirects of abbreviations to the appropriate states (although, some disagreed with the redirect creation). Just a few days ago, he went so far as to create a WikiProject, which already he has put a good amount of effort into. He has uploaded a total of 24 images, some of which for the WikiProject. Everyone, please support Ohmpandya for adminship.   jj137 ♠ 03:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Ohmpandya's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC):[reply]



Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: During my time on not being an administrator, I have found many examples of copyright infringement, which I was sure would be deleted, but since I could not do this I would direct it to the attention of administrators. When I become an admin, I will be able to delete these by myself. I look forward to continue to search for copyvio's. Also, I would continue New Page, and Recent Changes patrol. Also similar reasons, if I found something that should be deleted, I had to bring it to the attention to admins. Since I will be able to delete it when I become an admin, (when I know it should be deleted), I would go ahead and delete it. I have also found a few cases of vandalism, where the username should be blocked. I will be able to block it without directing attention to admins. Those are some things I would like to do when/if I become an admin. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 03:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions, would probably be an argument between myself. Most likely it would be there four:

Those would probably be my best contributions. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 03:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 have not been in any edit conflicts, so far, and I hope not to be in any in the future. However, I no (If I am in one) to always be civil and assume good faith, and I know there is no reason to get worked up about an article. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 14:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

[edit]
  • The last RfA just finished not even two weeks ago. Suggest withdrawal, only because many opposes for the reason of "too soon" are likely to follow suit. Wizardman 14:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree - his withdrawal comment was "I hope to run again in a few months." That RfA was scheduled to end January 6th, and here it is January 14th... He can't possibly have picked up enough experience in two weeks to satisfy those who saw experience as a problem in the last request. Avruchtalk 14:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agree - two weeks is well short of "a few months", and there's no reason to think that anyone would have done so much in the interim to change enough minds to make this one any more viable than the last. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I hate to say it, I agree. This is way to soon to come back to Rfa. EVula is also right in saying this brings up a judgement concern. Dustihowe  Talk  19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. moral support Come back soon!! Dustihowe  Talk  19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom.   jj137 ♠ 20:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral Support - wait about four months or so and then come back. Eight days is way too early to try again. NF24(radio me!) 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Returning to RfA in less than two weeks time suggests a number of concerns that make it difficult for me to support at this time. Please consider waiting at least three months (if not longer) before your next request, even if someone offers to nominate you earlier. Avruchtalk 14:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Too soon as above, and his comment today on this AFD suggests to be that he is not familiar with our policies on notability. BLACKKITE 15:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment in question appears to have been removed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Way too soon. No way that time is sufficient enough to gain more experience, which was one of the major points which failed the last request. Rudget. 16:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, as I must concur that there has not been enough time to address the concerns of the previous RfA. I would recommend Admin Coaching as a way to help address some of those concerns. Best of luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Candidate has been coached, which I missed - switching to neutral. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I will go on record as saying it is utterly impossible to tell if someone has truly addressed concerns about inexperience in a span of time as ridiculously short as a couple of weeks. The ability to accumulate 5100+ edits in 14 days doesn't establish anything besides the candidate's amount of free time. The fact that you thought it'd be a good thing to pop right back here so soon after your previous RfA calls into question your judgement (a bit harsh on my part, I agree, but that's how I feel). If you want to be a good RfA candidate, learn patience. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what your saying. Maybe he was just anxious and felt that he wanted/deserved a second chance and that his recent edits would make a good impression. Dustihowe  Talk  19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose. Far too reliant on automated tools and canned templates. My first encounter with him was three days ago, when he slapped me with an automated template warning me to use edit summaries (after I had made a few repetitive project-space edits without them). Practically all his edits seem to be automated with Twinkle or similar tools. Admins are supposed to be communicative, not robots; sorry. --krimpet✽ 20:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Last time I was neutral, but coming back this soon was a bad move. My suggestion would be just listening to the advice given here and try again in a few months. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I'm afraid I have some issues with this editor's views on deletion, with my concern increased by one of his answers above about wanting the admin tools in order to delete articles "on sight" without the chore of discussion or seeking a second opinion. I encountered Ohmpandya a few days ago when I contested a speedy deletion tag he had placed on the article Duncormick about a village in Ireland (diff), which had been created 3 minutes earlier. The tag was {{db-nonsense}}, which should only be applied to incoherent text such as random characters or complete nonsense prose, and in no way to applied to the version of the article on which it was placed which had context, made sense and was notable. When I contacted Ohmpandya suggesting this, and that he review WP:NONSENSE, he responded saying that he "did the right thing", although conceded the article was now fine after some work by the creator [6]. As a brand new admin myself, if I see an article I think should be speedy deleted, I will place a db tag for another admin to review and act upon if they agree. My concern from this incident is that if Ohmpandya goes around unilaterally deleting articles he is "sure" should be deleted without discussion, review or consensus, that new editors such as User:Hsdnalerio, who has created a pretty good article on Duncormick, will be scared off from the project based on the actions of an admin who seems to have a somewhat sketchy grasp of the policies, guidelines and politics of article deletion. --Canley (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Given one of his stated "interests" is looking at copvios, I think he needs to show a little more judgement. He recently nominated Gordon Jacob for speedy deletion as a copyvio, [7] A little investigation would have shown that the violation actually went the other way round, the supposed source dated from November 2006, the wording had ben in the article since the first revision of 2005-01-03. In any case, proposing speedy deletion when the questionable text only amounts to a sixth of the article seems a little drastic when it would have been relatively simple to paraphrase the material to avoid copyright problems. David Underdown (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I would have opposed per BlackKite's link, however, being somewhat of an inclusionist myself I cannot oppose for that. Some would say, yes, the RfA is too soon, and I too would be inclined to think you should wait until March or so.EJF (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. He is definitely hard-working, have to give him credit for that, but he's only been an active editor for 2 months and previous RFA was too recent. Useight (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, as I must concur that there has not been enough time to address the concerns of the previous RfA. Switched from oppose, above - and may switch to support as I continue to give the candidate a more thorough review. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral It's way too soon to be going for another RfA. Come back in a couple more months. I'm also afraid that editing at this rate (>5000 edits a month) could possibly promote burnout.Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 18:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I think this user may have the makings of a very good admin, but I will not be comfortable supporting in that capacity until I can see at least a few months of strong understanding of policies pertaining to those areas in which he plans to use the tools. This tag of Water well is concerning (as it explicitly does not meet the conditions at WP:CSD#G12), as is the subsequent nomination of it for AfD only a day after the nomination posted by his admin coach was speedy kept. (These events occurred last week.) I see that today he nominated an improperly formed redirect under G1. Yesterday, he nominated a film for A7. He placed a "last warning" against vandalism at User talk:GManford203 for, as far as I can tell, creating the article Clenis. This was a dic def utilizing the 2nd meaning at Urban Dictionary. I don't see any evidence that the page was written in anything but good faith, even if it is a neologism. I do not oppose this in an effort not to "pile on" an admin nomination that is unlikely to pass, but I wanted to comment because I feel specific examples might be useful to this nom in his work on Wikipedia and because I would like to strongly encourage this user to thoroughly read and understand policies and guidelines (WP:CSD, WP:DP and WP:Vandal) before acting on them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Suggest Withdrawal. Two weeks? I expected better of the candidate. I gave moral support last time, but now I'm worried about your ability to judge situations well. Sorry, and I hope to see you back here in three months or so, with less automated edits ideally, and I trust that then I'll be happy to support. Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 14 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ohmpandya_2&oldid=1142574186"