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

Final (33/15/5) ending 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscarthecat ( talk · contribs) – OscarTheCat has been editing wikipedia for a long time and has a very high edit count. He also helped to solve what seemed to bee an insurmounable impass at the Calvin and Hobbes article about external links. I think he would make a great administrator. - Mike (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Gratefully and humbly accepted. -- OscarTheCat ^talk 07:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support I like what I see from this user, a bit new though -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support Of course, I support, I nominated him! - Mike (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support, I've been impressed with the user. Hiding talk 01:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support per nom. Good editor. - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support although his edit count is on the lower end for potential admins, this editor clearly has potential. joturner 21:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support An edit-countitis argument could be made for sure, but for me edit counts are just useful for the edits the actually represent. Looking through this user's contributions, there's enough quality and just enough quantity that I'm reasonably confident he'd make a good janitor. -- W.marsh 22:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   Support Seems like a good editor overall with high article edit and community talk. 216.58.90.72 22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   Per WP:RfA Anons do not get a say. - AKMask

7. Weak Support Everything fine apart from his marginal edit count and time here. Gizza ^{Chat ©} 23:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support. He actually has quite a few edits, if you consider that he has made very few edits to his user page, and more edits to wikipedia pages. He has obviously made more contributions to wikipedia articles than many people who have the same edit count. His proportional edit count is probably closer to 3500. He seems very well rounded, with nearly 300 wikipedia edits, and I am glad to support him. Weatherman90 00:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support. Patience and desire to reach consensus are essential for admins, and Oscar has demonstrated both at Talk:Calvin_and_Hobbes. Feezo (Talk) 00:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support per Feezo. -- Jay( Reply) 00:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support looks fine Prodego ^talk 01:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support The edit count is not the piece of information that points to whether a person will use the admin tools correctly - Richardcavell 02:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support. Mushroom ( Talk) 06:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support per Feezo. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 14:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support, A good editor. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 14:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support. Good AfD contributions, good breadth of coverage, high percentage Mainspace edits. Have a mop. Also, I just worked on a play that had a character names Oscar that is a cat. This amuses me. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support, looks OK. JIP | Talk 16:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support per above. -- mm e inhart 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
19. support this person to become administrator Yuckfoo 23:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support. 6 months as an active editor is well enough to justify adminship. haz _{( user talk)} ^e 09:32, 19 March 2006
21. SupportWe need to encourage maintenance minded editors. Give 'em a mop, a bucket and a broom. -- CTSWyneken 17:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support and thanks for expanding the questions. Put my mind at ease AND showed you play nice with others :) - M ^ask 20:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support Robert McClenon 01:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support Looks alright to me. Has been around since October and has about 2500 edits. [1] Nephron 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Why not?-- Jusjih 14:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
26. User:Go for it!/Vote Support Seems sensible. I like him. -- Go for it! 18:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support Joe I 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 05:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support. In the absence of a lengthy tenure, I read Oscar's answers and liked what I saw. Good luck! Brisvegas 09:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Seems to be worthy of the mop and bucket. -- Mmounties ( Talk) 02:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support Just the right number of edits and time here in English Wikipedia, according to my standards. Good Luck. Cr na ^t _e ^c Go ra 20:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support I was torn over this one, but I don't see a strong reason to oppose. He seems reasonable and criticising him for not knowing WP:PROD, a proposed policy, seems like a pettifogging detail (I didn't know it, and recently put a prod article through AfD, with no harm done so far as I can see). With that said, the nomination was misleading and his signature is obnoxious to look at in the edit window, but these are frivolous reasons to oppose. – Joke 02:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support relaxed users are a valued resource. Competent and co-operative as far as I can see. Answers to the questions a little short, but to the point. Time isn't always important, but cluefulness is. Rob Church 10:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry, just prefer admins who have been around a little longer. In a few months will definetly have my vote-- Looper5920 12:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose Tenure is too brief for my confidence; plus, talk page suggests editor is still learning (he improperly reverted a prod removal yesterday.) Absolutely nothing wrong with having things to learn, but it indicates more time before adminship is a good idea. Xoloz 16:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose Per above. A little to new, more time and I'll support. Moe ε 20:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose per above - off to a great start - just needs some more time. Johntex\ ^talk 02:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose. Right on the edge of my minimum standards, but I'm tipped to oppose instead because of some comments on the nominee's talk page that indicate some learning of Wikipedia process is still needed. (Also I'm biased against disruptively flashy signatures, which in addition to the candidate, are being sported by many of the support voters.) — Doug Bell ^{talk• contrib} 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose Per above. -- Masssiveego 04:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose after considering this for a couple of days and reviewing the comments I am going to have to oppose per Xoloz and Bell. Trödel 19:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. Nominator: I'd advise against saying the nominee has "very high edit count" and long tenure when facts are otherwise. Nominee: sorry, but please keep editing. Jonathunder 23:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose--not enough exp., sorry. Thumbelina 13:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose, not enough Wikipedia: space edits yet. Confusing signature. Stifle 15:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose on edit count and experience. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 01:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose; not per edit count or join date, but by some of the commenters above. Ral315 ( talk) 02:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose per Ral315. -- Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 21:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose, majority of edits are marked as minor, and all the ones that aren't were done using popups. I didn't look at the content of each edit, so I'm not saying any of them were bad, but I've concluded that (a) you've made very few major edits, or (b) you've marked a bunch of edits as minor, when they weren't. Also an analysis of your edit distribution suggests comparatively low involvement in the project namespace (Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: pages), and an unfortunately low level of communication with other users. Can't support at this time, will reconsider in the future. — Mar. 24, '06 [15:27] < freakof nu r_x ture | talk>
15. Oppose per Doug Bell and freakofnurture. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral. Good user, but would prefer more community participation, i.e. user talk and wikipedia namespace edits.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Neutral Still not impressed by answers. -- kingboyk 09:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. neutral Not just yet. Reverting prod shows some need to expand his knowledge of how things work, but would probably support next time. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutral Seems to be a good contributor, but would prefer to see a bit more user talk interaction with others per Shreshth91. Good to see that the sig has been toned down though. -- Cactus.man ✍ 10:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Neutral as per the other comments above, may support at a later date. Hall Monitor 21:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Just a couple things I'd like addressed before I put up a vote. In your questions, the two things you said you would do if given sysop powers were to use Rollback and close AfD's. As one of those users who only wants to give out Adminship if the user could benefit, could you address why you'd want to gain Admin status instead of simply a Request for Rollback, as normal users can already close non-delete AfD's. Also, mind fleshing out the answer to number 3 a bit? It looks pretty much like something out of the Scouts Handbook without any personal examples in there. - AKMask 22:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi AKMask. As you say, the Admin status wouldn't be needed for the rollback side of things, so my answer to (1) is rather lacking. I've expanded it, together with (3), see below. -- OscarTheCat ^talk 11:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Edit summary usage: 92% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 21:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• See Oscarthecat's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I do a fair amount of recent changes patrol at the moment, for which the rollback admin feature would undoubtedly be useful. I'd also continue to participate in afd discussions and eventually close off ones where reasonable concensus has been reached.

Update - As pointed out by AKMask, adminship status isn't needed for these items I've already quoted. It will mean that some "speedy" deletes can be sorted out by myself, and that I can participate more with the copyright violations Wikipedia:Copyright_problems (up until now, I've merely been added copyvio tags on violation pages and listing them on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. -- OscarTheCat ^talk 11:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I haven't created many articles, but I've done quite a lot of restructuring and tidying up of articles, in an effort to get them into a state suitable for consideration as a Featured article. Such restructures/tidyups include Calvin and Hobbes, Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Nintendo Revolution. Recently, have been pleased with the progress made discussing the way forward with the Calvin and Hobbes article, in order to satisfy other contributers and at the same time follow WP:EL policy.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I've been involved in discussions over edit conflicts in the past, where I've found that starting a line of discussion with everyone concerned has definitely helped reach a concensus.

Update - I'll quote the Calvin and Hobbes article again (done a lot of edits on this one), where we'd reached a standstill with external links. I wanted to reduce the ever-growing list of fan site external links, others wanted to add to it. After much discussion we made use of references within the article, which referenced content of note within the fan sites (see Talk:Calvin_and_Hobbes#External links redux). By doing this, it became clear which fan sites had content of note. More discussion on there since has now started, where we're aiming for a concensus on how to reduce the content of the article by moving character profiles to other articles. Other than that, haven't been involved in any conflicts, either during my time as User:Oscarthecat or my anonymous edits (varying IP addresses) prior to that. Done some edits on Nuclear power which is sometimes tricky, given the POV balance needed on the page. Happy to say that my edits there get accepted, and not immediately reverted (article seems to be watched/edited by many people with very strong opinions for/against Nuclear). -- OscarTheCat ^talk 11:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Additional questions from Rob Church

1. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

   Hi Robchurch. Yes, there's always going to be some conflicts on a site like this. Don't foresee a problem justifying my comments/edits/actions, I'm quite a relaxed type of chap. Answer kind of continued below.

2. Why do you want to be an administrator?

   Didn't have a particularly strong desire to become an admin, in fact I'm quite happy continuing with edits and rc patrol and the like, which I've been doing for a few months already. A co-contributer to an article nominated me, I'm happy to respond and see through the nomination process. If I get elected, then being admin will no doubt help out with rollbacks and rc patrol, and lead me gradually into other areas of wikipedia. If I don't, so be it, no big deal, I'll continue as before.

3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

   It's not one or the other, it's both. I see it as being political (keeping to the middle ground, keeping concensus and POV balance) with the technical ability to take suitable actions where necessary.

4. Thanks. Rob Church 21:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

   No worries. -- OscarTheCat ^talk 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Update from the candidate, Oscarthecat

Have had quite a few comments about my signature, it's clearly unpopular, so it's back to basics now. -- Oscarthecat 08:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The above 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.