Meta:Requests for adminship/Ochilov 3

Ochilov (3)

Ochilov (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)
Ending 13 January 2016 19:02 UTC

Previous requests: 1st, 2nd

Hi! I have been wikimedian for more than 1.5 years with a significant effort in Uzbekistan Wikimedia movement and Esperanto-speaking community in Wikimedia and I request adminship here because I find it helpful in my work of combating vandalism and doing maintenance. In my previous request I was told that I must start doing maintenance before becoming an admin and not after I became one. Now I have more than 100 deletion requests and more than 50 rollbacks(I suppose). I also welcome Matiia to the discussion. Yes, I remember that I have been told to make my work few more weeks, but I'll be better having the adminship now so the recent changes feed will be cleaner ;) --Ochilov (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Farsizabon (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer a longer history of reverting vandalism/spam imo --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He has over 2000 edits here in year and a half, this is more than a lot of previous admins had when they went in for an RfA. A Long history or edit counts alone, should not be used to judge a candidate's merit. Also, admin rights here aren't a "big deal", we generally try to be supportive and inclusive, unless there are reasons to the contrary. You are of course entitled to your opinion. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to protest the "no big deal". In this wiki adminship gives access to systems like the spam, title and mass message; among others, which if used wrongfully or maliciously can cause a big mess. That said, yeah, it's not like becoming a congressman, but adminship comes with a responsability. In here, I feel this responsability is a little higher since you're volunteering to work in the coordination wiki which has those powerful systems. This is about your statement above and not about Ochilov himself. You are of course entitled to your opinion too :-) Best regards. —Marco Aurelio 23:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen him do good work around here, seems like a good contributor. Ochilov, I've seen your previous RfA's, please don't get discouraged, keep up the good work, and if you succeed please try and remain consistently active here. Good luck. Theo10011 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your last request was 2 weeks ago. What could possibly have changed in that time? Ajraddatz (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Theo above in that Ochilov seems to be a good contributor. It is IMHO, and I appreciate Ochilov trying to work and in general I think he is now doing a good job. Also his language skills are interesting. However I have few objections that prevent me from supporting right now. There were some concerns raised in your last RfA, which was less than a month ago I think you have not properly addressed, mostly those of not being active enough in general maintenance to need the tools. While your history of deleted contributions might give another impression, in fact only 6 (and from this present year) are main namespace deletions, the others being from empty and/or useless categories (which is a backlog not much people take care of to speak on his favor). His edits on Meta namespace are rather low too. I've recently witnessed cases such as in here where he's exposed potentially oversightable content publicy. I have opposed for less in other candidatures, which is something I assure you I do not enjoy doing. I'll stay neutral for now because I think there's room for improvement, and because I think Ochilov may be a good administrator in the future. Please keep up the good work and stay with us. Of course this is my very personal opinion. Best regards. —Marco Aurelio 23:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC) (in edit conflict with Ajraddatz).[reply]