Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Opabinia regalis

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

Opabinia regalis

Final (79/1/1) Ended 06:59,

Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs) – Opabinia regalis (see above for talk/contribs, or here for the five-eyed Cambrian fossil) has been a prolific editor for the past six months, accumulating a total of 2300 very high-quality edits.

O.r. is an active member of both the

As well as strong work as an article editor that demonstrates great familiarity with the project, I have observed that O.r. is vigilant in seeking out and correcting both outright vandalism and hard-to-detect inaccuracies, is consistently quite active in RfA's and in AfD work on a wide variety of topics not limited just to science, has consistent edit comment usage, and interacts with users in a constructive way whether providing detailed help and advice or helpfully correcting a pattern of misguided edits.

Because of O.r.'s strong record of careful and high-quality contributions, and because of significant community involvement in peer review activity and admin-type tasks, I feel sure that this editor would make an excellent admin and can definitely be trusted to make fair and worthwhile use of the administrative tools. Dryman 13:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I accept. Opabinia regalis 04:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would participate mainly in tasks falling into the general category of 'article-space maintenance' - I'd keep one of my eyes on the perpetual

WP:AN/I

, which I'd start keeping a closer eye on for the sorts of miscellaneous tasks that come up requiring admin attention.

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

A: Dryman's nicely thorough nomination has covered a lot of my contributions - I would say the article I'm most satisfied with is sequence alignment, a current FA of which I was the primary author. Two of its major subarticles, multiple sequence alignment and structural alignment, are GAs. I was also a participant in the Science Collaboration's work on hydrogen, which achieved FA status, and in the Molecular and Cellular Biology Collaboration's work on cell nucleus, which we expect will end up on FAC in the not-too-distant future - the latter was particularly good to work on because it represented the organized effort of a few dedicated contributors turning a former stub into an A-class article, a nice demonstration of the wiki philosophy at its best. I have a soft spot for DNA repair, which was my first major 'article cleanup' project. I've also written dozens of smaller articles and stubs on subjects related to biology, especially protein structure and folding. My most successful creations were phi value analysis and implicit solvation, both of which were immediately noticed and improved upon by other knowledgeable editors.

I also spend a fair amount of time reviewing science-related articles, either at the request of other editors or on peer review and FAC, and I make a point of writing comments that are as thorough and complete as I can get. It's rewarding to see the improvements that often result from another set of eyes (maybe I have an advantage with five :).

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: As a general rule, I think 'stress' experienced due to an Internet hobby is a good sign that it's time to turn off the computer and go outside for a while. Correspondingly, I'm pretty much impervious to 'personal attacks'. I think the only major conflict I've been involved with concerned the now-indefblocked User:Mussaali (and his associated IPs), who in real life is engaged in a legal dispute with 2006 Nobel laureate Craig Mello regarding the early discovery of RNA interference. This user was attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting his side of the dispute by repeatedly spamming an inappropriate link to a personal advocacy site and, when confronted, responded by demanding my personal information. This problem initially arose and was resolved in July, but restarted just before the Nobel was announced in early October with more spam that continued after the announcement and therefore was potentially highly visible to readers. Attempts to discuss this resulted in threats of further spam and repeated vandalism of my user page. The only thing I would really do differently in this situation would be to request outside, administrator involvement earlier, as it was obvious for a long time that he was here to promote his point and not to edit an encyclopedia.

I wandered into a minor conflict with

WP:OWN problems and had pretty much already made up his mind that he was not interested in staying here long, the initial dispute was over such a minor point of grammar that I could just as easily have kept my mouth shut for a day or two longer and let him cool down/have some space - it's not like he was going to damage the article. (See related discussion here

.)

• See Opabinia regalis's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I'd like to start off by saying straight away that I appreciate the time everyone puts into reviewing my contributions and participating in this RfA. Thank you for your comments, whichever side of the fence you end up on. I'm posting this here and now in lieu of later mass-postings on talk pages. Opabinia regalis 04:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

1. Nominate and support. Good luck! Dryman 14:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Enthusiastic support.
   Photon, Enzyme, Enzyme kinetics, and Enzyme inhibitor. Having similar interests, we have edited several articles in tandem such as Protein, Phi value analysis and Beta-peptide, and it has been a rare pleasure. I believe her integrity and devotion to Wikipedian ideals are beyond question, as are her keen discernment and scientific expertise. Moreover, she has already served as an admin on another wiki, has contributed significantly here to administrative tasks and seems ideally suited to assume the role and powers of an admin. We are all very, very lucky to have her in our midst. Willow 20:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Support. Good editor, helpful and knowledgeable. pschemp | talk 04:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. This fossil is a major asset to wikipedia. ~ 
   es_(pwn3d) 04:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Mike | Talk 04:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. This one's no dinasaur! </joke>
   Kavadi carrier 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Strong Support Excellent contributor, this nomination is
   long overdue. ~ trialsanderrors 04:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Enthusiastic support! I was most impressed by the featured picture opabinia created. Was quick to change a minor quibble I had without any complaint that I was being nitpicky, etc. I also followed the melanoma "controversy" as it was unfolding and was impressed to see how well opabinia handled it. A great editor who will be a great admin. InvictaHOG 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong support for excellent editor. Jcam 05:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support per excellent nomination and well-thought-out answers. Excellent editor, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 05:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support per nom. John254 05:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - Impressive contributions --
    ^(talk) 05:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Support Good answers to questions show good potential for adminship. (aeropagitica) 05:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support The edit counts are lower than what I'd normally look for if I only paid attention to the counts. The quality of the edits more than makes up for the counts. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 05:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support impressive editor -- Samir धर्म 05:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Per nom. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} 07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Fantastic editor, great collaborator on the MCB project and really handled a stressful situation with
    David D. (Talk) 07:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Support a good candidate with great contributions --Steve 08:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support the five eyed wonder.
    Talk) 10:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Support per all reasons above. ↔ ANAS - Talk 10:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Excellent contributor. Definitely a dedicated member of Wikipedia. GAThrawn22 11:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message. - 11:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support. An excellent editor. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support of course.-- danntm ^T _C 14:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - do the 5 eyes help you see vandalism? ST47Talk 14:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. I'm Nishkid64 and I support this user. (Lol...I had to steal it) Nishkid64 15:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Certainly. >Radiant< 15:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support solid contributor. Rama's arrow 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Well, his contributions to this project speaks for itself. A very good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support per nom. Michael 15:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - Per nom. Good answers to the questions. Should do a great job. Chris Kreider 16:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oh yes. Fantastic contributions, level-headed and sensible. Actually, beyond sensible - her blunt, no-nonsense approach towards fellow contributors is refreshing. I almost always feel glad I'm not on the receiving end, though! Should be a good one.
    dzasta 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Support
    CAT:CSD surely needs more mops.--Húsönd 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. Support Great contributions. --Emc² (contact me) 19:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Wikipedia needs more science-friendly admins. --ScienceApologist 19:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Reliable, responsible, knowledgeable. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - Excellent contributor with specialized knowledge but wanting to do also general tasks JoJan 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Knowledgable person with a mop.--Nick Y. 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support as per nom. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Mike Peel 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support bibliomaniac15 Review? 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong Support I've seen nothing but good things from the candidate, and I particularly like the answers to the optional questions from Malber hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support --
    e Ong _{(C | R)} 09:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. Support, a courteous and experience editor. I have no doubt that Opabinia will be a fantastic admin.
    eeb (^chat/_patch) 09:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
45. Support. Scientific knowledge and a record of hard work in article space are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for adminship, but its always nice to see someone with those qualities around the place: if Opabinia wants the mop, I am more than happy to let her have it! Physchim62 (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. El_C 10:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support, thought she already was an admin; won't abuse the tools; is a cool Cambrian panarthropod ;-) Eluchil404 13:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support semper fi — Moe 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. More candidates like this one^TM! Support ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. It would be good to have another administrator who has judgment in science areas. EdJohnston 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Solid Wikipedian who deserves the mop. Sharkface217 22:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support No question about this one. Twenty of him, and all the rest of you can go home. Honest. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 23:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support per willow --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 01:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Merovingian ※ Talk 01:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. Good answers, good history. Wryspy 03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. Very impressive candidate. Excellent answers, high quality edits, eloquent discussion on policy. I could go on. Rockpocket 08:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, per nom.
    ^TC 11:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
58. Yes --
    Doc^g 13:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
59. Support. Excellent, knowledgeable and balanced contributor to medical articles. Sandy (Talk) 14:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support due to prior experience with candidate on peer review, excellent contribution history, and answers to questions above. Definitely an asset to Wikipedia and in my opinion, in no way likely to abuse the tools. Neil916 (Talk) 07:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support --HappyCamper 15:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Absolutely. — Deckiller 16:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Strong support - as he does an enormous job in the peer review page, he is a good editor and would really need the admin tools. NCurse _work 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support She seems to be a fine candidate, and I don't understand the reasoning for the oppose vote. Dionyseus 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - Sorry to come into this so late: just found out about it. She has been absolutely indispensable to the
    Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject. I've been nothing but impressed by her dedication, boldness, and skill. – ClockworkSoul 05:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
66. Support - came across this user's work and was impressed. That sounds like good cause for a support vote to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support very strong editor would definitely be an asset as an admin.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. support: Everything looks in order; nice to see nomination of a strong contributor to biology articles. Ombudsman 20:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. Don't see any issues, good to see editors on this list. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. What ↑ they said. the wub "?!" 23:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support She doesn't pass my criteria, but her self support kicks ass, this is an exception †he Bread 02:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I think she would make a fine admin. Very good answers to the questions. A well deserved admin role approaching very swiftly… JungleCat talk/contrib 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Strong support per, well, everyone. I haven't had any previous contact with this editor, but her contributions are nothing short of extraordinary. Fvasconcellos 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Obviously a capable editor and should make a great admin. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Excellent editor. I have never personally dealt with this editor but have noticed him/her a couple of times and clearly shows the qualities desired from an admin.
    es2221 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
76. Support: Looks like a good solid editor who understands how wikipedia works. Low chanse of admin-abuse = support. ---J.S (t|c) 05:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support'. Her contributions speak for themselves. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Strong support. I can't recommend Opabinia regalis enough. S/he has demonstrated his/her ability to go from stub to featured status in a matter of days. His/her edits are well-referenced, comprehensive, balanced, and easy to read for the general public despite the complexity of the subject matter. I'm amazed by his/her eagerness to take criticism, follow it up with careful research, and expand into details that are proabably stretching the boundaries of his/her impressive knowledge base. My only concern is that s/he might start devoting more time on bureaucracy and less time on subject matter requiring his/her unique expertise, but this is a hobby and she certainly deserves to have the tools to aid wikipedia in whatever manner she chooses. --Aranae 07:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support great editor. –Joke 04:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose per this AfD comment. I wrote the bulk of the "totally meaningless nonsense" in question, and although apparently less readable than desired, it was at least accurate with respect to its topic, qualified for neutrality, and accompanied by mainstream media references to show notability. I spent a lot of time on it, and hoped to work with other editors to make it more accessible. To deride it as "blather" and "totally meaningless nonsense" was uninformed and discourteous. Opabinia has done good work in article space, but I cannot support the adminship of someone who would leap so superficially, and insensitively, to judgement. Tim Smith 05:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   comment The article was deleted. The page is now a redirect to

   David D. (Talk) 07:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   State of the article when the comment was made. ~ trialsanderrors 18:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. Opabinia regalis is a wonderful editor, I must admit, especially in a field where it can get pretty confusing. However, she hasn't done much vandal fighting, and wanders little outside of biology. Edit count seems a little low for adminship, but the edit quality is pretty good. Also somewhat prone to sarcasm. Other than that, there's nothing really strong to induce me to oppose. I don't mean to sound nitpickety or sexist, but I don't feel too supportive for Opabinia. bibliomaniac15 Review? 04:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was vandal fighting or editcountitis an adminship criteria? It takes all types here. Your comment suggests a naive understanding of adminship. pschemp | talk 04:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't oppose, I was just suggesting areas of improvement. bibliomaniac15 Review? 05:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm yes, that's the point. Those aren't areas Opabinia needs to improve in to be an admin and that's what you don't seem to understand. pschemp | talk 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An expert by definition knows more and more about less and less. Why shouldn't she stay within her field of expertise and contribute deeply? There are more than enough generalists to tidy articles, WP needs more specialists. And if everyone was fighting vandals who would be writing and correcting the articles? Again a rigorous fact checker with the mop is far more useful than another vandal fighter. --Steve 08:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Support. bibliomaniac15 Review? 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Change to Neutral due to revealed image experience --T-rex 02:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose - lack of experience with images, also falls short of my 9 month minimum for admins --T-rex 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   How does Opabinia "lack experience" with images? Her upload log shows nothing out of the ordinary.

   Kavadi carrier 16:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   It's true that I mostly stay out of the image namespace here. IIRC T-rex is more concerned with tagging accuracy, but if anyone is interested, most of my image uploads have been to Commons (contribs). Opabinia regalis 02:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Somehow I also find it strange that you give a 9 month minimum. Some people brought to RFA have been edited strongly for 3 months or so and have successfully become an admin, so 9 months seems a little far fetched for criteria for adminship.. semper fi — Moe 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Nothing out of the ordinary on the upload log, just that it (as well as her image space edits) are extremly small, as for the 3 month RFA's I'm guessing I opposed them as well --T-rex 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Moe was getting at the fact that, with much less than nine months' experience, more than just a few users became successful admins -- that is, they were as good as those with years on the project. With that in mind, what's the rationale for a full nine months, when three is evidently enough?

   eeb (^chat/_patch) 22:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Why make him an admin later, when we can make him one now? :-)

   Kavadi carrier 01:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   If thats your take on it, then I would suggest that you should have different admin standards then I do --T-rex 02:51, 11 November 2006 (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.