Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nehrams2020

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

Nehrams2020

Final: (48/0/0); ended 22:55,

Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) - Nehrams2020 is a user who I've seen around plenty on Wikipedia. In fact I nommed him some time ago but he declined. Still believing he's be a valuable admin, I tried again, and he seems to have accepted this time. He is an extremely productive editor in WikiProject Films, his edits to the list of films numbering over 1000, I believe. He's a great article contributor, helping make Samuel L. Jackson and many other film-related articles good articles. He helps out with Good Articles in general as well, and has helped keep that running at least somewhat smoothly. He contributes to many namespaces, has a ridiculous amount of edits (30k+), and based on my interactions with him I see no reason not to make him an admin. Wizardman 16:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and appreciate Wizardman's nomination. --Nehrams2020 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: I've always enjoyed helping with various backlogs on Wikipedia, and there are several that I can assist with as an admin. I've recently discovered

Administrator intervention against vandalism. I believe that I would be able to assist in blocking users/IPs that have legitimate claims against them. At this point, I don't see myself getting too involved with Articles for deletion

, as I prefer working with images and vandals. The great thing about Wikipedia is that different people can work in areas that appeal to them, and I think there are other areas that I could improve with my assistance. If given the tools, I'd would also slowly expand out into other areas of the admin tasks. Although being an administrator will be useful to me for its tools and allowing me to lend a hand in some of Wikipedia’s larger backlogs, my primary focus would still be on helping to improve articles.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'd say that my best contributions to Wikipedia have been my improvements of various articles to bring them up to

backlog (it would be great that if whoever is reading this would head over there and help review an article or two, it would be greatly appreciated!), and currently am a part of the Sweeps project quality task force

. I have also uploaded many images, both free and nonfree for a variety of articles, which have helped me to better understand how the upload process, the licenses, and fair use requirements work.

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 been fortunate in my year and a half on Wikipedia to not have been in any major conflicts. However, this does not mean I do not know how to handle situations that I may come into conflict with. I have of course had some disagreements and have not accepted everything that I see, but I always look at the other side of the argument and attempt to determine their rationale for their objection. I have observed multiple edit wars, arguments, and multiple-editor conflicts on article and editors' talk pages. I have seen how some editors have acted inappropriately, uncivil, and not assumed good faith, which allowed the conflict to escalate further. I've found the best way to prevent disagreements from escalating into conflicts is to remain polite and assume good faith. If anything, the only problems I may have had is giving too strict of vandalism warnings to IP addresses when I first began using them. Now, I know not to bite the newbies, and allow for several warnings before I report them to AIV. I hope that my first year and a half here has allowed me to build trust with fellow Wikipedia contributors, and I would like to stay here as long as I’m able. I’m here almost all day, continually checking my watchlist (probably when I should be doing homework), and am usually up late at night (Pacific zone) so can help with any issues at that time. I am not here to harm Wikipedia in any way, so if you see something that may appear negative, it was not my intention and make sure to point it out to me to prevent it from occurring again.

4. I notice you don't seem to have an email enabled for use with the Special:Emailuser feature; especially in situations where you may be blocking users, some people may find they have little means of contacting you, except via email. Historically, there's been a bit of an expectation that admins will have email enabled. Would you be willing to enable and confirm an email address? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't see that being a problem. I never saw it necessary to have it enabled until up to this point, but if I do run into the situation that would require unblocking, I want to be accessible to those that need help. --Nehrams2020 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See Nehrams2020's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Nehrams2020: Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nehrams2020 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator. Wizardman 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm still considering co-nomming. I wanted to nom you months ago!
   H₂O) 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Support over 32K edit count and see no reason to oppose.Rlevse 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Seems to be a prolific contributor with lots of experience, especially in mainspace. Was surprised to see that he is not an admin yet.
   talk) 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Support, of course! :) Majorly (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Plenty of experience and dedication to Wikipedia. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 23:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support I thought you were an admin. Certainly trust you with the tools. --Aude (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Jmlk17 00:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. + From my experiences with Nehrams, I implicitly trust him and know he will use the tools well. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Cleaning out the imges is a good thing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support--MONGO 05:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support will do good with the tools. Not just the same "I wanna block as many vandals as possible and delete articles" T Rex | talk 05:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Top quality contributor. Phgao 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support good luck! --Ben^chat 05:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - If I've ever met you, I don't recall it, but you seem to understand images, you're involved with good and featured articles, and heavily involved with WikiProject films? Yes, I think you could use the tools : ) - jc37 08:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Seems to be a fine candidate for the admin tools. Can't see any reason not to support. :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. --
    Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Support. Incredibly experienced editor who knows what he's doing and will do excellent things with the mop. Useight 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I've never seen you before, but all your recent contributions seem sensible & you seem to know policy inside-out —
    iridescent (talk to me!) 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Support - no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools. - Philippe | Talk 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. You're such a good contributor, I could hardly do anything but support! -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Should have been an admin awhile ago. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Significant contributions to the Good articles section and 100% edit summary and excellent overall contributions.--JForget 01:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - Great editor.
    Love 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
25. Support - Of course, no doubts here! :-)
    Scarian^Talk 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Support good experience and contributions, I think you will be a admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - nothing but good work on WP Films. Girolamo Savonarola 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Hard-working, long-term editor with many positive contributions. Espresso Addict 20:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. I support you :) Backsigns 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. A good user. Acalamari 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Good contibs, good history. Needs the tools.--Sandahl 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. SupportContributions are very good and level of editing very high no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 08:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support good editor. props department - a mop and bucket, please! Carlossuarez46 19:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. SupportSumoeagle179 21:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Assumed he was one. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support A tireless contributor at
    WP:GAC reviews. Johnfos 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
37. Support Shyamal 05:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - we have here one of the more elite RfAs. You will definately make a very fine admin indeed. Lradrama 08:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Strongly Support Wikipedialuva 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Good editor, good manner with other contributors, no reason to assume he will abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. STrong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - A strong editor with heaps of experience. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - That many edits and a clean block log sure does indicate someone we can trust with the tools. Your work with oversized non-free images will certainly be appreciated. --Pekaje 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support
    M.^(er) 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
45. Support. Zaxem 14:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support as being an active GA project member. He is patient enough to teach people about GA process (including me). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - good luck! The Rambling Man 18:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]