Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nev1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Nev1

FINAL (90/4/6); closed by EVula at 19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination by Rudget

I am delighted to nominate and introduce

Nev1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for adminship. He has contributed steadily since October 2006 – making more extended and developed content additions since then, amassing 6100+
edits in that 20 month period.

Moving on the specifics of the candidate, in the few months that I've known Nev1, that is through the well-established

Castles in Greater Manchester, Dunham Massey, Warburton, Greater Manchester, Buckton Castle, Warwick Castle, Sale, Greater Manchester, Hale Barns, City of Salford, Deva Victrix (received a barnstar for 'exemplary work' here), Murrays' Mills, Mamucium and Urmston
.

In terms of discussion and communication with other users, he has shown great aptitude for wishing to work with others effectively to promote Wikipedia's general state of articles. He is clearly a civil user with a block log free from any blocks. Some good examples of where he has shown these skills can be found easily in his recent contributions, but for sake of convenience I'll list some here – 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The first one in particular impressed me somewhat since its not too often we see others thanking reviewers for the time they put into evaluating the articles we've contributed to.

I am very much glad and appreciative that Nev1 decided to accept the offer and I wish now the community can now promote a user who is so good with articles that it is clear Wikipedia will benefit if he is given the admin bit. Rudget 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your generous nomination Rudget, I accept.
Nev1 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2008 (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 don't intend to go around closing AfDs, at least not right away; that's not where my experience lies, I spend a lot of time writing articles. In time I will probably participate more in AfD debates and such like, but since I'm aware I have limited experience of those areas I would walk before I could run. At least to begin with, I would mainly use the tools within the
Greater Manchester wikiproject (WP:GM), something which Jza84 already ably does, helping with the simple tasks that may take up the time of other, more experienced admins. Semi-protecting articles would be useful, especially when particular articles are subject to unusually high levels of vandalism due to a mention in the media. It also seems to me that a good place to start would be keeping an eye on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user
as I've tagged a few images I've uploaded for deletion and have experienced a delay when there really doesn't need to be one.
The usefulness of having the tools was drawn to my attention recently when
WP:RFP
. The page was eventually protected, but in the meantime there was further vandalism.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As Rudget mentioned in his nominating statement, I've been involved in a few featured articles which technically are the best wikipedia has to offer. That said, not every article can be featured, and I feel I do a lot of good work, mainly within WP:GM; although I am trying to branch out a bit. It is satisfying to build a network of contacts with people interested in improving wikipedia through contributions to articles you're all interested in. Different articles required different skills, being able to co-operate with other editors, sift through information, and assess sources for reliability. Trafford required combining information from a large number of sources; Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester required a lot of repetitive and some difficult searching for sources online; Warwick Castle involved reading what I felt to be some very turgid prose as my main source. Sorry if I'm boasting.
It's difficult to chose, but I think the best and most most rewarding article I've worked on was
the best that Wikipedia has to offer
" I enjoyed myself, which I believe is an important part of this project.
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: None stick in my mind, but if ever an editor causes me aggravation I take time to stop and assess the situation. It's sometimes easy to misconstrue what a person means and when you can't see the look on their face or hear the tone of their voice you can sometimes see confrontation where there is none. When interacting with other wikipedians I make an effort (hopefully successful) to ensure I'm not misunderstood. The easiest way to deal with someone who stresses you out is to walk away and relax, then approach the situation again with a clear head.

Question from User:Sumoeagle179

4. Great article writing. But please elaborate on your experience in admin related areas. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I freely admit my experience of admin areas is limited, and certainly no where near as extensive as some editors would prefer. I have nominated a group of articles for deletion on grounds of non-notability; the result was deleted for the reasons I nominated it. Recently, the article on Mitch Benn was the target of some malicious and malignant vandalism, anonymous users were inserting POV persistantly. After considering the options open I decided that banning IP addresses would be inappropriate as they seemed to be changing regularly, instead I requested semi-protection which was implemented. I also reported a newly created account – which was created specifically to vandalise the Mitch Benn article – for having an inappropriate username. It turned out to be a bit pointless as the editor was already blocked, but before reporting the user I reviewed all the criteria for blocking to make sure I was in the right. I also have taken part in discussion about articles for deletion within WP:GM. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head I'm afraid.
I hope that while this demonstrates I have a limited involvement in admin areas at the moment, I have thought about the actions I am taking and acting responsibly when getting involved.

Optional question from

xenocidic

5. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very
NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ
and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: The user is clearly abusive and I'm not convinced that they wouldn't continue to vandalise wikipedia. He continued vandalising even after a 5 day block, after which I would have hoped that he'd get bored or start constructively editing. After multiple warnings and one block, their behaviour doesn't seem to have changed, one relatively constructive edit does not make up for his previous acts. Taking this into account, I would deny their request for an unblock.

Optional questions from NuclearWarfare

6. Will you add yourself to
CAT:AOR
or make yourself available to recall in some other way?
A. I intend to, I believe accountability is important. Too many editors consider adminship to be a badge of immunity, which should not be the case. I've not yet considered what the conditions of my AOR would be, but I shall think consider what they could be.
7. Please define notability in your own words
A. Well, what I go by is the "must appear in reliable third party sources" bit. Without reliable third party sources it's impossible to write a good quality, neutral, and most importantly verifiable article. A rule of thumb I use is if it's on a reliable website (such as the BBC), or in a newspaper, or there's an academic book on it, it's notable. A good question to ask is also "would this appear in an encyclopaedia such Brittannica", while I agree this is useful I don't think it's be all and end all since wikipedia is trying to be more comprehensive than other encyclopaedias. Also there would be nothing on castles in Greater Manchester even though there are reliable etc sources available on the subject.

Optional questions from Epbr123

8. If I were to request the speedy deletion of
G7, would you delete the article or reject the request? Epbr123 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
A. G7 is that only editor to the article has requested it to be deleted. The first thing I did was look at the article. There should be plenty of material that could be added to it, I actually started looking for some. I'd ask the user who wants the article deleted why they've made this decision and try to encourage them to expand it. In this case I'd ask if they minded if I tried expanding the article since it would seem a waste of an article with potential, however I obviously couldn't do this all the time. So I suppose I wouldn't speedy it.
Good answer. Epbr123 (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Erik the

Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

9. What is the difference between a block and a ban? When, and by whom, should each be administered? Erik the
Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
A.

Optional question from

John Vandenberg

10. Are there any specific administrators whom you consider particularly influential and/or especially good Wikipedia role models? Why? (Swiped from RfA/Jza84)
A. Some of the users I've been most influenced by are not admins, or at least the reason for their influence has not been their ownership of the tools. For instance I greatly respect Malleus Fatuorum's article writing ability and the opinions he voices which always have the good of wikipedia at heart. Jza84 has also been very influential, although our paths crossed long before he became an admin, and while he carries out his administrative duties, he has not neglected article writing, something I would aim to emulate. As someone who hangs around WP:GA keeping an eye on articles I've nominated (and very occasionally reviewing some) it's been difficult not to notice editors such as TonyTheTiger; although we've never talked, his prolific output is admirable. Members of the wikiprojects I'm part of are enthusiastic and willing to help, something every wikipedian should aspire to, especially admins. And of course Rudget, who carries out his admin duties admirably and takes an active part in the community, particularly writing for the signpost. There are of course many others, but I think I might be drifting from the point of the question.

Optional question from Tim Vickers

11. What's the worst mistake you've made on Wikipedia? What did you learn from this?
A. You mean apart from answering question 5 wrong ;-) I don't know really, there haven't been any horrendous mistakes. If I may adapt your question, I learned most about wikipedia when I first tried to promote
User:Malleus Fatuorum
. We all bashed the article around for a while trying to improve it. It was promoted to GA, demoted and then promoted again, before being turned down at FAC three times. I learned the hard way what wikipedia required of its articles and its editors. I learned a lot from the experience, as I'm sure did the others involved, about writing, sourcing, and general policy and now find it much easier to write articles. And having been not entirely happy with the article (it's remained almost unchanged since the last failed FAC over a year ago) I've started rewriting it and have found it to be so much easier than last time, showing how much I've changed.

Optional, ubiqutous, not trying to trap you question from

CountyLemonade

12. What's your stance on cool down blocks? I know the obvious answer is no, but can you dig deeper than that?
A. Cool down blocks seem to me like pouring petrol on a fire: cool to watch a bad idea and someone will get burned. People are often annoyed by being blocked, so blocking someone to get them to calm down just doesn't make sense to me. If an editor should back away from an argument because it's getting too heated, tell them politely.
13. What is your opinion on secret chat rooms between administrators that is not accessible to others. Why is such secret communication permitted? Is it possible that such secret channels create abuse?
14. What would you do if someone showed you about an AFD where there was no consensus so there should be default to keep but the adminstrator deleted it? What if DRV didn't address the issue? Is that the end of the game, tough luck? Certainly, ArbCom is not the body to go to. Or is it permissible for the original author to recreate the article in a few months with improvements (though there were no accusations of poor editorial quality in the beginning).


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nev1 before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support - Nev1 is a great candidate - per nomination. Rudget 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - No problems here; looks like a very good editor, clear block log. Seems to have a good understanding of policies and guidelines. D.M.N. (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Suport Record looks clean shows a sensible level of understanding of admin-related activity. --
    "talk" 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Support; clean record and seems to know his way around policies. Ironholds 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Writes articles. Knows limitations. He doesn't need to lurk moar around AfD for months to get the mop and bucket. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, per having no concerns based upon my criteria for supporting an admin candidate, and the fact that experience in the traditional "admin-related areas" of Wikipedia is somewhat overrated in my view. S. Dean Jameson 20:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Would make a good admin. « Diligent Terrier (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support without reservation. Nev1 is a sensible and hard-working editor who clearly has wikipedia's best interests at heart. His replies to the standard questions demonstrate that he would not rush in to unfamiliar areas once granted the extra buttons, but would feel his way into his new role. --
    talk) 21:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Weak Support Looks good on a surface level and I have faith in Rudget. But didn't dig deep enough to give more than weak support.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, you did not dig deep enough to offer a full support, or Rudget did not? Either way, those are silly reasons to change the support to weak :P Tiptoety talk 06:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See my essay onhow I !vote---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - trustworthy editor. Good answer to Q1; think he'll be ok at semi-protecting pages, and closing articles for deletion discussions. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even Nev1 doesn't think he's ready to close articles for deletion discussions. Epbr123 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom. Great user, would make a good admin. LittleMountain5 21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No reason to oppose. Sceptre (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support levelheaded, mature, polite, gets what the site is about, great contributor. Lack of playing in admin areas is not of much concern. Nev1 appears the sort of editor who will be cautious as an admin, and not make mistakes twice. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Nev1 is an excellent contributor and has demonstrated a well-considered, pragmatic approach to editing; I have no reason to doubt that this would continue were he to be given the tools. We really could do with more admins, like Nev1, who know their own weaknesses and are prepared to assess a situation before jumping in. The answers he has given to the questions are exemplary. Rje (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weakish support- I'm not entirely convinced Nev1 needs the tools as he's not particularly active in admin-related areas. Still, there is no doubt in my mind that he can be trusted with them and, even if he only uses the mop and bucket sparingly, Wikipedia will be better off. Reyk YO! 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support per the rationale in the nomination by Rudget. Outstanding user. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak Support. I would go neutral or even oppose based on lack of experience in core areas, but I was swayed over to the support side. What influenced me the most was that I can see you want the tools to help out, not to simply have them. Plus (though this is to a lesser extent), I trust Rudget. Malinaccier (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support due to barnstars and good articles indicated on userpage and in nomination above. User is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia and gets along with others. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
    Tally-ho! 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  19. Support, I see no reason to not support. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - due to many GA's and no reason not to trust --T-rex 01:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support We are here to determine if we can trust the user with the tools. The article writing shows we can. The rules come from common sense and the contribution to the encyclopedia show trust; trust that the user will use his/her best common sense on Wikipedia. That is all you need: to use your best common sense, and when users contribute responsibly, I have no doubt they will use there best common sense. --Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Great article work = trust, plus a perfect answer to Xeno's question. —Giggy 01:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Great answer to Xenocidic's question. Great article work.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 02:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Doesn't act like a ten-year-old. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Per Daniel and the well written nom by Rudget :)America69 (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Just the kind of person we need. Nick mallory (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Has the right skills (writes articles), does excellent work. As per "not enough admin-type work/trust", if he was at ANI or AIV or whatever, we would be screaming that he wants it too much...Nev1, please keep doing wht you are doing. King Pickle (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. That's an impressive list of work and experience in the nom! Support —
    4 August, 2008
    (UTC)
  29. Support - Appears to use
    common sense, something this project has very little of and with lots of article work we have more than just another run of the mill anti-vandal only candidate. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 06:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  30. Support per nom. Hard-working editor with admirable writing accomplishments. Agree with Xeno that answer to Q4 isn't very good, but a close reading of block policy will do. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support great article writing, reasonable understanding of most admin tasks, seems sensible. of course. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Fine contributor, clearly cares about the project & so no reason to presume he would run amok with the mop. nancy talk 09:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Apart from having faith in Rudget's nominations, I think this editor does great work. As xeno points out in the opposes, you cannot know all there is to adminship when RfAing - you will learn with time. I have great faith, that Nev1 will be responsible enough to learn all he needs to know and not go round, abusing the tools. So#Why review me! 09:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. If you are smart enough to write excellent articles, you can handle being an admin. Being a good article writer requires a far higher level of competence than being an admin, which is really not that difficult if you are a) sane and b) not a moron. Meets both a) and b).
    ☄ 09:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  35. per nom and other fine reasons stated above. 14:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) (added by User:Dlohcierekim in this diff)
  36. Strong support An editor who has done fine work in mainspace and proven both trustworthiness and civility has asked that he be granted the tools for a small and localized but very real set of uses. I cannot think of any reason to oppose. If Nev1 should eventually expand into other areas of administrative work, there is every reason to think that he will apply the diligence and seriousness there that he has applied elsewhere, and will pose no problems. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, per Mr. IP. I couldn't have said it better, nor shall I try. Keeper ǀ 76 16:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. No problems here.
    Tan ǀ 39 17:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  39. Support. Good editor, good answers to questions, mature. He's a good article writer, and that's harder than admin stuff. If he's the same person as Nev2, though, this may be considered an oppose vote, as Nev2 was less mature than an unborn fetus. Bart133 (t) (c) 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to say I have nothing to do with Nev2 (I didn't even know he existed until 5 minutes ago). If anyone doubts this, I am quite happy to undergo a check user.
    Nev1 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  40. Support You seem to be a thoughtful user, clearly a good article contributor. I would like you to get more admin-area experience. By your answer to the block question, I would normally not support, but you demontrated some good thoughtful consideration. I would urge you to let another admin consider this request if you were in this position however, though any admin worth their salt would come to this very conclusion. Take your time, before using your new tools, (especially the block) make sure you are confident in the applicable guidelines, and ensure that you take the time to consult with other, more experienced admins and editors when your not 100% sure. I recon you'll make an excellent admin. - Toon05 17:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Nev1 will use the tools sensibly. Axl (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - will probably make a better admin than I am. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - After riding the fence for a while and revisiting this discussion, I've come to the conclusion that the outstanding work in the mainspace is conclusively a net positive for the project if the candidate were to receive the bit. I still retain my earlier reservations about Wikiproject tool usage, but I don't think the user will go around pushing any project agenda. Mr. IP's comments were also very very insightful bravo. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. A good candidate, who would clearly use admin tools sensibly. His experience in article building, maintaining, and involvement in the GA/FA/DYK are excellent. Bob talk 22:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I do not always support candidates with limited, roles, but the article writing strikes me as sufficient indication that he will be responsible and properly cautious in his use of the tools. DGG (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Excellent editor. Acalamari 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:36, 4 August 2008 (#UTC)
  48. Support - Strong editor. I trust him to know his limits with the tools. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Certainly. —
    Hello! 00:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  50. Support Despite flubbing the question, I see no serious concerns and think Nev1 will be an excellent sysop.--chaser - t 01:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support great work on Lancs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Weak Support. I thought I had already participated in this one, but I must have been interrupted and/or distracted in some way when I was looking this RFA over. Anyway, I'm going to have to give only a weak support because of the somewhat "lacking-ness" in experience in the project space. However, I think you have demonstrated the elusive and really subjective "clue"; you've got a handle on how everything runs around here. Should make a fine administrator, just don't jump into anything too hurriedly. Useight (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per nom. Nev1 is a great contributor and would make a good admin. Craigy (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Nev1 has more than 4500 edits and he is interested in building articles. He will be a good admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Very strong support: Top-notch article contributions and stellar civility lead me to
    AGF (Assume Great Faith) with this candidate. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  57. 'Support so strong that i could lift the Tower of London with the strength: Brilliant articles.... and will make a good admin. He also seems to be able to listen to overs which some admin don't seem to do. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itfc+canes=me (talk • contribs) [reply]
  58. Support Looks fine. Solid answers to questions, good mainspace work, detailed nom. GlassCobra 16:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, seems sensible and trustworthy. Also able to admit mistakes and learn from them. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per nom, and I think he would make a fine admin.   jj137 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I find Nev1 to be at least as trustworthy as other administrators who I do not think should be relieved of the tools, and so it would be inconsistent of me to oppose on this basis. However, there are many other much more positive aspects to his editing, many of which have been mentioned above, that would lead me to support this nomination on their own account. So, support.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support from me and the otters. Solid contributions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - I haven't really dug deep and researched this user, but here are my reasons for supporting - Number one, I've seen Rudget around and he seems like a good user, so if he nominated this user, that must be a good sign. Two, the supports in my opinion outweigh the opposes and neutrals greatly, so I will support as well. Cheers -
    L — 03:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  64. Support. The candidate is well equipped to assume administrative tasks cautiously and responsibly. — Athaenara ✉ 04:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. We need more admins like Nev1. Khoikhoi 07:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support More than sufficent clue level demonstrated from contributions and answers to (most of) the questions allay the valid concerns presented in Oppose / Neutral.
    Net positive to the project granting +sysop. Pedro :  Chat  08:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  68. Support User is very constructive, very trustworthy, grasps the "walk before running" idea. spider1224 11:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Because the opposition has failed to demonstrate it is a non-member of the Equus asinus species, and
    ARK 12:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  70. Support - He's a decent guy. Good temperament. My recent interaction with him showed a cool, calm and collected sort of person. Knows his manners, which is always a good sign in someone. Good luck!
    ScarianCall me Pat! 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  71. Support. You're not an admin yet? Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support Great article work (we are here to build an encyclopedia, something people often forget), and I see no reason not to trust this user. Good answers to questions as well. faithless (speak) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  74. Support will be great. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support great 'pedia builder. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support.
    chat) 11:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  77. Support - great temperament, seems very respectful and civil, all very important traits for an administrator. I'm confident that if there are adminy things that he doesn't know about, he won't hesitate to read the appropriate guidelines/policy. -- Natalya 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support The project will benefit from this editor's access to extra buttons. I have no reason for concern about misuse of tool. Good luck.
    talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  79. Support - Generally meets my standards, great editing work, and has an interesting user page. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Per nomination by Rudget.--
    Fan 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Much as I think Rudget's a great guy and all, you know, I'd prefer not to see either supports or opposes based on who the nominator is, rather than who the candidate is. BTW, please, don't anyone give me the old BS about bureacrat discretion to ignore !votes. This is a vote except in very constrained circumstances. --
    talk) 20:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Just my opinion, I think he was referring to what Rudget said about Nev1, rather than Rudget being the nominator -
    L — 20:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It's ambiguous, I agree. So let me be clearer about my own statement. I'd prefer not see either supports or opposes based on who the nominator is or what the nominator may or may not have said. --
    talk) 20:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    support Malleus' statement about the "per nom" stuff, er, per Malleus. Keeper ǀ 76 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the essence of what Malleus is saying: judge the candidate, not the nominator. But sometimes it is tempting to say "per this user" because they have made the point you would like to and done so better than you could. That said, is anyone else as confused as I am by the "oppose per Rudget" below?
    Nev1 (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Tit-for-tat from someone who doesn't like Rudget? The revenge-fest aspect to RfA is one of its many less endearing features. --
    talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Or perhaps just a simple error. All it took was a post to Asenine's talkpage to clarify, as he did below. He had misread Oppose #1 as coming from Rudget (couldn't see Kojidude's signature). Keeper ǀ 76 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My !vote was because was because of the nomination. All of the reasons in the nomination gave me more than enough reasons to support.--
    Fan 23:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  81. Support Thoughtful answers to the questions. Good luck. --Cameron* 20:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support -Finally a candidate who is actually an encyclopedia contributor. Personally I don't see this editor's perceived lack of experience in the admin space is a flaw, it many ways this removes any suspicions I would have that he would abuse the tools. I'm sure if presented with a situation he would use the tools responsibly and if there are any grey areas of admin policy I'm sure he can quickly learn once he is under an obligation to act as an admin, even if he doesn't spend much of his time with admin stuff.
    "Talk"? 21:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  83. Strong Support -Outstanding user. -- Freakatone Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support I like article writers. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. —Dark talk 06:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support -Dureo (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Long history, consistent work, no reasons to oppose. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. +S
    Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 18:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  89. Support Yanksox (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support: Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose — Great article work ≠ Trust. — I don't see anything that makes me think you would use the tools responsibly. Nor do I know how to spell "responsibley", which probably cut down the seriousness of this oppose quite a bit. :-/ That might be a good thing though, I won't get flamed as much now.--KojiDude (C) 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this'll lead to some discussion and I'm sure its on others minds (going by the neutral below), but what would lead you to trust the candidate? And you spelt responsibly correctly. :) Rudget 20:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He certainly has a point in a general sense. Trust isn't transitive (to borrow a phrase). We trust airline pilots to fly planes, it doesn't necessarily follow that they should be trusted with firearms (source for my ramblings). On wikipedia, I personally think that article writing is a great way to produce trust, assuming that you do it a lot and that you don't get into troubles with it. Sure, articles aren't the drama pages, but if you spend years making significant contributions to articles you are bound to get into content disputes and issues over reverts. Handling those professionally provides experience that AIV/AfD/etc can't provide. So I can see where you are coming from but I definitely feel that article work points to trust (assuming that work doesn't result in problems). Protonk (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what I was thinking. Nev1 knows policy and is able to work well with others on a number of projects (not just articles) so that really is a good determining factor were you in doubt of the user's ability to conduct the tools effectively. Rudget 20:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But to be fair to the oppose, it is a legitimate claim to say that trust in wikipedia isn't transitive and that the only thing that builds an admin record is work in admin related areas. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... I guess Protonk pretty much defended my Oppose for me. To me, being able to write articles is a unique quality, and I admire it. For that reason I respect Nev1. But, I don't trust him to use admin tools. Without seeing him getting into the groove and experiencing admin area-tasks, I don't know if he can use the tools well or not.--KojiDude (C) 22:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt I'll convince you at this point, and I respect your opinion, but (from where I am coming from) I feel the need to point out article building and project work is exactly the right place where one builds trust within the community. To do so much content building and not misbehave, loose his temper or even make a bad call on content/consensus is really, really admirable IMHO. As Jimbo says himself, adminship ain't a big deal - indeed I usually only use the buttons for deleting images I've moved to commons. I trust Nev1 is capable of that!... Infact, I think this comment of mine is applicable to all the opposition below that is based on fear/reluctance. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose Great article work, but not enough admin-area work to demonstrate a comprehensive enough grasp of policy. Answer to Xeno's question pretty much sealed the deal for me. Erik the
    Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It's interesting to me that you chose to support Mr IP, but you choose to oppose this candidate. Color me completely confused. S. Dean Jameson 01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I have different votes on the two RfA's because they are two different candidates, on two different RfA's. I don't see the point to your comment. Erik the
    Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Weak OpposeChanging to neutral on account that the user should only be using his admin powers in his Wikiproject. as per the response to Xeno's question, as it indicates a lack of policy knowledge in an important admin area. The blocking administrator should never be the one to deny an unblock request; one should always seek a secondary opinion for an unblock. Also, is it too much to offer a {{second chance}}? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the candidate's defense, I didn't learn of 2nd chance until a month into my adminship. I gather my question and my responses to it have greatly increased the awareness of this template. –
    talk) 01:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Really? I've pretty much always known about it, so I assume everyone had, so guess I'll tailor my votes in the future to reflect the fact that not everyone does know about it. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely hope you realise what's wrong with what you've just said and try and be more careful about similar assumptions, especially when around newbies. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Especially when around newbies" I'm afraid I don't understand that part. Also, that previous phrase should be rewritten. "I've pretty much always known about 2nd chance since I started stalking WP:RfA." NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was attempting to point out - very poorly, and I apologise for the harshness, it was unnecessary - that the idea of "oh, I knew it so I thought everybody else did" is really bad. It's important to remember that nobody comes with fully formed knowledge of every arcane Wikipedia policy and not everybody lurks around RfA, and even when running for RfA, you can't be expected to know everything. For newbies it's especially important to be careful (
    WP:BITE) - that wasn't really relevant, just a pointless tangent. Sorry. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oh, that's OK. Now that we've forgiven each other, let's just drop the matter. But thank you for the advice. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Oppose - Per Rudget Sorry, I misread the first oppose as coming from Rudget as the screen I am using made it hard to read the opposer's signature. Per oppose 1.
     Asenine 
     09:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    Forgive me for asking but Rudget was the nominator and he supports. So how exactly do you base an oppose on that? So#Why review me! 09:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still outstanding, thus I'm also noting that I'm not happy with this as a reason to oppose Nev1's RFA. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It links in with my comment above.[1] --
    talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
    talk) 13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oh, now 284 edits to the Wikipedia namespace is considered low? Sheesh. And you're actually asserting that Nev1 doen't know about policy because he has so-and-so amounts of edits to a specific namespace? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. A quiet and civil user, and a dedicated article writer, but his admin-related experience is very weak at the moment. Epbr123 (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - Need to be pensive here. This user obviously demonstrates sublime editorial work, but nary any experience in the project space. This is usually a red flag, large or small. I also get a little wary when someone says they wish to use the tools in their favorite Wikiproject. I need to really think this one through, and trust Rudget's judgment to the fullest, so there's another facet to consider. I shall return to this discussion. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Changing to Support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, you really need to reconsider your no-admin-work-in-area-of-interest stance. There are several admins that use the tools to clean up their "favorite wikiproject", and there's nothing inherently wrong with using the tools to do so. In fact, I think that many of the Wikiprojects would benefit from having one or more of their regulars with tools for cleanup. S. Dean Jameson 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand Dean, but at the moment I'm really trying to focus on this candidate in particular (mostly with regards to the project space in general), and I suppose that means I am partially forced to reconsider my stance on administrators using the tools in their respective topic areas given the applicants intentions. But, please remember that I am in the neutral section, and that my earlier comments regarding this potential COI issue was not the basis for any oppose. Thank you for the comment though. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My credibility in this forum is perhaps not at its apogee right now, but FWIW, I look on this type of candidate as sort of a reserve admin. They spend their days quietly and usefully pottering about in their specialized area of interest, breaking out the tools only to perform basic tasks. However, if needed, they will heed the call — and though they may theoretically lack wider admin experience, they apply the same quiet diligence and strong character in new areas as they did in old ones, learning quickly and well. I think of
    Cincinnatus, basically. This is the type of admin we need more of. Just my two cents. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Neutral With regret -- as much as I love content creators, I cannot overlook the candidate's lack of admin-related duties.
    talk) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Neutral — admins should not decline unblocks from blocks they placed, and I would hope they would try to reform vandals when they do show a glimmer of hope as the hypothetical vandal did at 11:18. However, I believe the candidate has misread the scenario because they didn't serve the 5 day block, so I'll just remain neutral for now. –
    talk) 22:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Interesting story, but it needs an ending. Did the vandal reform or not? That's surely the only way to tell who's "right" isn't it? --
    talk) 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yes, they reformed. –
    talk) 23:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You'll have to excuse my natural cynicism, but why can I find no user contributions for that IP address? --
    talk) 02:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Look here - Peripitus (Talk) 07:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. What an extraordinary transformation. Difficult to believe it's the same person. --
    talk) 11:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Ah, yes, the IP I used is fictional (outside the range of possibility) to protect the innocent guilty reformed. =) –
    talk) 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    So I discovered. PS: "How do reach your level (admin?)" (so that I can start vandalising again?). Have you heard the probably apocryphal story about the Chinese diplomat on a visit to France a few years ago who, when asked for his opinion of the French Revolution, replied "Too soon to tell"? --
    talk) 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    A little harsh, maybe, considering that the user in question is a rollbacker with over a thousand edits? Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting your response (a crime of which I have been guilty before :D). Erik the
    Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Mine in particular, or generally? I'm simply saying that time will tell, I see nothing "harsh" in that. --
    talk) 23:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Ah fair enough, I misread the five day break in the middle as a five day block. It's a bit late to change my answer, but this is a learning process.
    Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Can't hurt to clarify =) –
    talk) 23:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Obviously I thought they'd already been given a five day ban, I thought that if the first day ban hadn't worked then shortening the second one wouldn't serve any purpose. It seems quite clear now that the correct thing to do would be to ask another admin to intervene to maintain objectivity.
    Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Just wanting to make sure the candidate understands that bans and blocks aren't the same thing. Mastrchf (t/c) 01:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral as per previous Oppose. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral the user has a high level of clue, but, as the user has participated in actions involving protection deletion and blocking at an almost non-existent level I really have no way to feel confident that the user would really know how to use the tools correctly. - Icewedge (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Great article work, which really counts for a lot, excellent attitude and civility. But, as pointed above, almost no experience in admin-related areas. I certainly trust this user not to abuse the tools, but he may unintentionally misapply them. Right now there is too little basis for judging how well the candidate understands the policies that require admin actions and the answers to the questions are a bit wobbly in this regard. E.g. even the answer to Q8, while ultimately correct, is a bit off. Permanent settlements are generally considered inherently notable, once basic
    WP:V requirements are met, and articles about them are, as far as I know, never deleted (speedy or not). While it may be unfair to judge the candiadte on deletion-related questions since he states that he does not intend to be active in closing AfDs early on, I still do not get enough of a feeling of this user having sufficiently solid understanding of WP policies and procedures that I would want to see in an admin (even a new one). Nsk92 (talk) 13:44, 8 August 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/Nev1&oldid=1089039224"