Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NeilN

NeilN

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (111/3/5); Scheduled to end 20:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

NeilN (talk · contribs) – NeilN is one of those editors who should have been an admin years ago. He has been around since 2005, and has been an active contributor on and off since 2007.[1] (The latest "on" period has lasted a solid two years.) Most regulars here will be familiar with him through his recent changes patrolling, which he does such a good job of that he gets barnstars like these.

NeilN has been putting off running for adminship because of his relative lack of content contributions. However, it's not like he doesn't have any. For example, he is the author of NetMarket, a good-quality start-class article, and if you start looking you can find solid content edits like these.[2][3][4] There are more if you go back through his contributions, and that's not counting the fixes that he makes as part of his recent changes work.

His contributions to administrative areas are where he really shines, however. To give you a taste of how prolific he is, here are some numbers: 554 edits to AIV, 279 edits to BLPN, 237 edits to ANEW, 161 edits to RFPP, and 98 edits to UAA. He also has 689 edits to ANI, which can sometimes be a red flag, but in this case seems to just be an extension of his recent changes work and not an indication of Dramah. And the number of Twinkle edits he has? 45,380.[5] Perhaps the most important thing to note about his recent-changes patrolling is that he doesn't simply revert edits; he often takes the time to add sources,[6][7][8] fix formatting[9][10] and fix factual errors.[11][12] Rather than the stereotype of the trigger-happy rollbacker, I get the impression that careful thought goes behind every click. And last but not least, I would be remiss if I did not mention his very respectable AfD contributions and deleted contributions (sorry, admin-only link).

NeilN is also fond of helping new users, as can be seen from his 233 edits to the help desk and his 148 edits to the Teahouse. Given his experience, his consistently accurate patrolling, and his willingness to help people out, I would say that NeilN is an ideal candidate for adminship. I hope that the community will agree with me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Abecedare

Mr. Stradivarius has already described Neil's prolific and positive contribution to wikipedia and their dedication to the project. So I'll restrict myself to highlighting two particular qualities that I believe will serve Neil well as an admin:

• In-depth knowledge of wikipedia policies: This is demonstrated not only through his mainspace edits but also in cogent comments made at policy and guideline talk-pages including WT:NPOV, WT:BLP and WT:MEDRS, and at numerous article talk pages. Neil is also able to articulate how the policies and practices apply to particular cases, even on contentious pages when faced with SPAs assuming bad faith, and when the discussion is a complete mess.
• Calm and helpful demeanor: This can be seen in the discussions linked above, or by browsing through his talkpage archives. Let me just point out a recent illustrative sequence: Neil reverted an edit by an edit-warring user who then came to complain on Neil's page ("why you posting on my wall bro? do i even no u") to which Neil replied politely. The editor, now in a more conciliatory mood, next asked Neil how they could become an admin on wikipedia. What I found most impressive was that Neil, instead of dismissing the query curtly or (worse) employing sarcasm as many of us would have been tempted to, took the time to answer it sincerely. And the WP:ADMIN standard he articulated, "To become an administrator, stick around a couple years, make thousands of productive edits, participate in discussions, and gain the trust of the community that you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and won't abuse the administrator tools." is one I believe Neil has more than met.

Hope the community will hand them the mop, which will make Neil an even bigger asset to wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. Thank you Mr. Stradivarius and Abecedare. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I see admin work as an extension of the work I've been doing. I'll be helping out at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and WP:UAA. I will be evaluating reports at WP:3RRNB, using EdJohnston's practices as a template for my actions. I'll also help out at WP:ANI and WP:RM.

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

A: As Mr. Stradivarius alluded to above, I'm not a traditional content contributor. I think my "best" contributions involve helping content contributors with issues [13] and making sure changes to articles meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, taking the time to explain to amenable and interested editors why their edits may have problems. [14], [15]. Wikipedia can be a complicated place and if I can help a fellow constructive or potentially constructive editor, even if I may not agree with them, I think that's a win for all of us.

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 many articles on controversial subjects on my watchlist so that's a definite yes on conflicts. And I think like many editors, I experience a brief "what are you doing?" moment when I see an edit or revert of mine being reverted. The key is to step back and evaluate the conflict. Often this will only take a few seconds in the case of unconstructive editors. However when the issue is more nuanced, other factors (e.g., existing consensus, stability and quality of article) have to be weighed. Talk page discussion is always good as are the other avenues mentioned at WP:DRR. Of course, patience is usually needed when waiting for others editors to notice the conflict and if no one takes the time to weigh in, that may be a good sign the issue is not as important as you think it is.

Additional question from Iaritmioawp

4. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?

A: I've seen this often enough at AFD. Consensus deals with all the proper concerns raised. These concerns need to be derived from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not arguments like "I like it" or "it doesn't need a source because I know it's true". If the four editors arguing for A had no proper concerns, I would close in favor of B. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional optional quetsion from Reaper Eternal

5. While I understand that adding content isn't really your forte (see Q2), would you mind link an article or two where you have made significant content contributions? You don't claim any DYK's, GA's, or FA's on your userpage, and sifting through 78,000 edits is a rather daunting task. I'm looking for a sample or two showcasing your best work and demonstrating an understanding of Wikipedia's content policies. Thanks!

A: Cleanup and some limited expansion improving sourcing is what I do sometimes. For example, this conversation led to these edits. Another conversation led to this correction and small expansion. [16] Another (heated) conversation led to the May 5-7 2014 edits on Nazanin Afshin-Jam. Again, small things and nothing that is generally regarded as a significant content contribution but I think there are enough of them to demonstrate I understand Wikipedia's content policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional questions from Bosstopher

6. The only article you've created on Wikipedia (as already pointed out) is for a currently active business called NetMarket. What inspired you to write this article? Do you have any personal connection to the company in question?

A: No personal connection. I have Online shopping on my watchlist and when I saw these edits [17], [18] I thought being acknowledged as performing the first secure retail transaction on the Internet was pretty notable, given the huge presence of online shopping today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

7. Recall?

A: I want to keep this simple but not susceptible to gaming. So, I propose to resign if seven editors indicate I do so. These seven editors must include at least three uninvolved active admins and non-admins must be in good standing with respect to the topic and have at least a thousand edits each and at least four hundred in the last calendar year. I am open to tweaking this criteria. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Added four hundred qualifier --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator recall I have detailed my recall criteria here: User:NeilN/Recall --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Ritchie333

8. Why did you call another user an idiot in the Teahouse? [19]. I sense this may have been harmless banter reading between the lines, can you explain?

A: I was following the self-deprecating style of AmaryllisGardener who said they had to learn to read. I was calling myself an idiot for having to make four edits for a post. By the way, although an occasional fixup is necessary, this is not a common occurrence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Stuartyeates

9. On which topic do you consider yourself to be furthest from the general wikipedia consensus?

A: Very interesting question! Policies are built on consensus and I don't think WP:0RR should ever be imposed on articles. Full protection is a much better solution. For some background on why I feel this way please see this. To further expand on what I said there, editing restrictions on contentious articles should emphasize getting consensus before a change is made. I don't think WP:0RR does this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from SNUGGUMS

10. You describe many articles you watch as controversial subjects. In what ways (if any) do you treat such articles differently than less controversial subjects?

A: I'm going to repeat what I said here: "If multiple experienced editors in good standing object to what you are doing, then slow down and edit cautiously, even if you are sure your edits are according to policy." Gnoming changes to controversial subjects usually pass without objection. Even substantial changes can be done fairly easily if they're obviously improving the article (see the recent history of Kent Hovind for an example). But controversial articles are likely to have a substantial talk page history which should be looked at as different editors can assign different weights and interpretations to the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Coming in and insisting something is an obvious BLP violation and repeatedly removing it as such when multiple experienced editors say it's not is a good way to further inflame the situation. In other words, on controversial subjects, be extra careful you're not acting like a bull in a china shop. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for NeilN: NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for NeilN can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support The two noms have expressed my thoughts exactly. NeilN should have become an admin a long time ago. Thoughtful, polite, well aware of policy. --regentspark (comment) 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Support It is a pleasure to support this candidate who I know will be a great admin. I see no reasonable reason to oppose. Chillum 20:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Rschen7754 20:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
4. Support: NeilN's demeanor is what we need in an admin. Personally, I care that he cares about Wikipedia, not that he creates content; that's what matters. Epic Genius (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
5. Support with pleasure. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
6. Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
7. Support, I've seen lots of good work from him, no issues. Huon (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
8. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
9. Support NeilN is a levelheaded editor who does not shy of getting involved in difficult articles to assist with disputes, while being able to remain calm, collected, and disinterested enough not to take sides. He also pays attention to details, and does not jump to conclusions, always assuming good faith. His understanding of core polices is spot on, applying common sense rather than being over-dogmatic about them. In my interactions with him and in observing his interactions with others, my impression is that NeilN will make a hell of a good administrator. We need more like him to step up to the plate. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
10. Support - I can but agree with all the sentiments above. NeilN is an asset to the WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
11. Support: One of the best Wikipedia editors, NeilN understands WP:Policies and guidelines better than many of our experienced editors. I very much admire how he upholds the WP:Neutral policy, given that so many people commonly misunderstand it. He is stern when he needs to be, often accommodating when he thinks he can be a help, and reflects a calm demeanor more often than not; I mean, even when you think he might be upset, it is likely that you don't know it for sure. That's not to state that getting upset on Wikipedia is a bad thing, but rather that we need more editors who can perform well under antagonism or other stress. And having a WP:Administrator with those qualities is one of the ideals. NeilN is very loyal, but never lets that get in the way if he thinks you are wrong. He is a well-rounded editor, and I am happy to support him becoming a WP:Administrator. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
12. Support 'bout time this RFA materialized. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
13. Support - Excellent candidate! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
14. Support Neil clearly knows his way around the administrative areas of Wikipedia, I trust him to do good work and lord knows, we can use someone who can help with the backlogs on these pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
15. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
16. LOL, I thought NeilN was already an admin somehow...anyways, Strongest Support of all the Supports. I've seen NeilN sometimes and his experience and civility is helping the project a lot. --TL22 (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
17. I know this is trope at this point, but I saw this on the list and thought it had to be a reconfirmation RFA. Apparently not. Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
18. Sure. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
19. Support - Neil would make good use of the tools. Alakzi (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
20. Support Not to undermine the many reasons there are to support this candidate, but there is no apparent reason to oppose and that's enough. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
21. Support Neil shows excellent judgment and temperament. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
22. Support. Stable, wiki-knowledgeable, helpful, involved. Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
23. Support - I have often been impressed by this editor's level-headedness and civility, even when interacting with some very difficult to deal with editors. I think he'd make an excellent admin. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
24. Support: Excellent contributions. There's no need for a 30/30 mainspace/project+talk distribution for someone to be trustable. The only (minor) problem is question 4: a better alternative would be to !vote B and relist (AfDs can't be definitely closed with one valid !vote). Esquivalience ^t 23:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
25. Support - He's quite concerned with anti-vandalism but is also well rounded and educated and sincere. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
26. Support I really did think he was an admin already. But he's not, and he should be. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
27. Support No worries; candidate seems eminently qualified. Miniapolis 23:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
28. Support No problems found, and I support this candidate along with the others. Good luck with the mop! --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 23:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
29. Of course Kharkiv07 (T) 23:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
30. Support Seems like a good candidate. Would like to see more content work however. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
31. Support how has he escaped adminship until now? Andrevan@ 00:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
32. Support per Epicgenius and Cwobeel. - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
33. Support A patient editor who has shown that he's able to interact appropriately in some of the most difficult situations on the wiki. Content work is a desirable plus, but is not essential in my view. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
34. Support Good with new editors and has a good history. Content creation isn't everything, and definitely isn't very important when it comes to being an admin. I do want to see Niel attempting to save articles at AfD instead of going with the flow and voting delete. Other than that, no complaints about this good candidate. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
35. Support. Up until recently I thought he was admin and I mean this in a good way. Neil has the correct temperament and attitude we want from our administers. Calidum T|C 01:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
36. Yes. The old trope about "content creation" is a red herring – not all Admins need that background: some need exactly the kind of background displayed here. --IJBall (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
37. Support Giving NeilN the mop will clearly be a net positive to Wikipedia. The user understands policy, can remain calm and has plenty of editing experience (even if article creation is lacking), all of which are good traits for admins to have. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
38. Support — Great civility with users, and they have earned my trust with the mop. Cheers. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 02:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
39. Support; one of the select few I can support from name recognition alone. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
40. Support - Basically what StringTheory11 said. They have beaten me countless times in vandal fighting and I have seen them around for long enough in a positive way to add my !vote here without any second thoughts. — Yash! ^(Y) 03:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
41. Strong Support Looking at his contributions and his edit history I think he should be a suitable admin. EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
42. Happy to support. About time! Jianhui67 ^T★C 03:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
43. Support – No concerns. NeilN has long experience on Wikipedia and good knowledge of policy. A reading of his talk page shows he is unusually patient with new editors and even with people who are quite confused. His calmness appears to be his secret weapon. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
44. Support - The user is very level headed and civil, and the answers to the questions thus far are satisfactory. Content creation, in my opinion, while helpful, certainly should not be a prerequisite for an admin position. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
45. Support The idea behind "admins should be content creators" is that we don't want people who are impatient or insensitive about complex content disputes, or who get tunnel-vision about the behavioral aspects of a problem without recognizing the context that gave rise to them. NeilN has demonstrated an abundance of patience and thoughtfulness, particularly with new users. Looks like another case of the problem I pointed out in a recent AN thread: an obviously well-qualified candidate who could have been a productive admin a long time ago. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
46. Support, but... I wish he had more content creation experience. My personal feeling is that in order for an administrator to truly understand what editors think, feel, and why they can be so emotionally invested in articles and content, that administrator needs to have been there. That said, Neil has, in my opinion, always been patient, thoughtful in responses, and wise in his comments in regard to conflict and out-of-control editors and/or vandals. Seems to be a good guy, and is worth the risk to give the mop, even in the face of a low content creation count for being here 10 years. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
47. Strong Support Someone hand this editor a mop already, NeilN is a fine editor and definitely will make productive use of the tools. The idea that an editor needs "3 FAs and dozens of GAs" before becoming an admin is not helpful here. The editor has incredible experience in the fields where his tools are meaningful and making them an admin will be a net positive to Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

    Support This user definitely would make good use of the extra tools. Don't know why he declined his last RFA. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Struck through WP:Sock's comment. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

48. Support I have seen NeilN's work and he does it very carefully and definitely adds value. The nominators have done a fine job of summing up his contributions. I too would be a little more wary about low content contribution if he did not have a long history of productive contributions and good interactions but I think he has been around long enough and done enough to get past that type of objection. A person with his knowledge, experience and patience will be a great benefit to the project as an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
49. Support Very impressed with his work, its about time he is provided the tools. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
50. Support Very surprised to find he wasn't an admin already, he's such a positive contributor to the encyclopedia. And I disagree that creating lots of your own content is a necessity to be an admin, as working with others to discuss/add content on existing articles is equally valid, which is what they seem to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
51. Support, obvious. Graham87 09:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
52. Support Assumed he already had the bit. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
53. Support Widr (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
54. Support I actually, really did think he was already an admin. I'm not kidding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
55. Support per the discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
56. Support Happy to see him with the mop! Brookie :) { - like the mist, he's here and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 10:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
57. Support Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
58. Support I'm twitchy about admins who don't have much content experience as they're always at risk of coming down like a ton of bricks on those that are (without realising), but Neil's work at AfD and the help desks, and the response to the question above, gives me confidence that he's not one of those people. (Oh, he also has more edits in article space than I do!) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
59. Support, I do not think writing new articles is the most important for an administrator, it is more important to have experience fixing other problems. Spumuq (talq) 13:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
60. Support Seen him around without any problems. As to content creation, a theatre needs playwrights, but it also needs actors, stage hands, producers, electricians, people to sell ice cream, and someone to watch the back door - otherwise who is going to see the plays? Peridon (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
61. Delighted to support based on what I've seen. Like others, I assumed he was an admin based on his extensive knowledge and "crisis management". Noms, answers to questions only help. If one of my created articles were brought to AfD, I'd be happy to have NeilN chime in, prolific content creator or not. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
62. Support I have seen him handle difficult users, new users and difficult new users all with equal facility. I trust his knowledge of policy and his willingness to engage on content. I believe he can handle whatever is thrown at him as an admin. Jbh^Talk 13:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
63. Support extensive content creation is a nice to have for an admin candidate (in my opinion). While I do appreciate the concerns brought forth by Collect and Wehwalt, they don't sway my opinion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
64. Support, don't see any major issues. Nakon 13:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
65. Support, very good candidate. Best luck! Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
66. Support I'm fairly certain that I've interacted with this editor before in controversial topic areas. However, I can't remember anything about them. This is a huge positive in my opinion, and a sign (along with all the evidence the nominators gave) that they'll be able to carry out difficult admin actions with minimum drama. Also if they one day turn out to secretly be an evil genius whose fooled us all, recall seems like it would be fairly easy. Bosstopher (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
67. Support A strong positive contributor. Will be an excellent janitor. BusterD (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
68. Support - I've seen him around and actually thought he was an admin already. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
69. Support. Maintains a calm demeanor and neutral point of view in controversial articles. I think people obsess too much over whether someone is a "content creator". If they contribute to articles, they're a content creator. A longtime editor with solid policy knowledge who will work on backlogs sounds great to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
70. What? I thought NeilN had been an administrator for a long time now. This is really quite a shock. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
71. Support No concerns here, especially since we need more people with your demeanor. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
72. Support - no concerns, net positive etc. GiantSnowman 17:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
73. Support one of the editors I thought was an admin already. I agree with everyone above on the content creation thing and am not impressed with the opposing arguments in this regard. Not everyone needs to be a content creator. And in fact, using the tools correctly has nothing to do with content creation. Rather, it has more to do with determining consensus from articles and making policy decisions, both fields in which NeilN has proved to be very skilled. BenLinus1214^talk 17:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
74. Support - Like everyone above I too thought he was already an admin!, Excellent candidate, No issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 17:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
75. Support Neil's track record speaks for itself. I don't understand the opposition based on minimal content creation -- don't we want out best content creators focusing on content creation and not using the mop? Neil has shown that he is the type of editor who should be wielding the mop. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 18:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
76. Sure, why not? - everything I've looked over looks fine. WilyD 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
77. Support We need all the admins we can get, and with no red flags here, I am sure that NeilN will be a fine mop-wielder. Rcsprinter¹²³ (intone) @ 18:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
78. Support - Another easy support vote that requires little discussion. Good luck with the mop -- please don't break the wiki. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
79. Support conceding that content creation is a little weak, the rest of his resume is excellent and more than compensates. The major items I look for are... basic competence (i.e. does he have a clue? Does he have sufficient command of policy and guidelines as well as how things work that he is unlikely to serious bleep something up?), demonstrated good will (no serious record of malicious behavior and a desire and willingness to help), and humility (is able to admit he doesn't have all the answers and is willing to ask for help... also owns his mistakes). As far as I can see he checks all the boxes. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
80. Support with confidence. Neil has a great attitude and does great work, and I'm confident in his ability to use the tools. Limited content creation does not worry me; I don't see that as negatively impacting the areas he'll be working in. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
81. Support A widely active and very able Wikipedian. (These people who bury their references in edit summaries...!): Noyster (talk), 20:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
82. Concerns about a lack of content creation are persuasive, but only if there is evidence that it manifests itself in a lack of understanding and application of core content policies. That evidence does not exist here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
83. Support- interactions have all been positive, and editing history shows good work over time. Re content creation: people contribute in different ways, there's enough else here to support this RfA. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
84. Support. My gosh, so many support votes from so many respected editors so quickly. Neil is one of my favorite editors on Wikipedia. I've had nothing but positive interaction with him. The content issue doesn't bother me a bit. He will be a worthy addition.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

    "respected editors" - isn't that subjective? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 22:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

85. Support The right attitude is _everything_, and he's got it. KrakatoaKatie 22:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
86. I'm late to the party, apparently, but wanted to go on record as supporting NeilN's request for adminship. I've seen this editor in action; he demonstrates cluefulness and good judgement, and is unafraid to wade into controversial areas. I think he'll be an excellent admin. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
87. Support Clearly knows what he's doing, lots of work in backlog areas already, no problems that I could deduce from his talk page. From this and my handful of interactions with him he seems to be very helpful and experienced and so I think he will make a good admin. I also think he understands policy well, as the nominators have noted already. Everymorning talk 23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
88. Support Per everyone else who said they thought NeilN was already an admin. Clearly we need to correct this oversight. Monty₈₄₅ 23:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
89. Support Like many others, I kind of thought they already were an admin. The low level of content creation doesn't bother me. So long as an admin has respect for users who create content they actually don't need to be creating it themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
90. Support - Just about enough content creation for me to be satisfied. Not every admin needs to be a content creator; right now, what we urgently need are more good vandal fighters and page protectors with the bit. NeilN fits that bill. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
91. Support Well-respected, long-time veteran editor. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
92. Support - I'm another one who assumed NeilN was an admin already. Supporting based on my own experiences with NeilN, research I did before posting this, and in the absence of any compelling reason to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
93. Support An asset to the community.– Gilliam (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
94. Stephen 05:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
95. Support Haven't trawled the editors' edits in detail, but I've had positive interactions with them in the past. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
96. Support. Limited content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
97. Support He has done a lot of good work on this encyclopedia so far, and there is every indication that he will continue to do so if made an administrator. Mamyles (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
98. Support I was sure he was one already. I have been impressed by his restraint in trying circumstances. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
99. Support! - I can't say enough good things about this editor and I'm delighted that he's offered his services. I'm certain he will be a prototypical administrator.- MrX 18:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
100. Support obviously. HiDrNick! 18:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
101. Support dang it I missed #100. Zad68 18:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
102. Support Me too, should've stayed online... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
103. Support. I thought he was already an admin as well. I look forward to reality meeting that expectation. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
104. Support - I've seen NeilN around, and there is no way he cannot know what he is doing. Like several of you, I was surprised that he wasn't already an admin. The work he has done is commendable, and it will only be done better with a mop. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
105. Support Very helpful friendly editor who works hard in the fields he is in, just what Wikipedia needs in an admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
106. Support - Adequate tenure, 80K edits, just under half of which are to mainspace. Clean block log (other than a couple goof ups by admins), no indications of assholery. Zero concerns here. Carrite (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
107. Support surprised he wasn't one already. Very levelheaded and civil editor. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
108. Support I even didn't notice that he isn't an Admin. --115ash^→(☏) 08:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
109. Better late than never. Support Worm^TT(talk) 11:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
110. Support No reason he shouldn't be an admin. I appreciate that he uses talk pages on contentious articles and helps out new editors. -- haminoon (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
111. Support NeilN will be a positive addition to the administrator team. The opposition (and "lack" of content work) does not diminish the user's work in other areas and I am happy to support. MJ94 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Great at doing vandal reverts in vast numbers - but little actual content work, and zero minimal article creation. The part that puts me over a neutral !vote edge is his uniform position on AfDs where he appears to be quite willing to add a "delete !vote" to easy cases, but not as willing to demur on cases where "keep" is a supportable outcome. It is easy to !vote delete, indeed, but I prefer people who will try to find the ones where a keep !vote would make a difference. Collect (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

   The number of articles he has created isn't actually zero: he wrote NetMarket last year as I mentioned in the nom, and there is one more way back from 2009. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

   I cannot claim credit for Sierra Repertory Theatre. The article history is a bit weird but an explanation can be found here: User_talk:Bsimonis#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Sierra_Repertory_Theatre. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

   I've just history-merged that page and reset the history, so it's not credited to you anymore. Graham87 09:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

   See further discussion at talkpage

   Oh noes, looks like someone has articlecountitis! --TL22 (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

   Looks like lastworditis from you when it is clear the primary reason I gave was AfD behaviour. On the actual percentage of edits (other than reverts), I would have been neutral. Vast numbers of TW edits do not, however, impress me as much as article content edits would. Collect (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

   Gosh, I get a lot of heck for opposing candidates who are !vote delete on everything at AfD, but I don't follow your thinking here. Neil has voted to keep in >80% of cases where the final outcome was keep (and has been 7-3 keep in the no consensus cases). What're you seeing? WilyD 18:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Insufficient content created. GregJackP Boomer! 16:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I have not had much interaction with him, but what little I had recently does not inspire confidence. Over at Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a new editor was inserting content, and providing the source for it in the edit summary. For some reason, a tag-team of editors objected to this sourced content, and repeatedly removed it using different pretexts. One of these tag-teaming edit warriors was NeilN, who reverted the content with an edit summary that said "Source?" [20] - despite the fact that the easily verifiable source was given at least twice before, in edit summaries. [21][22]. (to preempt the inevitable rush to his defense by the tag-team, who are predictably voting to support him here, the editor was subsequently blocked as a sock-puppet, - but that was NOT the rationale NeilN used to revert the content.) The best case scenario for such behavior is that he was using an automated tool (TW) to revert something without bothering to go over the edit history. I don't think Wikipedia needs more admins with such trigger happy fingers who are quick to undo others' work using an automated tool, without bothering to follow the content dispute. And I can think of several other scenarios that would lead him to the article just minutes after his buddies were at 2 reverts, which would reflect even worse on him. Perhaps he can try again in a few months, after such behavior is shown to be an aberration, and his use of TW is moderated.. All Rows4 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Strongest possible oppose. Do not give this man any admin powers. First off, he is obsessed with sex - File:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration OGG (wow!); File:Vaginal opening - english description.jpg (does the language matter?); File:Virgin Killer, jpg; File:Tropes vs woman.jpg; Template talk:Sexual slang; Talk:Ejaculation; Talk:Sexism; Talk:Gay. If you can bear to see more, [23]. Edits to ANI are a big red flag - he is always getting into controversy and too argumentative by half. He constantly belittles and bullies editors. Fanmail here from his talk page:

== NeilN Needs to Work on His Manners ==

Dear "NeilN"

You need to learn some manners. A person in your position ought to know how to be polite and professional under all circumstances. Perhaps Wikipedia should have a hyperlink that shows on every page which provides clear but succinct instructions about how Wikipedia works, what is required to qualify as an "editor" for Wikipedia, and how to properly address information that Wikipedia has evidently approved which is biased, one-sided, rude, sarcastic, or otherwise in appropriate. Instead of snapping at people in a rude way, you should remain professional, polite, courteous, and provide such information. Instead, you sounded like an ass who does not care what anyone thinks about him. If that is how you really feel perhaps you should not be handling these issues. Have I made myself clear? See, you didn't like that last question, did you. Just wanted to provide with an example of how you come across. Very arrogant and rude. All of this is call constructive criticism. You should invite it, embrace it, and seriously consider it before striking back like a child (sorry but I'm anticipating what I think you are prone to do).

== You enjoy the company of multiple blokes at one time! ==

That's right, mate!

You can tell a lot about an editor from the spoof accounts that are created. Neil has two - NeilN Likes Men! and NeilN should be NailN.

Neil is petty, vindictive and bullying User talk:NeilN/Archive 22#Am I dim or what?, [24], [25], [26]. He makes bad faith criticism in an unpleasant way [27], [28], [29]. He will not allow editors to source articles if that conflicts with his own POV. He will wikilawyer the hind leg off a donkey [30].

His answer to question 3 is a joke. He steamrollers through other editors' objections without addressing the substance of the argument. As for question 4, he argues that other editors are not entitled to come to a consensus which at variance with his POV [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I'm sure the candidate is worthy and will make a fine admin. But I like to see admins who have made more content, and had that content tested in the fire. How can you get in the middle of a battle which is basically over content, though it spills over into behavior, unless you've been there and know what it is like to feel strongly about language in an article that you've invested time and effort in? If you haven't been there, how can you help the situation? I want to see admins with more skin in the game.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

   Wehwalt, is it that you feel NeilN is not passionate enough unless he added the content? Look at his edits to Talk:Sexism, the talk page of a contentious article; that seems like passion to me. He keeps a level head there, sometimes acting as a mediator, while caring strongly enough about the content of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

   I don't say he doesn't care. I just say he hasn't been there and may not really "get" it. My !vote speaks for itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

   And I didn't state that you were saying he doesn't care; I asked you about passion because, in my opinion, NeilN does "get it." Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

   I don't debate my !votes. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

2. Neutral: I thought NeilN's recent conduct at Talk:Bill Green (hammer thrower) was reasonable. Directing an IP user to the appropriate process (WP:30), even after they've questioned your objectivity and suggested you have a bias, shows restraint. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
3. Neutral - Per Wehwalt and Collect. I can't oppose given that everything else looks pretty good, but I would really like to see some form of significant content addition. Having no such article is a killer for me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
4. Neutral - While I am not heavily opposed to the editor who is the subject of this RfA, I see the editor is heavily involved in the talk pages of Muhammed, Barack Obama, Sexism, and Wendy Davis (politican). IMHO that is concerning. I understand that others will disagree with me on my reasoning, of withholding a support vote, and that is fine, we can civilly disagree.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

   Request for clarification: Is your concern with how they are involved at those talk-pages (ie you feel that their contributions at the pages were a net negative), or just the fact that they have participated in the discussion? Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

5. Neutral: I want to know whether NeilN remembers all shortcuts for Wikipedia guidelines, policies and sub-sections, which we have for Wikipedia pages. We need to mention those shortcut links during discussion.Cosmic  Emperor  06:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

   Hi CosmicEmperor. If you look at my talk page posts (e.g., [45], [46]), you'll see that I regularly link to policies, guidelines, and essays. Have I memorized all of them? No (there are dozens for WP:MOS topics alone), but it's easy enough to go to a page and look them up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

   Is this vote supposed to be a joke? If so, it's not very funny. If not, I don't even have any words left.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)