Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nev1 2

Nev1

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (72/3/0); Scheduled to end 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Nev1 (talk · contribs) – I've been a member of Wikipedia since October 2006, have made around 30,000 edits, and contributed to several Good and Featured Articles. I'm also an active member of several Wikiprojects. I passed an RfA in 2008 and stood down from the tools in January 2010. The reason for standing again is essentially the same as it was first time round: while I don't intend to be massively active in administrative areas (and still intend to focus on articles) I think an extra pair of hands doing the odd task here and there can be of help. To answer the obvious and inevitable question "why did I relinquish the tools", it was because I wanted some time without the responsibility. As I have been an admin before, there is the uncommon opportunity to review my administrative actions: blocks, protections, and deletions (admins only I'm afraid). I'm not perfect, I wrongly blocked Endrick Shellycoat early on as an admin under the mistaken belief that the account was a sock puppet. Fortunately this was quickly righted. While I was usually cautious with the block button (this was a one off occurrence) the situation taught me that one must be conscientious at all times and not take blocking lightly.

Finally, as an admin who resigned in good standing I have the option to ask a bureaucrat to give me the tools without having to go through another RfA. However, when I was given the tools 2 years ago I had made a little over 6,000 edits; by now, I have made around 30,000. As nearly 80% of my activity has been since I first passed an RfA it would not be honest to claim an extant mandate from two years ago. So have at it. Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2010 (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: Most of my time on Wikipedia is spend dealing with content: adding information and expanding articles. I expect that as before most of my administrative actions would be blocking vandalism only accounts and disruptive IPs, with the occasional deletion or page protection as problems crop up on my watchlist; that's how it was before and it seemed to work fine. For example while I have occasionally participated in AfDs I have no intention of closing one, and I haven't done so before.

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

A: I'm still proud of the work I've done as part of the Greater Manchester Wikiproject. It's somewhat less active than it used to be, but the project's members have helped many editors become familiar with the way Wikipedia works and produces some excellent articles. I've worked on a variety of articles on a range of subjects. Different subjects require different skills, for example settlement articles require a collection of sources and different styles of writing as you have to integrate sections on history and economy into a single article. I'm not sure I could objectively say which contribution is my best as I've enjoyed working on many articles (it's easier to put the effort into something you enjoy), but I suppose it would have to be something like Maiden Castle, Dorset, which was rated as one of the better FAs around by an expert in the field (although I hasten to add the sample size was only 22 out of nearly 3,000 FAs); to have confirmation that something I've worked on is of a good standard is great (although I need to go back and spruce up the prose). This comment was also a reminder that what we're writing has the potential to generate interest in a subject. If someone is more interested in something because of an article I helped write, I'd be very happy. If you want to know more about the articles I contribute to, just check out my user page.

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: If you've edited Wikipedia for nearly four years and not felt even mildly stressed at one time or another you're either very lucky (do yourself a favour and go and buy a lottery ticket) or a saint. At such moments, it's important to remember that we're all here to build the encyclopaedia. With new users, I try to bear in mind that I was pretty clueless when I started and to help people get used to Wikipedia. Here's a recent example where I was explaining to an experienced editor why it can be useful to retain dead links. No one is expected to know everything, so it's important to be patient. Sometimes it's best to walk away from a situation and come back later.

Question from Suomi Finland 2009

4. On DYK, there's a proposed hook about the Seal of the FBI along with a picture of the seal. The FBI wrote to Wikipedia asking them to take it down. Wikipedia refused. Now there is a proposed hook, which is on the main page. Some say that WP has the right to post the picture and will assert that right to the maximum, including putting it on the main page. Some say that WP should not be that assertive and put the seal on the main page. Still others probably think the seal should be removed from WP entirely. What would you decide for the DYK hook? Ask that the hook not be on the main page or something else? Jimbo Wales' talk page has some discussion.

A. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way the hook is phrased (... that the Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation represents the courage, valour, strength, cleanliness, truth, high moral standards and high level of motivation expected of FBI agents?), but the timing of the nomination is awful. Including the image as part of the hook would be out of the question. Wikipedia and its editors should not respond to reasonable requests by what is tantamount to taunting. Until Mike Godwin resolves this situation, it's probably not a good idea to stick the visual equivalent of "fuck you FBI" on the front page. Leaving the hook off altogether might not be a bad idea. While the hook reads ok, I doubt the FBI would be happy about the Wikipedia article, complete with the seal, having increased publicity. The FBI article gets thousands of views everyday, so I'm guessing featuring the seal article on DYK wouldn't cause more than a 20% increase in traffic for the month. It's not a huge amount, but the psychological side of it (what could appear to some as deliberate provocation) cannot be avoided. I think it's a good idea to play it safe and not feature the hook at all. I don't think it compromises rights, it would be a mature approach and demonstrate that Wikipedia is mindful of its responsibilities.

5. What should admins do, if anything, for problematic users that seem to regularly fight with others but at a somewhat low intensity. I came across such user recently but please do not drag out this specific user as I do not want to embarrass anyone. Instead, answer in the hypothetical. Would you just keep a shit list and block them for some other reason? Or counsel them? Or do nothing? Or something else? One admin told me (paraphrasing) not to feel bad because they had problems with that user being abrasive.

A. It's a tricky question, and there's no easy answer. With two otherwise constructive editors clashing swords, it's preferable to counsel each so that neither is lost. It partly depends on the basis of the dispute. If it's content based, it can get messy. You can appeal for the two to avoid each other, but if their areas of interest overlap any agreement reached that way is probably not going to last. If the dispute is a conflict of personalities with disruption solely on talk pages it's a slightly easier issue to resolve and asking them to steer clear of each other might have some success (or an interaction ban in persistent cases). If the behaviour continues, I'd recommend taking the issue to RfC/U, although I don't have a lot of experience in that area. I don't like the concept of having a black mark against your name each time you disagree with someone, but if there's a long-term pattern it needs to be dealt with. RfCs are time consuming and generally undesirable as they can lead to one side feeling persecuted. If one party adopts a siege mentality, the RfC is not going to be useful so tone and approach is important. After that... well that's as far as my experience takes me. I'm reluctant to use the block button except on vandalism and obviously disruptive accounts, so it would be last resort.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Nev1
• Requests for adminship/Nev1 2

• Links for Nev1: Nev1 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Nev1 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support Nev1 is a fantastic editor, and imo should never have resigned. Though I think he ought to have gone the painless way, so be it. Welcome back! Aiken ♫ 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Good candidate. I do not see any reason not to trust Nev1. --Leyo 16:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Strong Support Have seen nothing but positives from you, you should have never resigned.JDONT (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
4. NW (Talk) 16:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Support per Aiken drum, with the caveat that I regard this RfA as unnecessary, and a testament to Nev1's good faith. TFOWR 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
7. – B.hotep •talk• 16:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Jmlk17 16:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Very Strong Support A superb editor who upholds the highest standards of Wikipedia. Always helpful, gives wise advice, and despite all tribulations always seems to maintain a calm temperament. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Strong support. New RfA wasn't needed, but going for it shows the candidate's humility and strong ethics. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Strong support. We need more admins, this user already was and left with good standing, this RfA is totally useless and someone needs to just give him the tools already (although in terms of acts of good faith this is pretty up there). ResMar 17:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Echoing everything said above. Connormah^talk 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Support - Easy call, let's hand the mop back. Jusdafax 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Support. I see no reasons not to. And, for what it's worth, I commend you for choosing to run for adminship again to get the tools back! Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 17:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Support - I applaud the integrity of running again given the substantial change in situation, but in this case my opinion has only improved further since the initial RfA. Nev1 is very much welcome to his admin tools back, he was a good candidate the first time and is an excellent one now. ~ mazca ^talk 17:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Strong support – Given that this user could have just requested his adminship tools, but instead runs for adminship, this user shows that he is (still) trustworthy with the tools. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Support -- a user with the integrity to choose this route has my respect. Give 'em the tools. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
20. I don't see any concerns with this editor's previous handling of admin tools, so I don't see any reason to oppose giving them back. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Strong support User stepped down in good standing previously, and edits since last RfA don't seem problematic at all. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Support Trustworthy editor. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
23. support --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support former administrator who passed the first time with flying colors (90/4/6); absolutely no reason to oppose handing back the mop--Hokeman (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - looks good. Airplaneman ✈ 18:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Support - one of the most level-headed editors around here, and one of the few whose RFA I'd ever support. Parrot of Doom 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Great editor, can't see any problems, checked deletion log from when was admin previously and those I checked looked fine. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
28. Support - No reason to oppose. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
30.  – iridescent 18:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Very Strong Support - Of course - and welcome back.--Kudpung (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Support Nev1 has already demonstrated his trustworthiness and suitability for the role. Rje (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
34. Tempted to oppose because this process is unnecessary, but going to support because it's a no-brainer that Nev1 should have the tools back. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
35. Support. A productive content editor, who I've always found to be calm & helpful. Will be even more of an asset to the project with the tools again. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
36. Support per his own nom. I don't think you needed another RfA; you're sensible enough to figure out the new stuff yourself :) —fetch·comms 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
37. Support Given all the discussion about admin numbers falling, glad to see one returning. Codf1977 (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
38. Support - ownership and acceptance of errors is always good to see. Also a very experienced editor. Congrats and welcome back to adminship......oh dear...WP:CRYSTAL. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
39. Support - I don't see why you need to go through a RFA, you could just ask a bureaucrat to give you back adminship. You did resign in good standing, and you are still in good standing today. Techman224^Talk 19:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
40. Appreciate the "reconfirmation". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
41. +1 --Dweller (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
42. Support- yeah, this renomination is probably unnecessary. Definitely should have the tools back. Reyk _YO! 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
43. Courcelles 19:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
44. Strong support early closure since this RFA isn't really necessary. It's obvious the community wants Nev1 to regain the tools. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 19:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
45. Support - Modernist (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
46. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
47. Obviously, as well. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
48. Hooray Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
49. Strong support already proven trustworthy. Triona (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
50. Support I don't know why he wants to do it the hard way, but I see no reason to oppose.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
51. Support per NerdyScienceDude. ••Pepper•• 20:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
52. Secret ^account 21:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
53. Support About bloody time :) Graham Colm (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
54. Support Oldelpaso (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
55. Support per all of the above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
56. It's refreshing for an admin to treat the bit with respect, rather than as an entitlement after a poll once upon a time. And as said above, from what I've seen you were an excellent admin anyway. --WFC-- 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
57. Support Do we even need to have an RfA? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
58. Support I have a lot of respect for the fact that you chose the RfA route rather than just asking a 'crat for the bit back, as would have been your right. You should be given the bit right now! (puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
59. Support ...... wiooiw (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
60. Support. Tiderolls 23:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
61. Support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
62. This fellow has done nothing the least bit deplorable as an administrator, and is one of those contributors who serve as a reminder that there are still very decent and caring people out there on Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
63. Support - The tools were relinquished in good standing, and used responsibly when they were held. Nothing has occurred between now and the time the tools were given up that give me concern in returning them. I gladly support. -- Atama頭 00:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
64. Support - No brainer. Maybe reelection is the system we need, more than recall or other bureaucratic methods. Shadowjams (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
65. Support --Tenmei (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
66. Support I simply cannot oppose. I've had a few bad run-ins with Nev1 in the past but I have to say that Nev (I can call you that, right?) is just an "ideal editor" so to speak. I'd have to say that he's here for the right reasons and really cannot think of anyone who is not an admin right now that should get the tools more than him.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
67. Support, but ask that Nev1 either promise us or promise himself not to act in a fashion unbecoming of an admin like mentioned in John's oppose (oppose #1). Such diff is a bit less than 4 months ago. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
68. Support I think redemption is in order here. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
69. Support Looks fantastic. 2 says you, says two 00:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
70. Strong support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
71. It's a sad day when dedicated volunteers are admonished for employing additional care and honesty. 69.121.245.182 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    Indented !vote of IP address. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 02:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    And unindented. I feel I've had quite enough experience at RfA to know when I'm allowed to vote (hint). 69.121.245.182 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

72. Support I've had one run-in with Nev1 on a piece. But overall I'm impressed with his presentation here. So support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not happy (on several levels) with edits like this. Sorry to spoil the party. --John (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   Without wishing to badger, it seems that you are demanding perfection here. No candidate is picture perfect (I'm sure he regrets that), and I don't why you oppose a candidate that would be a net benefit with the tools back because of one fault. Connormah^talk 23:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

   I think it would be a travesty if returning administrators are opposed for having used the word "shit", when sitting administrators are routinely allowed to call other editors "twats" with not an eyebrow being raised.[1] A travesty but not a surprise. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   Agree. Admins aren't perfect. I've even seen them use "fuck". ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 02:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose This RFA is process for the sake of process, where none was necessary. The existence of this RFA indicates suspect judgment. Townlake (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   As does, arguably, the existence of this oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   So you enjoy process for the sake of process? I wouldn't have guessed that, but more power to you. Townlake (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   This RfA isn't about me, and neither is it about your pet prejudices. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   It's about you, and me, and so much more. The great thing about this RFA is we both get to cast votes, and so does everyone else. Townlake (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   Townlake, you have a fan. Haha. --A3RO (mailbox) 02:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose ...'cause. --A3RO (mailbox) 00:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   Can you elaborate please? Connormah^talk 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

   Um, no. Why would you want me to? It's pointless, I just voted no so I could be an attention whore for a bit. Thanks ;) --A3RO (mailbox) 02:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Novel concept, I know - but, re. the opposes... as I understand things;

• MF removed an edit, with an edit-sumary of " Please stop taking the piss Peejay; "club" is singular. Period. Just look at the opening sentence of this article."[2]
• Bjmullan complained to MF about the language
• Nev1 wrote "Bullshit."[3]
• Bjmullan wrote @ Nev1 "I see that you have a issue with Civility as well. Being nice costs nothing. Try it sometime." ^Ibid.
• Nev replied, "Save your preaching for someone who gives a shit."^Ibid.
• The discussion continued on Nev1's talk - in which, wrt the comment Being nice costs nothing. Try it sometime. I hope you also have a nice day" Nev1 stated he thought it was sarcastic.^here
• Most importantly, Nev1 explained and apologised; it probably exacerbated things and I should have kept my mouth shut.^Ibid.
• Nev1 also wrote that Sometimes things get heated, but in the end we're here to build an encyclopaedia; it'll be forgotten by tomorrow. I don't know the ins and outs of the situation, but I still think you're a good editor with plenty to offer Wikipedia. People can't agree on everything all the time. (my bold emphasis)^Ibid.

If that is the 'worst' that can be found, I'm inclined to support...whilst I agree that the specific diff is not ideal, I respect the candidates apology and clarification. But I welcome discussion and input, from the candidate, and other parties.

Note, if I have made errors in my reporting of this, please feel free to correct them.  Chzz  ►  01:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, we're not getting picture perfect candidates here. We all make mistakes. The candidate recognized the mistake and apologized - we don't need to opposed based on one recognized fault and demand perfection - we're just not perfect. Connormah^talk 01:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely agree; and I only posted that 'coz this is a discussion.  Chzz  ►  02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)