Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nick Moyes

Nick Moyes

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (1/0/0); Scheduled to end 21:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

Nick Moyes (talk · contribs) – If you're not familiar with the work of Nick Moyes, it is my great pleasure to introduce him to you. I first looked into Nick sometime about a year ago, and everything I saw was and has been stellar. He's got a lot of experience at AIV and UAA alongside a killer AfD percentage, but I'd like to talk more about how incredibly thoughtful Nick is. Whether it's excellent and well informed arguments at AfD or extensive help at the teahouse, he's got a good sense for the values that are important and a kind, level head that I always appreciate hearing from. You can see the signs at his ORCP from nearly two years ago - this is a long time coming.

Nick always makes an effort to explain himself at AfD, and does well and with clear understanding of policies and what makes this project good. This is one of the first I noticed, but there are plenty recent examples that show considered attention to the important and relevant factors and policies at AfD. He's honest and transparent, and, my word, is he just excellent with new folks. Nick is a prolific Teahouse contributor, and his ORCP responses cited his great work there. I've got a few favorite examples (1, 2, 3) of superb help for folks that went above-and-beyond the necessary, but what's rare for many is the norm for Nick; this is his typical behavior and it's exactly what we want in a sysop. He's a kind and thoughtful editor who has the right values and commitment with a wealth of experience; he'd be a huge help with the sysop tools on day one, so I hope you'll join me in supporting this request. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination

It's been a long time coming, but good administrator candidates wait until they're absolutely ready, and so it is with Nick. I originally approached him two years ago when I suggested his useful comments and polite demeanour meant he should give RfA a go. His AfD track record is one of the best I have seen in any candidate here - out of over 250 debates, he matched consensus more than 90% of the time (well over, if discounting "no consensus" closes, and what's left over is largely "noise" like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone 11), and that's with a significant chunk of "keep" !votes such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Goold. He is capable of writing a significant amount of content, such as the GA Mont Blanc massif, creating Émile Rey from scratch, and graciously helping out at Coropuna, where he politely but regrettably opposed its promotion to FA. He's one of the most prolific contributors to the Teahouse, and regularly helps out there - no less an authority than Cullen328 is happy to trust his judgement; what better endorsement of his polite and helpful treatment to newbies could one ask for? Many of you will have seen him on project and policy pages, helpfully giving his opinion and frequently making insightful comments. He's also not afraid to criticise our existing policies and help pages where appropriate and suggest alternatives, such as User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. In short, Nick has all the attributes we want in an administrator - a strong understanding of policy, a civil and polite attitude, and an ability to diffuse difficult situations and keep the project moving forward. He has my full support for RfA and I hope you agree. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I first came across Nick, as many others do, giving advice to newbies at the teahouse. I cannot recall the precise instance (he has made over 2500 edits there) but I do remember being impressed with the patience and policy knowledge he demonstrated. After investigating his background, I found he also has a stellar record at AfD, where he could make good use of the tools. He has also done some solid content work, with a majority of his contributions being to mainspace, and while he largely avoid the drama boards, on the few occasions he has ventured there it is to make a thoughtful and perceptive comment. I suggested he request a mop some five months ago, and I'm glad he's decided to take the plunge. I hope you will join me in supporting his request. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and, as my userpage COI declaration states, yes, I realise with hindsight that I did do paid editing when I started back in 2010. I was a professional museum curator and, purely on my own volition, I chose to create content about topics I had expertise and resources on (e.g. Matlockite). I was at the end of my museum career, and the start of my Wikipedia one. I admit I had no idea in those early days that editing without a clear declaration was against policy; my apologies for that. I left the museum profession in March 2011. More recently, I have accepted small fees for lecturing on Wikipedia, or expenses for helping to run Editathons, but I would never take any form of payment for editing which could conceivably be construed as a conflict of interest. In 2017 I created an alternative account (User:NM Demo) in order to test and create screenshots as a teaching resource, or for Commons.

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 am currently most active helping new users at the Teahouse and monitoring Special:RecentChanges for bad faith edits. At the former I would find it useful to be able to view deleted content in order to help editors understand why their work has been removed, or to take further action if necessary. In anti-vandalism, being able to directly block vandals (after relevant warnings), responding to reports at WP:AIV or WP:UAA would be helpful. I would learn how to revdel personal content that inexperienced users have unwittingly posted about themselves (prior to requesting a follow-up by oversight), or other edits that are grossly offensive or which breach copyright (per WP:CRD), as not every admin I’ve sought help from has been familiar with the process.

As my experience/confidence grows as an admin, I would look to develop skills in other areas. I would probably monitor some of the simpler sections at CAT:ADMINBACKLOG, and continue watching and learning at WP:ANI and at WP:AN for areas I could contribute to, and would continue some involvement at WP:AFD. Longer term, I’m aware that copyright and DYK needs more admin input and, further still, I find SPI/checkuser work of potential interest, but know nothing about it right now. I would, of course, seek to fully understand any new process before contributing, and would follow guidance and seek help, as appropriate. As I see it, the purpose of using relevant parts of the toolset is to both protect the encyclopaedia and to support and encourage editors in their efforts to create good content that everyone can access.

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

A: I have tried to contribute across a broad spectrum of Wikipedia activities, so as to learn as much as I can. In 2011 I was proud of making Derby Museum and Art Gallery the first UK provincial museum to introduce QRpedia codes to a public gallery (with honourable mentions by both Jimbo Wales (link) and Wittylama). See my user page for relevant videos.

In 2016 I took this simple list of alpine summits and turned it into a GA status article about the Mont Blanc massif. It was a labour of love, and I also created the map graphics. Doing so taught me a lot, and also enabled me to intellectually revisit many of the range's glaciers and major summits that I had scaled over a mountaineering career spanning thirty years. (I will be taking the article back for FA review later this year.)

I have been proud for the last two years to be able to contribute as one of the helpful, friendly and supportive faces of Wikipedia at the Teahouse, and have also adopted two excellent, committed new editors under WP:AAU. One was a schoolgirl; the other is a retired geology professor. I do my best to support, protect and encourage young editors, sometimes requiring a few firm words. I find it sad when some go too far and end up blocked, so I do try my best to advise and steer where I can. Guiding and helping others to learn is something I find hugely satisfying, and in that way am proud to do my bit to encourage the next generation of Wikipedia editors and potential administrators. Without them our project will stagnate. 

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 try to be a calm, supportive editor, assuming WP:AGF. I have little interest in editing on politics/living people/sports/popular culture (preferring the sciences or geography), so my own content creation rarely gets me into conflict. But one can hardly avoid minor conflicts or exasperation when doing administrative chores, such as preventing vandalism, removing POV editing, or trying to be fair but firm to new editors who fail to understand what they're doing is not OK (example thread).

I have only been really stressed once in my ten years here, but that was because I was the one to make a serious error of judgement by wrongly (and repeatedly) accusing another editor of adding copyrighted content whilst I was otherwise helping them at the Teahouse. A second experienced editor supported my accusation. So, I was mortified when a third editor pointed out they were innocent on that matter. After checking and realising my mistake, I made strenuous efforts, both at the Teahouse see full thread and on their talk page to directly apologise. It’s irrelevant that the editor was blocked as a sock soon after; I was in the wrong, and I could not rest until I had tried to make amends for my mistake. It was a valuable lesson in AGF, and I have tried to be extra careful since then. But when I make mistakes I will always say sorry.

Of the very few conflicts I encounter, most if not all result through monitoring Special:RecentChanges and reverting vandalism or bad edits. In March 2018 I came close to an edit war with an IP editor over their repeated removal of all content, bar one short sentence, about the ship, Naeraberg. Initially it seemed like blanking or vandalism, and both times I reverted, leaving templated warnings with additional explanatory comments, but soon realised the IP was asserting the article had conflated information on two ships of identical name, and thus it had become a complex content dispute. I deleted my warnings and reinstated the blanked content with a clear edit summary and started investigating. I then explained my concerns directly on the IP editor's talk page (diff), outlining my concern about edit warring; the need to discuss, plus my intent to reinstate the content one final time to permit talk page discussion about it. Having posted my concerns on the article's Talk Page (diff), I added back the blanked content once more, plus a 'disputed' template template. I also pinged an editor and contacted an admin (diff) both of whom previously worked on the article, explaining to the admin my concerns about 3RR. Next day, the IP blanked content again, thus breaching WP:3RR. As I would have too, I backed off, leaving this dummy edit, and relied on subsequent article talk page discussion to resolve the matter, which it eventually did with the involvement of more knowledgeable editors.

I have, of course, had the odd foul-mouthed abuse (dealt with in this thread), and implied threats (now revdeled), but these are easily handled by remaining calm and polite, waiting a while before replying, and following procedure. As for the future, I hope my attitudes to others won’t change. I have signed up to WP:OFWV and I will apologise whenever I foul up. I'm prepared to call out another editor if I see our standards slipping, and I hope others will treat me likewise.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from LindsayH

4. As you are so active at the Teahouse (a place i confess i'm not sure i've ever visited), i hope you have an opinion: What is the best thing we can do to encourage new editors to stay and be active? I'm wondering about either "we" the community or each of us as individuals. Thank you.

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support - per noms, by people I know and trust. I'm not intimately familiar with the candidate, but I've seen them around the place and never known any issues. And what's described in the noms sounds great to me, assuming there are no skeletons in the cupboard...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)