Testwiki:Requests for adminship/Nousernamesleft

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

Nousernamesleft

Final (47/3/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:User - (Articles he wrote or contributed to significantly: Mathcounts , Henri Brocard , Islamic astronomy , Donegal fiddle tradition , International Mathematical Olympiad , Timeline of Mathcounts , Osana )

I ran into user:Nousernamesleft for the first time when I reviewed one of his good article nominees, and passed it. Our paths crossed several times later where my respect for his dedication and contributions to Wikipedia started to grow until I finally decided to nominate him. He has been on Wikipedia for quite some time now, but started seriously contributing several months ago. He has made over 3100 contributions, including 750 WP contributions and over a 1000 mainspace edits. He is well familiar with WP policies, and I believe can be trusted with the tools. His past records show a committed wikipedian involved with every major area of editing with no edit wars or vandalism. Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by WBOSITG: I agree totally with Auawise. This user is a great asset to Wikipedia and gaining the tools will be a major benefit to the website on the whole. I met the user when he added Mandarin Chinese to my "name in different languages" page, and have had good relations with the candidate ever since. NUL is a fantastic user and knows policies like the back of his hand. Editcountitis might stall some voters for a while, but I genuinely think he would be a brilliant administrator. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I technically only have 988 mainspace edits, but... Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 15:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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: Unfortunately, unlike most admin candidates, reverting and blocking vandals isn't my forte. I have a grand total of two reports to AIV, and though I have Twinkle and rollback, I only use them intermittently. My focus in regards to admin tasks would be deletion. I would probably dabble in speedy deletion: primarily A7, G7, and G10, but mainly I would close XFDs. I'm neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist: My view is that when there's consensus, it's my duty to follow it. If consensus is not clear, I will leave it until it is.

Another area I would like to focus on is WP:RFR, which I think might develop a backlog once the novelty of admins being able to promote users wears off, unless admins are vigilant. My criteria for users is simple: They haven't been in any "incidents" for several months, have edited long enough/have had enough experience for me to know that they have serious use of it, and have demonstrated good judgment on at least a few occasions. Actual specific numbers would always have exceptions, so I leave the specific edit counts and months on the 'pedia at my own discretion.

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

A: My mainspace contributions, as my kind nominator Auawise mentioned above, consist of my helping the writing of several GAs (three current, two candidates), and a FL candidate that looks like it will pass (currently standing at three supports including nom and zero opposes). I'm also proud of my work on the backlog at WP:AFC; edits to AFC archives have unfortunately practically buried all my other Wikipedia namespace contributions on Interiot's tool; making it difficult to evaluate my participation on other projects. I founded a WikiProject. It appears to be stagnant in terms of members, but I actively work on improving articles within its scope, as demonstrated by a glance over my GAs and GA candidates.

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: There are probably others that I can't recall now, but the one that immediately jumps to mind is an argument here with User:CBKAtTopsails. At the time, I was quite new (having become active barely two months before) and may have, regretfully, toed the WP:CIVIL line. The argument started when the mentioned user was rude to User:Lambiam, and I warned him. We then got into an argument about whether he was being uncivil or not. I threatened to take it to the the only cabal on Wikipedia, and he responded, "Do whatever you want." I decided not to do anything, since he didn't appear to be disrupting anyone further, and so I let the matter drop.

Question from Pedro

4. A few weeks ago you stated you were not interested in becoming an admin [1]. 1) What's changed? 2) Do you feel that an administrator who is not interested in being an admin is a net positive for Wikipedia? Pedro :  Chat  23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A: 1) At that time, I was largely concentrating on AFC and mainspace building and had little to no use for the admin tools. I more recently became involved with XFDs, and I thought it wouold be nice to have an extra helping hand to close them. 2) An administrator who's not interested in being an admin, if (s)he just ignores the admin tools completely and refuses to use them, is obviously not a net positive: completely ignoring a mop if it is handed to you does no good. However, If he uses the tools well, how ever non-often (for lack of a better word) it may be, it's a net positive.

General comments

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

• Links for Nousernamesleft: Template:Usercheck-short

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. the_undertow ^talk 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Per my co-nom. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Dattebayo321^Yell
4. Support could use more edits, but definitely has his heart in the right place. ~ Dreamy ^§ 22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Switcth to strong after reviewing the oppose arguments again.Support per nom Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Support for now . Oppose # 1 lacks merit for me. Will take closer look when not tied up. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   While appreciate the wisdon of wisdom's oppose, and agree that more rounded experience is hepful, actually being a creator and builder does not disqualify anyone by any means. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   And I absolutely respect and appreciate the reasoning behind your support : ) It's really just my preference, I'm partial to see editors strike a good balance between article creating/improvement and the proverbial mop. Wisdom89 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   Likewise Wisdom. Different strokes for different folks, and I hope I did not come across as rude with that. I should have mentioned by high respect for you. Editng from work isn't the best situation, but sometimes I can't resist it and get hurried. Cheers and happy editing. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 02:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

6. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support good evidence of 'pedia building. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Seen mucho good work from this one. Grutness...wha? 09:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Not an admin? Rudget. 11:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Have looked closely at this editor's contribs, and they are consistently mature and sensible. Good input at RfA: I've seen less activity in other areas, eg tagging for speedy deletion, reporting vandals etc. Suggest that you do some more new page patrolling as a footsoldier (ie not immediately using your admin tools, even when you have them) so that you can get more familiarity with areas where you have been less active up to now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Daniel (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Although there are not many mainspace edits, the editor seems to have some amount, even if small, of experience in many different areas. Timmeh! 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support per nom :). Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Will ^(talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Good answer to my question, and a very civil and honest response to my query in oppose. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Per the noms and Kim Dent-Brown. User:Dorftrottel 15:22, February 11, 2008
17. Support. Absolutely no evidence that I can found or that has been found (because it doesn't exist most likely) that this user will abuse or even misuse the admin buttons. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support - I really do not understand the opposition. EJF (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Mathcounts is on my watchlist, and it was nice to see this user improve the article and respond to suggestions quickly and appropriately. Endorse Kim's suggestion. Rigadoun (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Strong Support. Most definitely. I have seen this user around, and admire their work. Malinaccier (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Seen user around. Spencer^T♦C 22:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Strong Support I've seen this user around quite a few times when I've been recent changes patrolling, I think he will make a great admin. --Chetblong^{T C} 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Per Cas & articles. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Seems good. Plus, his username mildy amuses me. нмŵוτнτ 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Don't see a reason to oppose. MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support per EJF. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support - Meets my criteria and is unlikely to abuse the tools. This user is about where I was when I got my adminship in real terms, just I happened to have more edits. Orderinchaos 03:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support - I think he understands the responsibility involved. I don't get the feeling he'll be careless with the tools. The Transhumanist 06:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Sure thing, we always need more help at AfD! GlassCobra 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support As per nom and track is okay.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support per my standards. No major concerns raised. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Weak support on the edge of not having enough edits to meet the requirements, but the quality of his contributions are good, which will make me say weak support in this case. Razorflame (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
34. SUPPORT, the first thing I noticed was that the candidate is only 12 years old and I nearly fell out of my chair. I have just spent the past 45 minutes sifting through edit history, article contributions, discussions with other editors, etc., etc., looking for a reason to not allow a 12-year-old to be an admin. I could find none. NUL is knowledgeable of WP policies and procedures. Maintains his/her composure, and writes as an adult. Disregarding the candidates youth (which is and should be irrelevant), I give my support to NUL. Good Luck, Doogie Howser!--Sallicio^$\oplus$ 11:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Great editor, has proved that he's responsible during his many sensible edits to my userspace :-P-Phoenix-wiki 12:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support So he's twelve, huh? I'm around the same age. Oh, yes, I support! He looks like he'd do well as an admin. THE KC (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC).
37. Support Looking good to me. Gary King (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Support - Age is irrelevant. As has been amply demonstrated, there are extraordinarily mature young people and extraordinarily immature adults. If someone has demonstrated the ability to use the tools wisely and judiciously, then they should be granted them, regardless of age. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Support He may be young, but he seems to be quite active on wikipedia. He seems to have made good contributions. He seems really nice and I think he will make a good admin. I'm very impressed with his knowledge and how he writes like an adult. --Grrrlriot (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
40. Damn... I was just checking this user out as a potential Admin Coachee when I discovered that he was already up for Admin... support BTW I removed you from the Admin Coaching page.Balloonman (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
41. Support: Sure. --Bhadani (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
42. Support The only problem with giving the mop to a level-headed twelve-year-old with excellent article-building and interaction skills (like Nousernamesleft) is that people are generally a lot saner at twelve than at fourteen. Kidding, of course. Good luck, Darkspots (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
43. How can I say no? Great editor! Majorly (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
44. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Yup! Midorihana^~iidesune? 08:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

    To elaborate on my !vote, I am pretty impressed with your contribs as well as your article work. You are also civil as well. On a side note, taking the AIME at twelve! Wow. Good luck, Midorihana^~iidesune? 08:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

46. Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
47. Support--Pewwer42  Talk  20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Seems like a tremendously good editor, that's for sure. Unfortunately, most of the user's Wikipedia namespace edits seem to be project spaces. I would like to see more experience in other areas before offering support. Wisdom89 (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   "Most of the user's Wikipedia namespace edits seem to be project spaces"? I'm afraid I don't follow. Grandmasterka 22:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   Most of the user's wikipedia contributions deal with project pages and general editing. Does that clarify what I meant? Wisdom89 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   Not particularly. Every users edits are general. Can you explain a little more? Do you mean the Wikipedia: namespace? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, the Wikipedia namespace. The user's contributions are restricted to wikipedia project pages and articles for creation that are collectives of users who are dedicated to improving and editing articles dealing with a particular subject matter. That's all I'm saying. It's a good thing, don't get me wrong, but I would rather see other contributions such as WP:XfD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:ANI etc..etc..Wisdom89 (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   Well, the XFDs are individual, separate pages for each article in the case of AFD and separate pages for each day in the case of the others. AFC, on the other hand, has entire months on the same page, which should explain the fact that it buried practically all my other Wikipedia namespace contributions. I also do participate actively on AN, but only starting recently. As stated in my response to question one, AIV doesn't really interest me, and UAA is relaly unrelated to admin work, which is why I don't really participate in them. I hope that's a satisfactory answer. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry, WP:UAA is unrelated to admin work? I'm not sure how you see that. It may be unrelated to what you want to do as an admin, but I'm pretty certain it is related to "admin work"... Pedro :  Chat  23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry, I was pressed for time when I wrote that answer (I had a real life appointment) and I didn't answer carefully. I meant that it was unrelated to the admin work I was planing to do. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose- This user has a rather aggressive vandalism history, not limited to articles, but to userpages as well. I have noted that when I went through his contributions and discovered the other face-sort of- of this user. I respect you, sir, but the fact that you have little mainspace edits, and your lack of knowledge of WP policies as evident here as you have poorly grasped WP:TALK and your rights and limitations as a user WP:USER makes me question how reasonable would it be to vote for you. Also, you have been on WP -and seriously contributing- for something like 3 months, which will discredit the nominator .Please give yourself another 3 months and come back again, we will be happy to vote for you then, right now with all these issues, I feel that I must say Oppose. A man of honour (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC) — A man of honour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

   Comment I've gone through the talk page and found no vandalism warnings. Contrarily, i found no hint of trouble there. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   Your willingness to engage this user in serious discussion is admirable, but please take a look at the account's contribs. User:Dorftrottel 15:24, February 11, 2008

   Never would I try to engage this user. :). What I'm trying to say is that I think this is a baseless . . . . Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   Well, based on the contribs, I'm having a hard time assuming good faith (first RfA comment on the seventh edit), pending further explanation by the user (asked for on user talk page). User:Dorftrottel 15:34, February 11, 2008

   I think it's extraordinary that this user is being threatened with a block for being disruptive.[2] In fact, I think that it's an disgraceful abuse of power. Would we have seen the same response if this seventh edit had been in support of Nousernameleft? Somehow I doubt it. Blocks should be used to protect the encyclopedia, not to punish editors. What harm is being done to the encyclopedia by A man of honour registering a few oppose !votes, even if a few others may consider them to be unjustified? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   Well, the ABF variant of my first reaction was that this may be a sockpuppet who casts several opposes in very short time in an effort to mask their true identity, which might be revealed if they only opposed the one RfA they have actually targeted. User:Dorftrottel 17:12, February 11, 2008

   The warning I saw wasn't from you, and it didn't mention anything about anyone trying to mask their true identity. "You will be blocked if you continue for disruption, if you continue to add baseless opposes to current RFAs."[3] That's a disgrace. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

   I am outraged from all editors and sysops on my back attacking me for my opinions and threating me with a block! I have said my word, which is unlike other users', is based on facts. To avoid looking like a vandal, whom you can find plently of on Special:Newpages, I have listed my arguments:
   1. unverified POV
   2. poor understanding of policies {WP:TALK, which I refered to earlier}
   3. How about this one
   4. And so many more,I just do not have time to go through his history.
   I would appreciate it next time if I do not get a block warning for just saying what I think.
   Regards
   A man of honour (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   A man of honour, those diffs are ancient; from over a year to nine months. Those are the mistakes of a new user, and we've all made them. Can you provide proof that Nousernamesleft has not progressed since then, and become a helpful member of the community, as seems evident right now? GlassCobra 18:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   I actually gave permission for him to do that [4], even though my outdated userpage states otherwise. The informal speech is due to us knowing each other in real life. Dattebayo321^Yell —Preceding comment was added at 21:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   Please, no drama here. I'm sorry I acted poorly back in early 2007, but I'm afraid that I agree with GlassCobra's point. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

   (outdent), I found something quite interesting here, I hope some people will be wise enough to reconsider their votes. One of the above article is not actually GA, the nominator has been lying. The other 2 GA's are reviewed by-and guess who- the nominator himself (Auwise).If you ask me, I think there is something very odd going on here. One more thing, 1000 edits is actually very low compared to what might be expected from an admin, 3000 would be acceptable though. GlassCobra comments on my talk page are appreciated, as well as Malleus Fatuorm position. A man of honour (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

   ...what? The non-GA ones are clearly marked with a "GA Candidate" symbol, not a GA symbol. Auawise passing the GA was how I first met him, as clearly stated in the nomination. I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to feel Rudget is right about you. Please don't make false statements to back up your claims. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry for sounding incivil above. I'll try to WP:AGF and just assume that you weren't careful in reading the nom and mistook the GA candidate symbols for GA symbols, and didn't bother to read the part where Auawise said he first met me while reviewing my GA. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

   That's okay, I know what you meant, and you meant it good :). A man of honour (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. While I appreciate this editor's commitment to building the encyclopedia, I feel that s/he is insufficiently experienced for the admin tools at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

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.