Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neelix

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (talk | contribs) at 08:45, 25 February 2011 (→Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Neelix

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (15/4/2); Scheduled to end 18:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Neelix (talk · contribs) – I have been editing since March of 2006. I am the 39th editor by article count and the 110th editor by edit count. I have made more than 100,000 edits, more than 90,000 of which are live edits to articles. I have created over 4000 articles and uploaded over 800 images. For the past few years, I have not seen the need for me to become an administrator because there is so much work that needs to be done that does not require administrator tools. Nonetheless, the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves has been an impediment to the general development of the project for some time now, so I am requesting adminship so that I can help lighten the load of administrators currently working on that backlog. Neelix (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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: My primary concern is to deal with the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I would also like to be able to move articles over redirects with page histories so that I don't have to bring uncontroversial moves to 'Requested moves' each time.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I translated the Carabane article from the French Wikipedia into English and was then successful in causing it to achieve featured status. Nonetheless, the majority of my work on Wikipedia is organizational, so I consider the best of my work to be the creation of a large number of well-needed disambiguation pages over the years.
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 was blocked for a few hours a while ago because an administrator believed that my account had been compromised. I had created a significant number of redirects to an article that dealt with profanity. The redirects were profanity themselves, which I believed to be appropriate considering that they were redirecting to an article about profanity. While I still believe that they were valid redirects, they were deleted. I was unblocked as soon as other editors realized that my account had not been compromised. I did not attempt to recreate the redirects because community concensus appeared to be against their recreation. I also recall dealing with a stressful situation last year outside of Wikipedia and I was therefore insufficiently curtious in my relations with another editor on Wikipedia. When another editor informed me that I was not being considerate, I apologized and took a break from editing for a few days. If I encounter stressful situations outside Wikipedia in the future, I will likely do the same, but as a preventative measure.
Questions from FASTILY
4. Would you ever take it upon yourself to, without any warning whatsoever, indefinitely block a registered user?
A:
5. During your duties as a sysop, you come across an article about an upcoming film. You note that someone has uploaded a screenshot from that upcoming film and that it is quite obvious that this image has never been published elsewhere. What is your course of action? Note that I'm not looking for a specific answer (e.g. this file violates such and such policy), but rather how you yourself would deal with this hypothetical situation.
A:
Additional optional question from Highspeedrailguy
6. If you were repeatedly attacked by another admin, what would you do?
A:
Note to candidate: this user account was created today. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Armbrust
7. Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose.
A:
8. Should Foo (disambiguation) be moved to Foo if Foo is redlink or a redirect to the dab page? And if moved should the dab page be deleted?
A:
9. If there was one thing you could change about Wikipedia (a new policy, or a new guideline, or something else entirely, for instance), what would it be, and why?
A:
10. How likely would you be to close AfD discussions, if at all?
A:
11. Do you think this question is really optional? Why?
A:
Additional optional question from NuclearWarfare
12. Why the hell have 8 (well, 9 now) questions have been asked three hours into the nomination?
A:
Additional question from Keepscases
13. As an administrator, would you be interested in being involved with others' future RfAs? Why or why not?
A:


General comments

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

Discussion

Eleven questions already? The RfA's only been open for about 30 minutes. —Soap— 20:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, I came here and was like, "Why isn't the candidate answering questions?" Then I saw the tiestamp. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number and rapidity of the questions, you could, if you like, just pick one question to answer from each questioner, and we'll see if the voters are sympathetic ... I expect they will be. - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support I offer you my support. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Very good article contributions! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Impressed by contribs. Baseball Watcher 21:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to neutral because of what Fastily is saying. Baseball Watcher 23:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support long term editor with even more edits than me. There is a block from ten months ago, but due to the subsequent unblock I'm more than happy to disregard it and treat it as a clean blocklog. Deleted edits look OK to me, though one very minor point, I'd prefer edit summaries that say whether you are prodding or using a particular CSD tag instead of just "suggested deletion". There is some concern in the oppose section about diversity of editing, if other editors share those concerns may I suggest they look at the editors contributions to the FAC for Neelix's FA. This is an editor with a proven record of doing good stuff in multiple areas, and who is clueful and civil. The proportion of edits doesn't bother me when compared to their diversity and breadth - Neelix has done humongous amount of certain things and perfectly adequate amounts of others. ϢereSpielChequers 00:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Checks of a month of user and article talk reveal competent communication skills. Other contributions reveal a strong grasp of policy. In regards to the opposes as of this vote, I think it's important to frame the candidate's namespace spread in terms of the type of editing they do. Neelix appears to be a classic gnome. When one spends one's time fixing disambiguation pages and making other uncontroversial but critical fixes to standardize the 'pedia, 1 or 2 edits in one hundred being direct communication is perfectly reasonable. I am more concerned with the quality of that communication than with the amount (which even at 1% of the candidate's contributions is a reasonable number for a candidate with a more "normal" edit count). When the editor is challenged on a move, they respond appropriately and are able to explain their reasoning clearly. Regarding concerns about the lack of projectspace edits, to me this indicates a focused editor. Not everyone is interested in whack-a-mole, and there's no reason to deny useful tools to an editor who isn't. Clearly the candidate is able to learn policy well and I have no doubt that should they decide to become active in deletion or vandal fighting that they will easily master that policy as well. This is Wikipedia, not a sickbay. :) --Danger (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Having 13 questions already? Sheesh, auto-support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mainly per WSC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Good communication skills, definitely has a clue, knows what the project is all about and trustworthy. He wants to work in requested moves which is pretty straightforward. He has experience with deletion discussions. This is a guaranteed net positive. Pichpich (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - More than enough experience in the proposed work areas to use the tools with a minimum of mistakes. No reason to believe candidate will deliberately misuse tools. Candidate's work will clearly benefit from tools. Candidate seems open to constructive criticism and review of their use of the tools. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Some amazing edits. Some good article creations. Talk page interactions seem well too. – Novice7 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Long term editor, definitely will not delete the main page and would benefit from the tools. Edit counts or percentages aren't very relevant with someone who has this much experience. Royalbroil 05:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "How is this user not already an admin?" support Comments made thus far by those opposing do not convince me that it would not be a strong net positive for this candidate not to have the mop. Good luck! Strikerforce (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I disagree with Royalbroil's second sentence to a certain extent. Nonetheless, everything is exactly as has been been stated in the nomination statement and opening questions. Wikispace contributions were a cause for concern (not in terms of the overall number, but frequency: a lot of them were years ago). I looked deeper, and the quality of AfD participation is very high on the whole. As an example, this user clearly has an interest in The Bill, but if you check out his Bill-related AfD participation, it's even-handed, and his arguments grounded in policy and sitewide practise. In summary, I trust him to primarily work on moves (for which he is clearly qualified), and I am not concerned should he decide to expand into other areas. In response to the three current opposes (two of which go much further than editcountitis and should therefore be respected), deletion is far and away the biggest deal of all, because it's the area you can get away with murder in. Neelix has proven himself to be trusted to delete/not delete things as appropriate. —WFC— 07:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I would oppose if there is a mistake this editor has made, but when there are lack of edits in the Wikipedia and talk space, this isn't the case. Other important thing is, the editor likes to start slowly (i.e. on one area) which is a good start for an administrator. I'm pleased that the expected outcome of this area would be a lot of "Thank you" based comments. These are the several reasons why I support this candidate. Minimac (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. All things considered, I think you'll be fine. Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Simply awesome work done for Wikipedia. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 08:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Concerns with breadth of exposure. While your article contributions are certainly sound, I am concerned by your low number and lack of frequent edits in the Wikipedia and User talk namespaces. With regards to your Wikipedia namespace contributions, I would like to see work outside of AfD. I've taken into account that you only wish to work in moves, but IMO, it is necessary that admin candidates be well-rounded, with some degree of experience in most fields pertaining to administrators (e.g. XfD, AIV, ANI, RFPP, CSD). The sysop toolset comes as a complete package, and campaign promises to remain within a certain discipline can quickly drift off into the sidelines when one is presented with the entire toolset. With regards to your edits in the User talk namespace, I feel that the number of edits you make to the mainspace is largely disproportionate to the number of edits you make in the user talk namespace. The ability of an sysop to communicate on a frequent basis is essential and I'm not seeing nearly as much activity from you here as I would like to see. Alas, I feel you're on the right track to adminship, but are not yet ready. Sorry. Sincerely, FASTILY (TALK) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Over 100,000 edits ... and less than 1,000 of them to the project or projectalk namespaces? I'm open to being convinced that this is not necessary, but it's rather worrying. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1000 is significant but the proportion is not relevant. The experience you get by participating in AfDs is not suddenly annihilated when you do other stuff. Plenty of admins have passed RfA with 1000 edits in the project space. There are often complaints that the admin corps is too bureaucratic and detached from the experience of content contributors (as RfA observers well know). Here we have a candidate whose astounding volume of content contributions is a concern. I think this makes no sense. That vast editing experience is worth more than 100 AIV reports. For example, admins who delete CSD pages need to know the rules but they're not complex rules that take years to master. The most delicate task is to deal with editors whose page has just been deleted and if you've created 4000 articles yourself, you have a better sense of how the editor feels. Pichpich (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but certainly it would help to see daily examples of this. Could you point out some recent diffs where the candidate discussed a CSD nominatio with a new user, perhaps? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Largely per Fastily. Although the number of your contributions is impressive, I am concerned you do not have enough evident experience in AIV, ANI, RFPP, CSD etc. or in counter vandalism work. Whilst I appreciate you want to work in a specific area, I too feel the admin bit is a complete toolset. I generally do not support admin candidates that do not have experience in counter vandal work—per my criteria. Pol430 talk to me 23:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Concerns about Editcountitis (evidenced by their self-nom statement and userboxes), lack of WP namespace experience in terms of both proportion and overall number: less than 0.75% of overall edits, less than 1,000 edits, not seeing the required experience. Swarm X 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutal I am impressed with your contribs but I also noticed of the lack of edits in the Wikipedia and User talk namespaces. In this case I agree with what Fastily is saying and this why I am here in neutral. Good luck! Baseball Watcher 23:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral A trustworthy, prolific user who wants access to the tools for very limited and clearly articulated purposes. The only hesitation that I have here is lack of edits in Wikipedia and User talk namespaces; and a general lack of experience in the traditional admin. areas (e.g. vandal fighting).--Hokeman (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Neelix&oldid=415834597"