Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naleksuh

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

4/5/0 - Request withdrawn. Thank you all for the feedback! After some discussion with my nominator, I will be withdrawing this request. During the first few hours of it being up, I received nearly unanimous support. However, a concern was raised about an alternate account of mine which was not disclosed in the nomination statement. While I had chosen to not disclose it in order to protect privacy and leave the past behind me, I do not believe that it was appropriate to do so in an RfA. While many people I talked to do consider the concerns to be moot, the community should at least be given the option to review them, and offer an apology to those who were unaware of the concerns while voting. (especially when it can come off as lying/deceptive). Multiple users have recommended me to re-quest in some months from now, fully disclosing all accounts. I want to thank everyone who supported my RfA, and apologize to users who had doubts. I hope to continue improving the encyclopedia despite the outcome as I have been, work collaboratively with other editors, and see everyone here some day in the future :). Naleksuh (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Naleksuh

Naleksuh (talk · contribs · count)

RfA of Naleksuh
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
This RfA is currently fully protected. Please do not edit it, sysop or otherwise, until the protection is removed.
Last comment by: DannyS712.

End date: 00:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Today I would like to bring Naleksuh to the attention of the community for adminship. He has been doing great work in fighting vandals and LTAs over a period of nearly six months. I often see Naleksuh reverting a vandal while waiting for an admin to come online. He has even started a private wiki group that is used by many members of this community to help document and fight long-term abusers. He is also very active on the simplewiki IRC and could monitor queries there. I also see him cleaning up new articles and creating useful redirects frequently; around 80% of his edits are to the mainspace, meaning he clearly has experience with simple writing and how articles should look. He is very knowledgeable in both how to identify LTAs and our policies and guidelines. We are in need of more admins here, and I think Naleksuh will be an asset to the admin team, and I hope the community agrees with me too. Regards, IWI (chat) 00:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: Nomination accepted :) I am honored to be nominated by Improv. I open myself to questions (either hypothetically, or about past actions) in the Comments. Thanks for the opportunity! Naleksuh (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

Support as nominator. IWI (chat) 00:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• changing my !vote IWI (chat) 15:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Support I don't see why not --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Support -- strong work; one of the good guys. Antandrus (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   Support I've seen him smash those vandals in a heartbeat, helping do tasks that may be difficult to do by hand. Naleksuh and thegooduser would be great addition to the admins at times when we'd all say "hey vandal, this is your last warning!" yet we can't do much about it but flag, when there are not many admins around, so considering their skillset and experience, would make great addtl admins. — Infogapp1 (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   • In light of new information, I would like to retract my current vote and will consider voting once more information becomes available. --Infogapp1 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   Support sure. Majavah (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   Striking, will need to think a bit more due to concerns related to the clean start. Majavah (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   Support I believe Naleksuh can do well. -- 매운 (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   Note: The above user's first edit took place after this RfA begun, and thus their vote cannot count, per the rules. IWI (chat) 04:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

3. Support — Gomdoli (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   {strongly support}} I don’t understand why IWI stabbed Naleksuh in the back like that, but I believe that Naleksuh is a great editor and a great vandal fighter. They would definitely make a good admin, and I support them wholeheartedly. --sithjarjar666 ^{(my contribs | talk to me | see my enwiki profile)} 16:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

4. Weak support In light of Naleksuh’s recent abuse of multiple accounts. --sithjarjar666 ^{(my contribs | talk to me | see my enwiki profile)} 17:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose See my reasoning below in comment section. Again, Naleksuh You're a great editor, and I don't hate you. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Oppose - for better or for worse, being an administrator entails more than just access to the anti-vandalism tools (my thoughts on how this relates to the frequently cited "no big deal" quote can be found here). Administrators are elected by the community who can be trusted to exercise good judgement, as well as discern and enforce community consensus. Unfortunately I do not think the candidate is a good fit for that position at this point of time. My objection stems from two main reasons:

   • On the issue of consensus: the most recent instances are found in the candidate's initiated discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive 4 (for Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Category:Subdivision of the United Kingdom and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Oghlan Bakhshi) where the candidate, in my view, made the mistake of equating "vote count" with "consensus". It is also worth noting that even for RFDs where the vote count skews in a certain direction, !votes in an RFD must be grounded in policy, and therefore it is completely possible (and acceptable) for an RFD result to be the complete opposite of the majority !vote. Now that both DR discussions have safely concluded and been archived, I will just state for the record that were I the closing administrator for both RFDs in question, I would have closed them in the same way as the original administrator did (I will be happy to elaborate on the thought process, if requested, somewhere else on-wiki to avoid clogging up this page).
   • Off-wiki discussion, and silo mentality: I also want to note that the candidate has on several occasions engaged me in discussions related to administrative actions and policy interpretation, over off-wiki channels, which is an identified issue when it comes to transparency and the consensus-building process. Furthermore, now that I have also been made aware of a separate, private wiki documenting LTA patterns, I do not think that I would be supportive of a prospective sysop who advocates for such an approach to combating abuse - new/unfamiliar editors do not know what's going on (other than the vague "this is LTA" comment), and it unnecessarily establishes a shadow cabal of editors who have been "read into" the specifics of abuse. The project's goal is ultimately about content improvement, and administrators are ultimately answerable to the community. Chenzw  Talk  09:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   I will state that we have had numerous users, including administrators, from across Wikimedia who have joined the wiki Naleksuh has founded, and none of them have found any fault in the wiki. I find it surprising that you are using this as an opposing point, if I am being totally honest. IWI (chat) 12:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   @Chenzw: Also, you stated that Naleksuh doesn’t understand consensus in relation to RfDs, and said that he conflated vote count with consensus. You also said that votes must be grounded in policy. But in the very discussion you linked, Naleksuh says explicitly, at the top of the discussion "The purpose of an RfD is for editors to determine whether an article should be deleted by policies and guidelines", and from that standpoint, I don’t see where you were coming from. IWI (chat) 13:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   Auntof6 also pointed out that the original rationale for deletion was not grounded in policy. I disagree with the assessment that "consensus is clearly to keep". Chenzw  Talk  14:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

2. Oppose When under a clean start, there is a difference between, when asked in private, saying something like "I had a previous account, but have since made a clean start" and explicitly lying and telling someone that this is your first account. Even declining to answer would have been better. Also, Chenzw raises some valid concerns. Sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose --DannyS712 (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose per Chenzw and very much per DannyS712. Integrity concerns are not compatible with the sysop kit. And I have plenty of those with this candidate. Operator873^talkconnect 12:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
4. Strongest possible Oppose Has tried to come back as a clean start but has been acting worse than his original account, to the point where there has been a number of discussions around whether he should be blocked for incivility. -Djsasso (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   @Djsasso: I’d like to see a link to where a block was discussed for Naleksuh due to incivility. I don’t recall that. I’d also like to see links to diffs where Naleksuh has been uncivil recently. I also don’t see how you can say Naleksuh has acted worse than when he edited under Computer Fizz. That doesn’t seem to be the case to me, but perhaps I’m missing something. IWI (chat) 15:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   He has been routinely using personal attacks both outright and passive aggressively on existing admins repeatedly if they do something or don't do something that he thinks they should do the opposite on. And he frequently never assumes good faith on new editors and he never assumes it on IPs. Uses off-wiki means to keep "hit lists" on editors from what I understand. Frequently uses IRC to try and make on-wiki changes which is a no no. To be honest, I barely think he should be an editor here, nevermind an admin. I should also note that he socked for two weeks with this account and Computer Fizz, an action he was going to be blocked for back then but another admin made a plea to give him a chance. An admin hopeful, should have known doing so was socking and completely against the rules, to then run for admin after having a history of socking and incivility just shows a complete lack of clue. -Djsasso (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   I don't believe the "hit list" thing to be true. I disagree with your final comment, although your other complaints are valid to a degree. I think Naleksuh is a good editor, and anyone who has been working with him recently can see that. You said a block was discussed, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that. I'd like to see specific examples of what you mean here. I am shortly going to change my vote for your final reason here, as I have just discussed this with another admin, but I think we should still be fair and I would like to challenge your claims. IWI (chat) 15:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   I unfortunately can't give diffs on the block stuff as it was on the admin mailing list. Suffice it to say consensus seemed to be that if he continued on the course he was going he would likely be blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   Okay. I'm willing to take your word on it. IWI (chat) 16:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   I am able to corroborate DJ's statement. Operator873^talkconnect 16:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   Okay, but I would still like to see examples of claimed incivility, BITE and not assuming good faith. Personally, I have never seen such conduct from Naleksuh. IWI (chat) 16:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

5. Oppose - I have changed my vote in light of the fact that Naleksuh has abused multiple accounts as recently as 5 months ago. I cannot continue to support the candidate, as much as I think they would make a good administrator. IWI (chat) 15:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
6. I haven't been too active the last few months, and thus am not entirely up to date on every occurence in that time, but I distinctly remember communication, civility, and maturity issues over the last year with Naleksuh and Computer Fizz. Flood issues, some problematic replies to admins, a frequent inability to take criticism, stirring drama on-wiki and off, as well as some other issues. Naleksuh, your reply to my comment was really quite lackluster. You had an opportunity to try and make a case for how you have changed since the issues around your community ban, and the issues late last year. Thank you for volunteering, and I do hope you consider reapplying in two or so years, provided there are no problems in your contributing. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   @Vermont: So again: as I said to Djsasso, I would like to see diffs (preferably recent ones) demonstrating this claimed pattern of incivility. If it is so prominent like you are both saying, you should surely be able to find a few diffs easily. I haven't personally experienced any such behavior in recent months. --IWI (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

   The first things that comes to mind are flood issues early this year, comments on Chenzw's talk page last September, some of Naleksuh's interactions with Auntof6 over the lasg 6 months have not been at a level expected from administrators, and there's been some wholly unnecessary conflict on IRC a few weeks ago. I'm still quity busy irl, I hope to be back to full activity next week, but unfortunately I don't currently have the time to collate a list of diffs. Vermont (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Have you ever created any Wikipedia article pages that were not deleted? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Thanks for the question! I create new pages for the purpose of turning red links blue, or add stuff like infoboxes and images to existing pages where applicable. To my knowledge, the only page I created which was later deleted is Ram Ranch. It was a page created when I was still very new to the wiki, and my recent pages are better. Naleksuh (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Naleksuh I don't hate you, but I cannot support this RFA at this time, without having seen you create some Wikipedia articles, you're a great editor, and I appreciate everything you have done here and on the lta wiki. Please don't take that I hate you, because I don't, I want you to be the best editor possible, and I want to support your RFA, but I cannot at this time, again thank you for everything you have done and continue to do, It is very appreciated :) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: I think it's worth noting that article creation is not a requirement for the admin toolset. Vermont, for example, was promoted with zero articles being created and has been a valuable administrator. Naleksuh has created a few articles, as stated. IWI (chat) 00:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

ImprovedWikiImprovement Thank you for the note, but I would like to see an article or two created by Naleksuh, before I change my vote. I do appreciate you creating this RFA. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: You say this as if he hasn't created articles, when in fact he has. Some fairly recently. IWI (chat) 00:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

To give a few examples: Chuck E. Cheese (character), Norilsk, and penis were all created by Naleksuh, with many new articles created by new editors being greatly expanded by him. IWI (chat) 00:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

ImprovedWikiImprovement Welp, I look very stupid here don't I? Let me strike out my oppose, and Now I'll support Naleksuh, reason why I said what I said, was that Naleksuh only said he created Ram Ranch, I guess it was an error in my place not checking, Sorry for being Stupid again, I am an Idiot aren't I (Don't stuff beans up your nose lol) ? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Not at all. It is good to have such discussions in an RFA :) Not stupid at all. IWI (chat) 00:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Chenzw

• In the interests of transparency, can you please clarify (no need to give individual IP addresses specifically):
  • Your relation to the IP address 162.248.93.173, which is part of a range registered to nfoservers.com, a VPS provider?
  • Your circumstances which require (1) editing from VPSes/VPNs/proxies, as well as (2) the global IP block exemption right?

--Chenzw  Talk  03:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chenzw: Thanks for the questions. I am happy to be transparent here.

I was flooding pages at one point, and I was using the 162.248.93.173 IP so that I could make other edits while under the flood flag, logged out, but without using my actual internet connection to do so as this can reveal personal information.

I was editing from a proxy service at one point as I wanted to visit other websites through a proxy, however, I've since whitelisted Wikipedia, so it now goes through my actual internet connection, no proxies.

Thanks, and I hope this answers. Naleksuh (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Additional question: in the nomination statement, IWI mentioned a "private wiki group (sic?)" used by members of the community to document and fight long-term abuse. I am surprised to say that I have never seen it before. Can you (either nominator or nominee) give more context into this, and clarify why on-wiki abuse isn't being documented on-wiki, à la en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse? Chenzw  Talk  07:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chenzw: Because it contains information that shouldn't be public for the LTAs to see, such as specific behavioural patterns and targets. It goes into much more detail than enwiki does publicly, and can also contain private information that Wikipedia would not allow to be on public display. You are welcome to join the wiki, if you would like to see for yourself. IWI (chat) 07:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Editors who engage in long-term abuse are, by definition, those who edit abusively according to said behavioral patterns and targets. What is the impact if such information is made public? Is there an OPSEC issue here? Also, what is the nature of the private information, and how did that get into the hands of non-functionaries? Chenzw  Talk  07:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chenzw: Because if they read the specifics of behaviour patterns (I mean detail, including writing style etc.), they may change how they edit, thus making it harder to identify them and defeating the point altogether. As for the private information, it is stuff that is already well known by non-functionaries (i.e. the real life identities of certain LTAs is well known, but cannot be documented on wiki due to privacy). This information is NOT the kind of stuff related to checks by checkusers or similar, nor is it confidential information such as street addresses or phone numbers. IWI (chat) 07:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't understand how this is an issue; since the defining hallmark of abuse cases is the behavioural patterns. If an edit is not consistent with said patterns, is it still abuse? I also don't see how the real life identities of abusive editors, even if publicly known, is relevant to the mission of anti-vandalism and combating abuse. Chenzw  Talk  09:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Vermont

• Naleksuh, I consider it wholly inappropriate to request adminship without making the community aware of your editing history here. You have edited on this project with two accounts prior to this one. Those accounts have recent and relevant history that, without which, no community member can be expected to make an informed decision on your candidacy for administratorship. I ask you to make note of your previous accounts here, publicly, with any comments or explanation you think is necessary. I have an oppose vote drafted which mentions your accounts by name; I would prefer to give you the opportunity to comment on your situation first, if you so wish. Clean starts are, of course, okay; however, anonymity is never guranteed, especially not when requesting advanced rights. Given that I discovered your previous accounts with public information and prior to my becoming a CheckUser, I am free to talk about it. I have voluntarily refrained from doing so up until this point in the interests of editor retention and respect for your choice to clean start. This RfA alters that, as community members are making important decisions on your candidacy with insufficient information. Though you may believe you have changed significantly from the actions of your previous accounts, that is for the community to decide in evaluation of this request. I will likely oppose either way, but given that my drafted comment mentions your past accounts, I hope you will make a case for your adminship, including your past accounts, addressing your editing history in full and with specifics. Regards, and thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to note, as nominator, that I was not aware of the two previous accounts. I did speak to Naleksuh about me starting this request, and he did not mention it to me when I asked him if it was okay for me to start the request. Regardless of this, I think the nomination is still valid and it shouldn't hold him back, providing nothing serious occurred from the previous accounts (which I do not believe to be the case). Personally, I would have declared any previous accounts in an RfA I had started, but either way, I think Naleksuh will make a great administrator. IWI (chat) 06:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Was about to vote but came across this. If the issue is as recent as mentioned, I expect more transparency here.-BRP ^ever 06:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

​ After some discussion with the nominator, I have added Renamed user 2039jw0e9fkw0e9fkawe0f9kas09k to this RfA. In multiple previous discussions, I felt that I was being held accountable for actions taken around five years ago that I have no control over. I clean started in mid march with the added benefit that I go by Naleksuh everywhere else on the internet. I have not done anything disruptive or unconstructive since. I had previously made the choice to not declare the accounts per that doing so could defeat the purpose of clean starting, however after talking to the nominator here I believe they should be disclosed for the purpose of giving the community judgement power, as to whether it is valid or not. While none of the issues raised are "recent" (i.e the most recent appears to be in December 2015), I hope that this is more transparent about my past and that the community is able to look past these issues (I had already had six supports with no opposition so far). I hope that this answers all related questions, but more can be asked if necessary. Naleksuh (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The reveal of this information on-wiki is new to me, given that WP:CLEANSTART was invoked. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by the actions taken that you have no control over? Did you mean to say that you were the subject of a false accusation on this wiki in the past? Chenzw  Talk  07:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

​ I meant that I felt persecuted about my conduct five years ago that I had no control over and no way to change what I did five years ago ("no control over"). I wanted to clean start so that I can leave these issues in the past and be respected as an editor who doesn't cause these problems. I hope you see why this clean start was done, and a more specific rationale that clears up any questions. Naleksuh (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not only your community ban, and that was definitely not that which I referred to as recent and relevant. You've had problems as recent as 5 months, when you last used Conputer Fizz. Vermont (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, there was conduct as recently as a few months ago that almost got you blocked again. Your issues were not restricted to the community ban. You have had a continuing history of behavior that in the hands of an admin would/could cause a very large amount of issues. As I said in your last Rfa. There isn't a regular editor on this wiki that I think has admin qualities less than you unfortunately. -Djsasso (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

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.