Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nat

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Nat

[edit]

(44/10/5); ended 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nat (talk · contribs) - Nat, formerly Nat.tang, has been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and has been substantially active for the last five months. He has acquired experience in all the major administrative pages, such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:AN3. He also has dealt extensively with the dispute resolution process and knows how to keep a cool head. I was impressed by how he handled this situation at Talk:Ontario general election, 2007. Nat removed an external link from a newer user to a blog site, then defended his decision based on the external link policy without biting and without assuming bad faith. There are two reasons to see a potentially outstanding admin from this kind of discussion. First, Nat demonstrated the necessary balance between respecting another user and enforcing policy. Second, and no less important, he took leadership of a complicated situation.

Nat has received two editor reviews: Wikipedia:Editor review/Nat.tang (June 2007) and Wikipedia:Editor review/Nat.tang 2 (September 2007). These reviews, together with his userpage and contribution log, should give you a good idea of what Nat likes to do. I don't expect that Nat will cause any problems with the additional tools we should give to him. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Second nomination

Nat (talk · contribs) has shown himself to be both vigilant against blatant vandals, and able to deal evenly and firmly with unreasonable users, such as in the case with TingMing (talk · contribs). When TingMing began a pattern of disruptive and POV-pushing edits, Nat and several other editors began to engage TingMing. TingMing's behavior was far from civil, yet Nat continued to seek a reasonable dialogue with TingMing, seeking to establish understanding and consensus, even whilst reporting TingMing as a suspected sockpuppeteer. As User:Shalom has said, Nat has proved his own familiarity with the various admin tools, has repeatedly demonstrated that he has a calm and reasonable approach, even when dealing with difficult situations, and has a commitment to upholding the standards and quality of Wikipedia. Hopefully this evidence, combined with that of Shalom, will prove Nat to be an outstanding candidate for adminship. --Folic Acid 13:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I, nattang, humbly accept this nomination. 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Admin/sysop work I would like to be involved are the following:
  • Protecting pages when an edit war has broken out, if a user has requested that his user page (not his usertalk page) be semi-protected, if a blocked individual is misusing the {{unblock}} template, to prevent the recreation of pages that have been deleted per policy and its fate has been discussed by the community, and if a great deal of vandalism has occurred (unless there is only one vandal and that vandal has been previously warned, then I will block him/her and will not protect as to not make good contributors suffer the consequences of the individual's actions).
  • Unprotecting pages when a edit war has been resolved, if the community has decided to have a protected page recreated, and if a user wishes to have his/her userpage unprotected (this excludes banned and indef. block users).
  • Blocking users that clearly violate Wikipedia's policies and principals, such as committing acts of vandalism, breaking the three revert rule, making legal threats, committing acts of sockpuppetry, and just not being very nice to others. Before I take any sysop action against an individual, I will ensure that the individual has been clearly and thoroughly warned.
  • When deciding on a XFD, I will clearly look through the discussion, the points and the arguments that have been brought up, weight them and then ensure that the "X" does not violate policy, and then I will make my decision.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that my best contributions to this online project are are some of the templates that I have created namely template:Infobox UofT College (which thanks to KFP (talk) and Anomie (talk), for helping me with codes and the whatnots, it now work fine), Template:Infobox ontario election and Template:Infobox monarchy. I am also quite proud of my contributions to Ontario general election, 2007.
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 have been in several conflicts in the past that have caused me stress, particularly a certain, now indef blocked, user named TingMing. How did I deal with it? Well, I attempted to discuss and sort out the conflict between TingMing and several editors, such as myself. Well we talked and talked, but each time it seemed like we were talking to a wall, and often he would uses our words and twist them so that he can use it against those he perceived as a threat. In the end, some of the other editors became fed up with him/her and decided to open an ArbComm case against TingMing. The end result was he/she was blocked indef for disruptive editing, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and last but not least, vandalism. How will I deal with such a situation in the future? Well, I would first find out what is the conflict between me and the other editor; then discuss the situation and try to find a compromise; if the other editor feels that any of my actions or comments had offended them, I will apologize; if none of the discussion work out, I will find other means such as mediation or arbitration, but only as a last resort.
4. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?
A: I would be willing to add myself to the recall list if promoted as I believe that my actions should be scrutinized, even if I am not promoted. If I am promoted, and misuse the tools, then I would be open to a recall RfA to determine if the Community will trust me with the tools. I see this as an important way to keep the sysops accountable, and to remind them that it was with the blessings, if I may call it that, of the Community that they were given the tools. Why should someone have the tools when they have misused them and essentially betrayed the community's trust? They shouldn't. I believe that if it is the community that gave an individual the privilege to use the tools, it should be the community that removes that privilege if that individual misuses it.
5. Can you explain why you chose to issue a uw-legal to Maxwellgold instead of some other template? An examination by the involved admin couldn't find any evidence of legal threats (nor could I) and I wanted to understand if you still think that was the best course of action. Ronnotel 01:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, my decision to issue {{uw-legal}} to Max Gold on June 16, 2007 was based on [1]. If one continues to look at the later edits, he/she will notice that the IP editor and Max Gold are either the same person or they have some sort of close working relationship. Looking back at the situation, I admit I could have issued the warning only to the IP editor or the other editor who had originally posted the message: [2] instead of issuing the notice to Max Gold, however, assuming that the editor is in fact Max Gold, Representative of Nico Demonte (ASCAP), I felt that my actions were appropriate. I admit that it was not the best course of action, and I regret taking that action. I also admit I overlooked some of Max Gold's comments and because of that, I issued a warning that should have never been issued to Max Gold. However, I believe that my actions after issuing the warning (i.e. corresponding with him through his talkpage and by email) were appropriate.
6. (Optional Question from User:Rrburke): How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?
Reasons for asking:
a) You and I recently had an exchange on your talk page and mine about an image I'd removed from the article John Tory and which you restored -- an image which was later deleted WP:CSD#I7. Your responses in this exchange have left me wondering how familiar you are with a policy which, as an admin, you may be called on to enforce. In particular, the offhand way you dismissed my concerns left me with the sense that you didn't really see there was a problem, never mind see what the problem was. Did you in this instance act with sufficient diligence, consulting the relevant policy and ascertaining whether there was in fact a problem that needed fixing, one which your reversion had made you a party to; and are you now adequately conversant with this policy that you could be expected to reliably enforce it?
b) I note that you yourself have uploaded several other images of this type -- [3][4][5],MillikenPeter_LIB.jpg -- that fail WP:NFCC#1. Three of these (which you uploaded quite recently) have had to be deleted per WP:CSD#I7 (invalid fair-use claim). I presume you were not aware of the policy which required their deletion at the time you uploaded these images, otherwise you wouldn't have uploaded them. But are there reasons for others to feel confident that in the few weeks since you uploaded these images you have become sufficiently familiar with the policy that you could now be relied on to enforce it as an admin?
c) I note also that your fair-use image uploads (portraits but also logos and other images) are usually accompanied only by a licensing tag and typically lack a fair-use rationale, even though one is required for each article in which the image is to appear: the very licensing tags you have appended to the images usually state quite clearly "[t]his tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used" and "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use." Were you not aware of this requirement, and did you not read the licensing tags you were adding to the images? Do you understand the need for such rationales better now than when you uploaded these images, and should others be confident that, as an admin, you would apply the relevant policies diligently?
A: Thank you for the question User:Rrburke. I admit, before you clearly informed me on our policy regarding Non-free images of persons a couple of weeks ago, I was ignorant of the policy and did not grasp it as well as I should have.
  1. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like? : To answer your first question: I understand that under WP:NFC, promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people (i.e. images such as [6][7][8] are not to be used in an article or uploaded to Wikipedia, unless there is no free equivalent (i.e. Image:20060206 cab01.jpg where it cannot be replaced due to the fact that it is a closed session opened only to the media, the new ministers, and other Federal Gov't officials). The use of promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people should be minimal. And they are only allowed to be used in articles.
  2. Did you in this instance act with sufficient diligence, consulting the relevant policy and ascertaining whether there was in fact a problem that needed fixing, one which your reversion had made you a party to; and are you now adequately conversant with this policy that you could be expected to reliably enforce it? : To restate what I have said in at the beginning to this set of answers - I was ignorant of the policy and I regret for being so. In this instance, I did not consulting the relevant policy and ascertaining whether there was in fact a problem that needed fixing. However, I did learn from my mistakes from that situation concerning the use of promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people. In this instance: [9] I remove an non-free image that was reuploaded and readded to the article. I have become much more aware of the policies that concerns non-free material, especially images. I believe that I can be expected to reliably enforce our policies concerning non-free images and contents.
  3. To answer your third question, Yes, I understand the need for rationals and I believe that I would apply the relevant policies diligently and it is my opinion that other editor will have the confidence in me to apply the relevant policies whatever the outcome may be.


7. (Optional Question from User:Rrburke): Regarding logos: I notice you've attached the license tag {{self}} to the image Image:Nbpc.png, which you created and uploaded a couple of weeks ago, and that you've claimed to be the copyright-holder of the image and have released it under GFDL and cc-by-sa. However, you can't be the copyright-holder of this image and can't release it as free content because the logo is trademarked by the Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick: the image should be tagged {{Non-free logo}} (and accompanied by a fair-use rationale) even though you created the actual instance of the logo in the image file. Do you feel your grasp of this issue is adequate to allow others to feel confident that if, in the course of your duties as an admin, you encountered another editor who had made a similar error, you'd be able to apply the relevant policies appropriately?
A: Yes, I do feel my grasp of this situation is adequate to allow others to feel confident that, if I am promoted or not, and I encountered another editor who made a similar error, I would be able to apply the relevant policies appropriately. I admit I am often slow at picking up things such as in question 5, however, I am always looking for a way to correct my errors (i.e. Image:Nbpc.png, Image:Ontario Libertarian Party small logo.png‎ - as of 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC), I've changed the tags, added a rational, and reduced the size of the images).

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nat before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Support, just reviewed Nat's contributions. He seems keen to help out here, and seems to have a reasonable head on his shoulders. -- Samir 04:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support A great editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nominator. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 11:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Multilingual, lots of experience, conta Jmlk17 who I'm not surprised at all to see opposing "per experience". * Aillema 11:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support Appears to be a great, reasonable guy. I am sure will act very responsbiy. Would make a great admin no doubt. Sinhala freedom 12:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious.. but would you mind spelling out exactly what qualities of the candidate endears him to you so much? I assume you're basing your opinion on some past interaction with the user. Or is it? Sarvagnya 09:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The exceptional way he dealt with Tingming, his willingness to cool off revert wars as a bystander from continuing by asking for page protection. These are qualities we need in admins. Sinhala freedom 22:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support per my second nomination above. --Folic Acid 13:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Rlevse 14:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support with caveats: Nom has adequate time and contribs. User’s talk page does not reveal any obvious disqualifier in terms of civility or knowledge of areas of interest. Regretably, nom’s Editor review does not provide much illumination into nom’s qualifications. I would caution user to become more familiar with fair use image policy and to go slow where user subpages are concerned. In a quick survey of the last 500 edits, I see no reports to AIV. I see welcomes, but no CSD or Not Notable notices. I see little participation in XFD. (Please provide dif's if I missed anything.) I would caution the nom to ease into the Admin role and not be too bold. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Clearly experienced. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Looks good. Hiberniantears 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Clearly a decent editor. Acalamari 16:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support Hopeshopes 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Note from EVula: User has been indefinitely blocked for vandalizing various RfAs. Striking comment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support because his name's Nat. Oh, no, not really. Because he's done well here and isn't likely to abuse the tools. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per Shalom. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Looks just fine to me. Captain panda 21:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support — satisfying contribs. Looks like the opposers have come down with an acute case of 'conutitis. They should really consult their doctors before their condition gets worse :-) --Agüeybaná 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - fine editor and oppose reasons aren't convincing. Addhoc 23:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support —[[Animum | talk]] 01:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Neutral, leaning toward Oppose Get involved with more mainspace edits and WikiProjects. After considering this greatly, I am now supporting this RfA. :) Crassic(talk) 01:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support As per Addhoc and his work in the last 5 months has been Satisfying.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support. Looking through his recent contribs, this is one of those editors whose day-to-day work keeps Wikipedia running smoothly. Fighting vandalism, fixing templates, correcting typos and making minor edits - without it, Wikipedia would be a mess. While I sympathise with the view that admins should have substantial mainspace contribs, I don't think we should reject someone who's willing to help with the many backlogged cleanup tasks, and who has a genuine need for the tools (in vandal-fighting). His answers to the questions suggest a sufficient knowledge of policy, and all in all, he's a satisfactory candidate. If he doesn't pass this time, he should pass easily 3 months from now. WaltonOne 12:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. 3,000-plus edits, check, mainspace work, check (UofT), vandal-fighting, check, no concerns, check. Bearian 19:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I don't see anything wrong with you. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. support Very cool headed editor who is more than willing to comprimise. Has some very good edits and is very active. Give him the mop Watchdogb 12:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which qualities of User:Nat's made you to appear him very cool headed and more than willing to comprimise to you?
    • How did you interact with him prior to this RfA and what made you to come to this point? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I encountered nat when there used to be an article named "Acts labelled as state terrorism". In which he had quite an opposite view as me (as to if a person is notable or not). I made a hasty comment to nat and his response to that was cool and collective and it made me cool also. This is the type of people I believe should be admin. Besides he has enough contributions to articles and his answers/way he is handling himself in this RFA only makes my vote stronger. Watchdogb 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I don't see anything wrong with the editor and he seems to be reasonably experienced. -Icewedge 16:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - No real reasoning, as to why I shouldn't. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - no issues here. I'm actually impressed with Q5, as this editor is not afraid to either learn from his mistakes, nor admit to them. That's important. Admins are not infaillibe - Alison ❤ 21:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Ridiculous opposition = Good candidate. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - productive, trustworthy editor. Into The Fray T/C 03:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Although I don't work with this user very much, this user deserves my support because of his/her constructive edits. Chris! my talk 06:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak Support - Just, just about ready. No reason not to be trusted. Lradrama 10:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I think he'll be fine. And as for the answer to Q5, that was in July and we all make mistakes. Sumoeagle179 12:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - A good editor!--Jerry 15:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Despite the image issues and the slightly low edit count, the user has undeniably demonstrated both the ability to acknowledge and learn from mistakes, as well as a good working comprehension of sysop duties. VanTucky Talk 00:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Absent evidence to the contrary, he seems calm and level-headed, with a good understanding of protocol. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support I have dealt with Nat in the past and he clearly understands wiki policies and is able to intercede in any conflict situation and resolve the issues by correctly interpreting wiki policies. His neutral and even handed approach has helped many editors who are involved in conflict related articles especially Sri Lankan civil war related. I hope he gets the admin tools to be able to enhance his capability to contribute to this project.Taprobanus 12:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Comes down to trust, and this user has demonstrated they can be trusted. Phgao 16:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak Support - "Support" because temperamentally, I think Nat will make a good admin. "Weak" because of the external links issue raised by Sarvagnya.[10] Beyond plain old spam, we have roughly a million unencyclopedic links to forums, blogs, etc. added in good faith but with poor judgement -- so please take a refresher look at WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT when you get the chance. Thanks for volunteering to serve and good luck with this RfA. --A. B. (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To A.B. and Sarvagnya: If you read the nom throughly and had a chance to click this link you would see that I was in opposition to adding yet another blog to the list of external links, using the WP:NOT#LINKS policy as my raison for removing the link in the first place. nattang 17:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nat, I was commenting based on Sarvagnya's comments about multiple articles mentioned on your user page, not the one cited in your nomination. However, since your response, I've gone and looked at each of these 7 articles myself and I don't see link problems with the possible exception of the Blogs and forecasters section of the Ontario general election, 2007 article. In general, we avoid blogs, however opening each link in that links section, most of the stuff looks authoritative, which puts it in a sort of gray area. I also understand that you don't edit such a big and potentially controversial article by yourself according to just your own interpretation of WP:EL -- there are many others involved too. So, no, I don't see any spamholes on your list. --A. B. (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. No compelling reason to oppose, looks good. Nearly 4k edits, with 52 to AIV and 27 to RPP, is more than enough experience. Melsaran (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support This user seems to be perfect for the role of admin.... he knows the rules but is able to convey them in a civil manner. Juppiter 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Seems like a good user. AniMate 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Looks good to me. SQL(Query Me!) 05:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Solid contributor with good understanding. Nothing majorly of concern, or nothing that would justifiably prevent him from receiving the mop, IMHO. -- Chris B • talk 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Just not quite enough experience yet. This is not to say you don't have any, but I would prefer if you had more experience in admin-related areas. Jmlk17 06:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Not enough experience. Just 1200 for the Mainspace, only 394 for the Wikipedia and 61 for the Wikipedia talk. Seems you have to get involve more into some projects. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 06:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with being involved in projects? He has 3658 total edits.Rlevse 14:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my mistake. It should be Seems you have to. Thanks for pointing me out that :-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yey for Editcountitis! ;) —— Eagle101Need help? 15:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    :D --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 05:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not discouraging him but what I want to say is adminship candidates, especially they are new comers in the scene, they have to learn a lot of qualities from the admins like Black Falcon. Unlike Nat, when Black Falcon was nominated for adminship he too was only actively editing for five months. But during those five months he was working in policy discussions, XfDs, WikiProjects, vandal fighting, detail for templates and articles, authored for a featured list, del sorting, authoring for quite number of articles, featuring a portal and he had substantial number of mainspace edits too. Excluding those he very highly interacted with non-admin closures of XfDs and even stayed neutral when resolving disputes in Sri Lanka related pages wining the hearts and minds of all parties. But in Nat's case, if you just hop into his RfA nom and to his contributions list, what I can say is that he was only active in the areas such as AIV, ANI, AN3, RPP and RfA. Unfortunately when comparing his past work over administrative and maintainece pages, I do not see any specialty with Nat and other ordinary wikipedians. People have to learn that the mop is not a fancy dress. Seems that Nat has a clear record in here, so I'm asking him to hop into Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Black Falcon, have an idea how to get ready for the adminship as a newcomer and get ready like that. Then I will nominate you to the RfA next time. Good luck --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 05:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean ordinary wikipedians, now do we have a caste system in Wikipedia between ordinary wikipedians and extra-ordinary wikipedians? Just curious. Secondly the comparison between user X and User Y is not valid because they are two different people and people come to Wikipedia because of personal reasons and they volunteer their precious time here. It is not a full time job and they will gravitate towards what gets their attention. We dont need every Wikipedian to be alike follow a set path to Admin position. Nat seems to have done so far what he liked to do and giving him the Admin position will only be an asset to Wikipedia not the other way around. Thanks Taprobanus 00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - might very well be a nice guy, but his mainspace edits are far from impressive. Lot of it seems to be either minor edits or reverts. Couple that with the fact that the article he says he's quite proud of, looks quite messy to me. Many of the articles he's edited or the ones at the 'top of (his) watchlist' have blogs and sundry non-WP:EL links under "external links". They also have substantial MoS and style issues. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and nothing impresses me like article writing/creation and article improvement. Dont see evidence of any work on dyks/GA/FA either. Also, seems to be lacking in non-article space like others have pointed out. Sadly, cant support this nom just yet. Sarvagnya 10:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose While I commend Nat for getting involved in a tricky issue, I'm just not impressed with his response to Q.5. Uw-legal is a strong charge and should only be used on the accounts that are actually at fault. While his actions may have seemed appropriate to him at the time, I would like to see a bit more circumspection after the fact. Ronnotel 11:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree, that could have been handled better. Rather than laying on a template, I would have tried to engage the user in conversation on his talk page. Also, simply removing Max's post may have inflamed the matter. I would have explained that this is a Wiki, and that he could not censor content by demanding some sort of ownership of the article. Nat did go on to try to explain things to the user after the template. However, there was an implicit legal threat in Max's notes. So while I agree he should be more understanding of others lack of understanding, I can also understand using the template. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure I can see an implicit legal threat in the cited comment. I wonder whether Nat may have been influenced by the edit summary into believing that one had been made without reading the material carefully. Needless to say, I'm confused but willing to be convinced by a succinct argument. Ronnotel 15:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok...I might have been influenced by the edit summary, however, if you would direct your attention to the last paragraph, and I quote:
    "I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing information derived from the Nico Demonte’s biography, and all copies, including electronic copies, of same, that you deliver to me, if applicable, all unused, undistributed copies of same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other infringement of Nico Demonte’s copyrighted works, information, images, reputation, and recordings. If you do not immediately publish the requested retraction, and cease and desist from tortuous interference and making false and malicious comments about Nico Demonte, his copyrighted works, biography, recordings, likenesses, and reputation, we will file suit against you. Please govern yourself accordingly. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by January 1, 2006, indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, we shall take further action against you."
    you would find the threat. Granted, it wasn't the User:Maxwellgold account that left that message and the message was two years old, however, if you look at the patterns and the text contributions between Max Gold and the IP, they are, as I've said in my answer to question 5, they are either the same person or they have a really close working relationship of some sort, in other words, they are probably part of the same organization. I admit it wasn't the best course of action, however, I believe that the actions I took (i.e. issuing the warning, explaining and discussing the situation to Max Gold through his talkpage as well as email, etc.) were appropriate. nattang 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is what's confusing me. The section you quoted appears to come from a completely different person - Anna Astley(?) - with whom Max Gold appears to be disassociating himself. How can the text you've outlined be used to justify a legal warning against Max Gold or his putative IP-account? Can you show me an edit in which either account makes a threat? Ronnotel 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppps...I just read that part...Well, from looking over his comments one more time, I guess I overlooked some of the statements he made. I now admit issuing the warning was a mistake and I regret making that decision. Thank you for pointing that out to me. nattang 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for admitting your mistake - a very important attribute in an admin. However, it took you until your third try (this is your RfA, for gosh sakes, wake up) so I'm afraid I won't be able to switch my vote. I do have high regard for your work and hope to able to support in the future. Ronnotel 17:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose as per user Ronnotel. Sorry, friend. ScarianTalk 19:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. I've worked with Nat, I think he's a really nice and great guy, but as the first opposer pointed out, he doesn't have enough experience. I think he needs some more mainspace edits, and some more time. GreenJoe 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose For all the usual reasons. I was hard pressed to find one single edit that actually built an article. Very short-time on the project. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This "built" the article. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Lahiru and Orangemarlin. Low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a probable lack of familiarity with policy. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I previously raised some concerns about your addition of fair-use images of living people, which was merely a minor violation of image guidelines. I have changed my vote due to concerns raised by User:Rrburke, over self-made images of copyrighted logos you have uploaded and tagged as free (specifically Image:Nbpc.png and Image:Ontario Libertarian Party small logo.png), which is too large of an infraction of image rules to overlook. I believe that you need to advance your knowledge of image guidelines before you are made a moderator. Morgan695 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, for now. Nat is obviously a fine editor and will no doubt at some later date make a fine admin. But his answers to my questions seemed perfunctory: they were generally of the “yes I do think others should have confidence I’d act appropriately” variety and didn’t explain, by pointing to any concrete steps he had taken to rectify the deficiencies that led to his mistakes in the first place, why others ought now to have that confidence. He also conceded he didn’t go and look at the relevant policy when a problem had been pointed out to him, something you might expect even a casual editor to do, but that a prospective admin really should have done immediately, by reflex. I agree with Morgan695 that uploading bad fair-use images and failing to add fair-use rationales are relatively minor infractions. But while the infractions in themselves are minor, what’s not minor is that an admin candidate is committing such infractions a couple of weeks before his RfA because he’s never encountered the relevant policy before! That suggests the editor is just not experienced enough – yet -- to assume the added responsibilities of adminship. Presuming to release as self-created free content trademarked logos is a more serious problem, and really ought to give one pause. Of course, it’s directly related to the same problem of experience, and the solution to the problem is more experience – before adminship. Several participants in this discussion have expressed their confidence that Nat “won’t abuse the tools.” It’s a sentiment I share, but it’s a pretty low bar: of course he won’t abuse the tools: he’s a responsible and serious editor, not a vandal. It’s not the unlikely prospect that he would “abuse the tools” that concerns me, but the more plausible possibility that he might “misuse the tools” inadvertently through inexperience and unfamiliarity with a relevant policy. I’d be happy to support Nat’s RfA at a later date, just not yet. --Rrburke(talk) 02:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Per Ronnotel. Dureo 04:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral, you've made some good edits to articles on Canada/Ontario politics, but I'm not sure you're that well-versed in image guidelines - I've recently had to delete some fair-use images of politicans that you uploaded, some of whom had free alternatives. Morgan695 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC) I have changed my position to oppose (see justification above). Morgan695 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral leaning weak support The issuing of a {{uw-legal}} was not appropriate when sockpuppetry was not confirmed. The candidate has apologised but I am not sure that I can support while I think that something like this could happen again, then again, I have no particular evidence to expect that it may. GDonato (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too little experience I fear. Try again in about a month, and I will support. Dreamy \*/!$! 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're joking, right? Everyone who runs a month after a previous RfA gets hammered for experience...I'm betting you'd oppose in a month for "too soon since last time", yet you encourage him... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Broke through my edit minimum requirements during the course of the nomination, but concerns raised by Lahiru and Orangemarin in the oppose section are too major to justify a support. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. The minor nature of the great majority of the editor's recent edits provide me with little evidence of encyclopedia building to weigh against the mistakes regarding policy that have been brought up here. I fear that the candidate's RfA might be a little premature in terms of understanding of policy; however, his interactions appear civil and I have no worries that he will abuse the tools. Espresso Addict 08:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have concerns with what Morgan695 (images) and Rrburke (experience) said above, which means I can't support this nomination at this time. Look forward to another nomination down the track if this one is unsuccessful, though. Daniel 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to neutral per answer to Q7 (which I just saw - my mistake...). Daniel 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nat&oldid=1147966793"