Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nishkid64

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Nishkid64

[change source]

8 support/5 oppose/1 neutral

I would like to nominate myself for adminship, because I feel the tools can be of assistance while I am editing and doing RC patrol. I have been a member of Simple English Wikipedia since January 2007 (I did have a two month inactivity period somewhere in between), and I have just over 1,000 edits (graph). I've had quite a bit of experience with speedy deletion tagging, RC patrol (reverting and warning), and also deletion discussion. I am also an administrator on the English Wikipedia and the Meta-Wiki, so I'm not a total stranger to the admin tools. In conclusion, I think the tools would help me with my editing, and I hope my request here is granted. Thank you. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]

Oppose

[change source]
  • Oppose. Of the 650 mainspace edits, a majority of those were made on single days using AWB and with the edit summary of "clean up". Some were like this [1] where the only change made was a capitalization correction that didn't even effect the result on the page. Others were like this [2], where only a space between sections was eliminated. A lot of editors add those spaces purposefully to separate things out and keep things uncluttered. I am of the belief that going through and making changes like that only serves the purpose of trying to inflate the edit count to see how fast the RfA can be put in. Don't get me wrong, there were some good edits made during those cleanup sprees. However, I don't think it's a race, I wasn't impressed by changes like the ones I pointed out and others similar in nature, and I think I would support this RfA in another month or two, but not right now. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While he is certainly qualified in terms of ability for the position in my opinion, he isn't active enough to need the tools. -- Creol(talk) 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creol, there's times when he asks me to delete a page/block a vandal, over AIM. What if I'm not there, and no others are? Would it have to wait? Majorly (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That happens to me often. --Isis§(talk) 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, unless you were doing this on June 1, May 30, May 14, May 13, or January 17 through 20, you probably wouldn't find Nishkid64 on this wiki. Most of his edits were made on those days. Second, under no circumstances does the fact a editor is an admin on another wiki ever influence my decision or shout it effect anyone elses for that matter. A person should only be judged by the edits they've made on the wiki project they're running for. If you take out the fact that he is an admin on English and Meta, none of you would be backing him. You would give the usual: "come back when your edit count is higher." Do it, everyone, think about it and take the admin status on those projects out of the equation. If your vote doesn't change, then the criteria needs to change. My changes on English basically are adding simple english to the interwiki. Simple English is my first and only wiki I contribute on. If I had ran in February or March with the same edit count that he has now, some of you would have found it funny. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Creol, I must disagree. I've tagged dozens of articles for speedy deletion, and after a bit of impatience, asked Majorly on AIM to delete the articles. I think the tools would be useful, since I wouldn't have to wait for other admins to come by and delete the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Am I misreading this or is one of your reason for needing the tools because you are impatient that articles tag for QD are not immediately deleted? Unlike six or seven months ago when we had articles that say around for, in some cases, months before being noticed, currently a QD'd article sits maybe a couple hours tops. There is little to no harm in an article sitting there tagged for deletion for a little while. And just to note, only 10 of Majorly's page deletes were tagged by you. these 10 deletes took place on a total of 2 occasions. If it were a case of rampant vandalism, as noted you called in Majorly to help, on one of the occasions, this might be more understandable (if it happened more than just once). His block log entries only has 1 block matching a user you warned as well as the same block where you posted anything within hours if not days of the block. I can not see one case as being a need for the tools. By this logic, Isis needs them as well. And at least she has shown to be active (still needs a little more time though). Your time is already split between two other projects. I just can not see how your limited amount of time here (while both helpful and appreciated) warrants the need for tools mainly just to speed up a few page deletions because waiting more than 10 minutes is too long.-- Creol(talk) 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Browne34, why can it not affect your decision? Surely it would show he is trustworthy on two other wikis, and so can be trusted here. Yes you would have not passed then. That's because you only edit here as you say. Although Nishkid might not spend 100% of his time here, it doesn't mean he should be denied adminship. Majorly (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still believe a person should only be judged by their contributions here, nowhere else. Do you believe those edits I pointed in my vote are helpful? Couldn't you see how someone might think the person is trying to get his edit count higher as fast as possible? The fact of the matter is he's here infrequently. His edit history shows that he made ~75 edits on the days I noted above in the course of an hour or two. He's not a consistent user. Do you think he is? If he's not spending time here, why should he need the admin tools?-  BrownE34  talk  contribs  15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Out of the opposes here, I think yours is the most relevant. Don't get me wrong, your points are fair. But take a look at this essay for why he should need them. Majorly (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • My apologies to Browne34 and Creol if my interpretation of their votes in incorrect, but I believe we are all saying essentially the same thing: Nishkid64 has not yet been active enough here to warrant a need for the tools. This sentence would also be my own personal answer to your question of "Why not?" (i.e. "Because he has not yet been active enough here to warrant a need for the tools.") · Tygartl1·talk· 13:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think you're a good user and I don't think you'll abuse the tools, but I don't think you're active enough yet. When taking into account the AWB edits, you really only have 350 or so mainspace edits. This is much less than the 1000 we like for users to have. I think I would have no problem supporting you in a month or two, but 350 is just not high enough, in my opinion. · Tygartl1·talk· 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had 727 when I requested about a month ago. What's with the tough editcountitis? Majorly (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a big difference between 727 and 350 edits (plus if you look at my vote at your RfA, I also commented that I thought your edit count was low). I don't think I'd call it editcountitis. 1000 edits is the rough criteria that was agreed-upon by the community, is it not? I'm sorry, but 350 is nowhere near close enough to that criteria, in my opinion. It's nothing personal. · Tygartl1·talk· 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're confused - I had 727 in total, not just mainspace. I don't know when/how the 1000 minimum criteria was brought in, but I passed my RfA regardless. Have I messed up do you think? Or instead of looking at the "community's" 1000 minimum, why don't you evaluate the candidate by his actions instead. He's an admin since September '06 on en.wiki, a Meta admin... do you think he'll do something stupid, or are you simply opposing because he hasn't reached 1000 yet? Majorly (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why do you seem to be taking my vote personally? I certainly don't feel you've done a poor job as an admin. However, I feel that your vote edit count was low at the time of your RfA. That is one of the reasons you didn't get my full support. If you re-read my vote here, I began with this comment to Nishkid: "I think you're a good user and I don't think you'll abuse the tools, but I don't think you're active enough yet." So obviously I don't feel he'll do something stupid. I am making my opinion based on his low amount of activity, which is mathematically shown by his edit count. I might add that I feel like people are attacking those who have voted oppose. Our opinions count just as much as everyone else's. Please try to respect that. Thanks. · Tygartl1·talk· 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BrownE34 and Creol. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per the above comments. I didn't realise this when I supported you, so I am changing my vote, sorry. Billz (Talk) 07:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[change source]
  • Neutral - He has shown to be a good contributer of this wiki. His contributions are a little less than expected for an RfA, and an average of 5.76 edits per day is not that outstanding. He has appeared to get involved in issues like this where he has tried to guide other editors and help us towards a better wiki. Yet, as far as I've noticed, he is not available that much on this wiki, so he still has some way to become an admin. - Huji reply 14:36, 22 June 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://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nishkid64&oldid=8873268"