Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nja247

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

Nja247

FINAL(18/20/8); Ended 17:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per email from user requesting admin coaching and his removal of the RFA announcement tag from his page with the note, "we'll try again in a couple months."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nja247 (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia for over two years now, and have taken part in various projects to try to make it a better encyclopaedia. For example I've been active in the Good articles review project, and more recently I've found myself involved in administrative tasks, such as account creation and new account watching/reporting. I believe I could help Wikipedia further if I had the tools available to me, as I notice many times the admin board on user name reporting is often backlogged. Overall, I've always actively tried to promote Wikipedia policies, particularly those which ensure high quality articles. I hope for your support. Cheers! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I’ve got along well doing administrative tasks without needing admin tools, however I find myself becoming increasing involved in work which could be done much more quickly and efficiently if I had them. As an admin, I would continue with my normal contributions and involvement in various projects, such as my work as a good articles review member, and as a account creator. Having the tools available would allow me to be more effective at monitoring newly created accounts, especially those which end up being promotional in nature or vandalism only. As noted in my nomination above: I tend to find the reports I file ending up on a heavily backlogged abuse boards, which I could help clear.

Aside from continuing with my usual contributions, I would help by clearing other backlogged admin boards, specifically the noticeboards. It’s only fair to attempt to address the issues raised by fellow Wikipedians as quickly as possible as they’ve spent their time to draft a report and bring the matter to our attention.

In summary, I’d continue doing my current admin-like tasks, which I believe would be greatly helped by being an admin myself. Further I’d work to ensure that the issues raised by fellow Wikipedians are addressed as quickly as possible and dealt with fairly.

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

A: Without a doubt my work as a Good articles project reviewer has made the most positive impact to the quality of Wikipedia. I will be honest in saying that recently I haven’t been as active as I would like to be in this area, as I’ve found myself more focussed on ensuring that queued new accounts are created timely, and ensuring that they are not used to vandalise or spam. However I recognise the importance of article review, and being active in that project taught me to be thorough in my edits, and also to engage others in their editing and to guide them so they too can make higher quality additions to Wikipedia.

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:Yes, there have been times that I’ve found myself in conflict with other users on their edits, or their retractions of my edits to some of the articles that I watch. However I’ve never allowed it to get to the point where I became incivil or broke the 3RR rule. When disputes arise, I do my best to remain level-headed by engaging users on their talk pages and trying to encourage consensus to be made on the article’s talk page prior to making controversial edits to the article.

On the plus side, conflicts have pushed me to review Wikipedia guidelines which taught me how to avoid conflicts and ways to resolve them when they do happen, i.e. requests for comment, arbitration, etc. However I’ve found resorting to these measures are usually not needed, but it is good to know the dispute resolution procedures regardless.

Overall, I do my best to ensure my actions are done after some thought and review of policy, especially when in conflict. As an admin I would continue to ensure my actions were done with a cool head and are justified. I'd be even more cautious so that I'm projecting a positive example to fellow editors.

Optional Questions from Backslash Forwardslash

4. I notice that in the past, you have uploaded a few images that have since been deleted. How well do you understand the image policies nowadays? Are you planning to do much image work?

It is true that I've uploaded images in the past which were subsequently deleted. You'll notice that there were a few uploads when I first started editing, and then later I uploaded several more whilst expanding upon articles. The latter troubled uploads were done mainly in mid-2007. They mostly consisted of logos, screenshots, and similar items. Essentially I did not fully understand the image policy, and it wasn't until the period in mid-2007 when I was specifically made aware of it by helpful users/admins who managed images.

As well all know: copyrights can be tricky. I now understand the implications that copyrights can have to Wikipedia (especially now as I'm now a law student). I now tend to steer clear of uploading unless I've done my best to ensure it is absolutely needed, and even then only if done correctly/allowed. I feel as though my understanding of what is and is not acceptable has greatly improved. I still find myself checking policy pages to ensure anything I'm planning to do, or anything anyone else has done has been done so appropriately. While patrolling enforcement of images is not something I actively do, I believe if help was desperately needed I'd now be able to do so, of course with a copy of the policies in my lap ;-) Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional Questions from WilyD

5 Can you explain what was wrong with your AfD nomination here? (It's kind of old, but you seem to have very little recent involvement there). WilyD 13:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea it was one of the first, if not the first AfD I've done. Clearly all that was needed, and what I should have done was merge the article, or if I thought it would be contentious propose the merge to let consensus prevail. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question from CharlotteWebb

5½ What do you believe is the role of AFD in editorial decisions such as whether to merge an article? Is a "merge" or "don't merge" AFD consensus in any way binding? Is "merge and delete" ever a valid result? — CharlotteWebb 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Flewis

6.The ACC interface is identical to both administrators and non-admins alike. How will the admin tools enable you "to be more effective at monitoring newly created accounts?"

I believe I did not express my thinking clearly in regards to that statement. What I was attempting to say was that now that I'm active as an account creator I find myself checking the user creation logs and seeking out potentially dubious recent accounts and reporting my findings as warranted. When I do file a report for obvious user name policy violations I've found that many of the times the abuse board is backlogged, and in at least one recent instance the user was on an active vandalism campaign. Therefore having the tools available would assist in that respect, and I'd also help by clearing out the backlogs. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

7. I noticed that you have just received access to the rollback tool, which can be effective in reverting large amounts of vandalism at high speeds. Do you envision yourself becoming more involved in anti-vandalism patrolling and blocking if you become an admin?

In fact I do. While I have not actively sought out vandals, I have always undone un-constructive edits to pages when I come across them, which includes vandalism. I almost always put a message on the talk page of the user to let them know why I've done so, and when I find someone on a vandalism-spree I report it to the appropriate noticeboard. As an admin I would most certainly become more involved in fighting vandalism, and in fact one of the aims of my efforts of watching newly created accounts is to find recent vandal only accounts and have them reported straight away. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Aitias

8. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. Yes, there are a few circumstances where I believe doing this would be warranted. One of which would be serious issues such as defamation or pure vandalism with no context. Further it depends on the editor in question, i.e. if they have recently created an account and have added a slew of new articles, then in that case they may have added the tag in bad-faith. Thus overall you need to consider your actions carefully and take into account the type of CSD criteria, its seriousness and the circumstances surrounding the editor.

9. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. Rollback can be a helpful tool for quickly removing vandalism, especially for those who do not make use of automated tools such as Twinkle, etc. Before granting such a request I would take into consideration the user’s contributions to see how much vandalism they’ve removed, and whether they correctly indentified what vandalism is since the tool is not to be used for any other type of reverts.

10. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. Per policy, only in very specific situations, such as to depict the image the person personified which they are well known for (iconic status/historical importance). Even then it’d have to be absolutely necessary and follow the specific requirements for addition, i.e. "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."

11. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?

A. As the IP had been vandalising other pages, and was given the appropriate warnings, I don’t think there’d be a conflict as long as what was done to my page was clearly vandalism and not a failed attempt by them to talk to me about the warning on my user page rather than my talk page. If in doubt at the time though I’d have no reservations reporting it to WP:AIV rather than appear as if I’m being unreasonable.

12. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. Almost never as users must be made aware of the policy they're in breach of to be able to reform. However there may be exceptional circumstances, such as extreme vandalism, i.e. promotion of hate and racism, uploading shock images, or accounts which appear compromised as an emergency measure.

General comments

• See Nja247's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Nja247: Nja247 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nja247 before commenting.

Discussion

• Candidate, please provide answers to the first three RfA questions (in fact, this should usually be done before an RfA is transcluded). Nsk92 (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to bring this up, but after considering the comments made about activity I feel as though I should make a statement: In March/April (2007 and 2008) I had to revise for and take exams; and unfortunately this summer I was absent for close to three months due to medical reasons. I hope the community takes into account my article building work done in the past and my more recent administrative work when considering my low counts particularly this year. There is more discussion on this on my talk page. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate that, but it doesn't change the fact that you were gone for over 8 months. Absences that long, even if fully justified, make it impossible for us to tell what your current attitude is towards the project and your current understanding of how things work. I would have the same reaction to somebody who was forced to serve in the military, and I come from a family of military personell. Even if you had a continuous edit history, your contributions would be marginal at best. Re-establish yourself here, show us that you are willing to make more than a few edits a month, and I'll look you over.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe my response on my talk page already address these duplicated comments and I repeat that I believe the 8 months figure given is an exaggeration. Essentially I believe I've shown I can build articles and contribute, do daily admin tasks, and work well with other users and guide them as needed throughout the over two years I've contributed. Thanks again for your views and rest assured that I take into consideration all constructive criticism. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, per AGF for the time being. Contributions look good, generally. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong support I strongly support this user and hopes this user will become an administrator, I truly believe this one deserves that! J.B. (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I think I have to agree to Aqwis. abf /talk to me/ 12:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Weak Support (due to incorrect speedy tagging)- A little experience in fighting vandalism would be handy, but other than that, everything checks out. Also please be more careful when tagging for speedy deletion [1][2][3]--Flewis^(talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - Agree with Agwis ; Good luck Alexnia (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - I see no reason to distrust you, so I support without reservation., from my review so far of your edits. (Incomplete, but I WP:AGF.) I like your initiative., so I'm getting my support in pending the completion of my review. Best of luck in your RfA. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 14:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Support we ll see --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I would have liked to have nomed you :) I think you will make a great admin and I have no outstanding problems with your work. Good Luck! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Support He seems willing to learn, acts responsibly, and really hasn't given me a reason to worry. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Knows dispute resolution, maintains a cool head in discussions, is knowledgeable regarding the username policy which is important considering he will be working at the relevant noticeboard (which has a tendency to become backlogged), and he learns from his past mistakes in a mature and modest manner. Overall, granting him access will be, in my view, a net positive. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
11. Support, seems sensible, no reason to believe user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC).
12. Support - I really like the comment the candidate left on his own talk page. [4]. That seems to be the sensible and well thought out thinking we find desirable in administrator. Nick (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Weak support. I considered opposing because of a low involvement in the projectspace, but looking at your answer to Q1, I thought it would be alright to trust you with the tools. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - I would have liked you to be more active, but I can overlook that. RockManQ ^(talk) 17:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
15. Support; my primary criterion is, and will always be, "Do I trust this editor to not abuse the tools?". A survey of your edits show that my answer is "Yes" despite the low level of contributions. An administrator that only makes the occasional positive use of the tools is still a net gain for the project. — Coren ^(talk) 18:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
16. Support as candidate has never been blocked and as I do not recall having any negative interactions with the candidate.--A Nobody^{My talk} 19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
17. Weak Support - per Master & Expert + Nick. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - meets my standards, and we could use another legal eagle as an admin at WP:WikiProject Law. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Sorry to have to be the first in the oppose column, but I don't think the candidate is ready for adminship. The overall contribution record is fairly limited - 2877 edits total in more than 2 years, with long periods of inactivity or low activity. In a situation like that I would would to see particular excellence in at least one specific area, but that is not the case here either. In particular, the mainspace contribution record is not very impressive. A fairly small number of articles created. Of them one, The National Society of Leadership and Success, has been deleted, and another, Buckeye Leadership Society is a clear candidate for deletion and is unlikely to survive an AfD if nominated. Being a GA reviewer is certainly good, but again the candidate's contribution record to the GA project does not seem, at the moment, sufficiently extensive. Also, the candidate has been a fairly inactive editor for most of this year, with quite low edit count for February-September and only 156 edits in October. Sorry, but this record just does not show somebody who is sifficiently experienced to be an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose I wasn't going to get involved in this RfA, as I don't like to oppose candidates that IMO have zero chance of passing, but when I see an admin whom I respect saying that they would have nom'd the candidate, then I have speak out. A candidate with fewer than 3K edits is a hard sell to begin with, but while I am sure this candidate is a good guy, I can't see giving the bit to an editor who has only made 630 edits this year TOTAL. A candidate who has 4 months where he has made fewer than 10 edits. A candidate who only has 2 months with over 150 edits (and that's only because he used tools). Before I give the bit to somebody, I want to see somebody who is active in the project, and I define that pretty loosely at 150 edits in 5 of the past 6 months. That's a pretty low threshold (I know semi-retired people who make more edits than that!) I ask for those edits not because edit counts are important, but rather because it gives you a good gauge on how the candidate acts and thinks over an extended period of time. In the past 5 months, there is a 3 month period where Nja has a TOTAL of 11 edits. He has not been involved in the project enough to get a good sense on how he thinks or acts... this is especially true when you consider the fact that a fair percentage of his recent edit use Twinkle or Friendly!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

   I have replied to the comment you made about on my talk page concerning my RfA. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I am not happy with the attitude expressed here and here, especially from an editor who claims to be active in, and so presumably a supporter of, the GA project. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

   I have said above that I admittedly wished to be more active in the GA project recently. I have been active in the past (20-30 articles or so, many of which I worked on to get them up to standard), still support the project, and plan to get back on it soon. Also, in your former example you neglected to include the entire conversation which shows we actually worked together to address concerns on a GA article. Surely we won't agree all the time! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

   No, we won't. Just to be clear though, I don't think you're a bad person, I just think that you're not yet ready to be an administrator. But heck, neither am I. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

   The day Malleus passing an RfA will be the final sign that the rapture is upon us ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

   I will never pass an RfA, but I expect that Nja247 will one day, most others seem to, just not this time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose Sorry. Lack of admin-related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Regretful Oppose. The candidate needs more experience, both in admin areas and otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum's example shows that the candidate is still learning the ropes. In time, Nja247 could very well be a fine admin. Majoreditor (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Tentative oppose - I like what you're doing, I just don't think you have enough experience in admin areas to demonstrate that you'd be a net positive to the project, sorry. That said, if somebody comes back with some diffs demonstrating experience around the board, I'm open to changing my stance. — neuro^(talk) 19:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per Balloonman here [5].America69 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose Also per Balloonman on the candidate's talk page. I'll repeat here what I said there: "Balloonman is doing something here that I and others have asked for as a way to improve the RfA process. If some of the guys who have a LOT of experience at RfA can say "Ahem, you might want to look at similar RfAs, they didn't do very well, would you consider withdrawing?", then a lot of good things happen: it saves the time of reviewers, it makes RfAs less contentious, it gives the candidate some other similar RfAs to study so they can figure out what they might need to be able to pass, and it may shorten the time that they should wait before coming back. Of course, this only works if the "old" guys are perceived as doing this in the best interest of the candidate. My feeling FWIW is that Balloonman has your interests at heart here, Nja, and I agree with him, but I hope you don't feel badgered. I have categories for admins in my own head (maybe shared by no one else), and you'd be what I think of as a "content admin"; I'd want a content admin to know the content policies and content-related guidelines. I think a problem here is that there isn't any community-wide process that gives people a "thumbs-up" other than the RfA process, which is a shame; if you were running for "certified Good-Article reviewer" or something, the criteria would be different. But we're stuck with what we've got." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose, same as Epbr123. macy 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose You're in the right direction obviously, with some good contributions, but simply the low frequency of edits, especially recently, has to make me oppose. I don't like citing "edit count", because that's not exactly what it is, its that I can't see the kind of experience that I'd use to judge how good of an admin you could be. So for now, oppose. --Banime (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you for your input here and on my talk page, where I've posted a reply. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose per Nsk92 and Banime Although I'm very glad my quick survey of edits showed additions of citations, I'm afraid that the quality of edits does not offset the paucity of edits. I see mostly wikignome and page patroller type edits, and if one follows that route, the editor needs a greater number of edits to gain the requisite experience for the buttons. So, I'd like to see greater experience and activity in terms of tool related edits and/or article building. Dlohcierekim 13:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Nja247 has generally good quality contributions, but not enough to demonstrate a good understanding of application of policy and collaboration with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose - many of this candidate's edits are the kind that, if I saw them being made, I would feel the need to re-edit. I invite the candidate to continue editing, but it's a case of not-ready-yet. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose Per Balloonman. Im not so sure that we would like to have an admin who would contribute 10 edits for any 3-month period. Sorry. Yet, edits more focus on value, not total. ;)G ! B B i 3^{I4m 733t0rz} 00:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose — As much as I hate to vote "per User:X", Balloonman said it all. The low level of projectspace contributions in particular was a deciding factor in my decision here. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose more admin work and activity all over. — JoJo • Talk • 19:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose No experience in Wikipedia-space and admin areas, very low activity. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a probable lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
19. Very weak oppose Per above, mostly Balloonman (activity issues) and Malleus Fatuorum (still seems to be learning, which isn't really great). I doubt this user would abuse admin tools, but I can't be sure there won't be any misuse. Very sorry, maybe in a few months, with more activity and knowledge in more areas? Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose Overall low activity, lack of quality articles (DYK, GA etc.), low level of edits in admin-related pages and low level of edits in Wikiprojects. However, I think the candidate is on the right track, it is just too early get the tools yet. I suggest that the candidate become more involved in their preferred admin related pages and Wikiprojects.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Sorry after taking into account the opposes .Good contributor but feel it is WP:NOTNOW .Please try again later and you will have my support.But you are on the right track.Good luck Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral Per Pharaoh of the Wizards. Sam ^Blab 21:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral Your content creation skills are a plus, but the lack of admin-related input (cited in the oppose section) is problematic. As Pharaoh stated, timing is a bit off. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral Per Pharaoh of the Wizards. Leujohn ^(talk)
5. Neutral due to lack of activity and input to the project over 2 years. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 12:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral Mainly due to lack of activity. I wouldn't oppose since I believe he is a good contributor, but this is holding me back from supporting. Chamal ^talk 14:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral - You are a good contributor and potentially a good adminship candidate. I am however a bit concerned over the amount of experience, particularly within admin areas and with policies, at the present time. All the best. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral - While he probably won't use it wrong in any way, I'm afraid to say that Nja doesn't have the amount of experience to become accustomed with the tools. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 04:07, 18 November 2008 (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.