[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NeilN

Add links
Page protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

NeilN

Final: (168/5/5) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 20:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

NeilN (talk · contribs) – NeilN is one of those editors who should have been an admin years ago. He has been around since 2005, and has been an active contributor on and off since 2007.[1] (The latest "on" period has lasted a solid two years.) Most regulars here will be familiar with him through his recent changes patrolling, which he does such a good job of that he gets barnstars like these.

NeilN has been putting off running for adminship because of his relative lack of content contributions. However, it's not like he doesn't have any. For example, he is the author of NetMarket, a good-quality start-class article, and if you start looking you can find solid content edits like these.[2][3][4] There are more if you go back through his contributions, and that's not counting the fixes that he makes as part of his recent changes work.

His contributions to administrative areas are where he really shines, however. To give you a taste of how prolific he is, here are some numbers: 554 edits to AIV, 279 edits to BLPN, 237 edits to ANEW, 161 edits to RFPP, and 98 edits to UAA. He also has 689 edits to ANI, which can sometimes be a red flag, but in this case seems to just be an extension of his recent changes work and not an indication of Dramah. And the number of Twinkle edits he has? 45,380.[5] Perhaps the most important thing to note about his recent-changes patrolling is that he doesn't simply revert edits; he often takes the time to add sources,[6][7][8] fix formatting[9][10] and fix factual errors.[11][12] Rather than the stereotype of the trigger-happy rollbacker, I get the impression that careful thought goes behind every click. And last but not least, I would be remiss if I did not mention his very respectable AfD contributions and deleted contributions (sorry, admin-only link).

NeilN is also fond of helping new users, as can be seen from his 233 edits to the help desk and his 148 edits to the Teahouse. Given his experience, his consistently accurate patrolling, and his willingness to help people out, I would say that NeilN is an ideal candidate for adminship. I hope that the community will agree with me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Abecedare

Mr. Stradivarius has already described Neil's prolific and positive contribution to wikipedia and their dedication to the project. So I'll restrict myself to highlighting two particular qualities that I believe will serve Neil well as an admin:

  • In-depth knowledge of wikipedia policies: This is demonstrated not only through his mainspace edits but also in cogent comments made at policy and guideline talk-pages including WT:NPOV, WT:BLP and WT:MEDRS, and at numerous article talk pages. Neil is also able to articulate how the policies and practices apply to particular cases, even on contentious pages when faced with SPAs assuming bad faith, and when the discussion is a complete mess.
  • Calm and helpful demeanor: This can be seen in the discussions linked above, or by browsing through his talkpage archives. Let me just point out a recent illustrative sequence: Neil reverted an edit by an edit-warring user who then came to complain on Neil's page ("why you posting on my wall bro? do i even no u") to which Neil replied politely. The editor, now in a more conciliatory mood, next asked Neil how they could become an admin on wikipedia. What I found most impressive was that Neil, instead of dismissing the query curtly or (worse) employing sarcasm as many of us would have been tempted to, took the time to answer it sincerely. And the WP:ADMIN standard he articulated, "To become an administrator, stick around a couple years, make thousands of productive edits, participate in discussions, and gain the trust of the community that you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and won't abuse the administrator tools." is one I believe Neil has more than met.

Hope the community will hand them the mop, which will make Neil an even bigger asset to wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. Thank you Mr. Stradivarius and Abecedare. --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I see admin work as an extension of the work I've been doing. I'll be helping out at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and WP:UAA. I will be evaluating reports at WP:3RRNB, using EdJohnston's practices as a template for my actions. I'll also help out at WP:ANI and WP:RM.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As Mr. Stradivarius alluded to above, I'm not a traditional content contributor. I think my "best" contributions involve helping content contributors with issues [13] and making sure changes to articles meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, taking the time to explain to amenable and interested editors why their edits may have problems. [14], [15]. Wikipedia can be a complicated place and if I can help a fellow constructive or potentially constructive editor, even if I may not agree with them, I think that's a win for all of us.
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 many articles on controversial subjects on my watchlist so that's a definite yes on conflicts. And I think like many editors, I experience a brief "what are you doing?" moment when I see an edit or revert of mine being reverted. The key is to step back and evaluate the conflict. Often this will only take a few seconds in the case of unconstructive editors. However when the issue is more nuanced, other factors (e.g., existing consensus, stability and quality of article) have to be weighed. Talk page discussion is always good as are the other avenues mentioned at WP:DRR. Of course, patience is usually needed when waiting for others editors to notice the conflict and if no one takes the time to weigh in, that may be a good sign the issue is not as important as you think it is.
Additional question from Iaritmioawp
4. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?
A: I've seen this often enough at AFD. Consensus deals with all the proper concerns raised. These concerns need to be derived from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not arguments like "I like it" or "it doesn't need a source because I know it's true". If the four editors arguing for A had no proper concerns, I would close in favor of B. --NeilN talk to me 20:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional quetsion from Reaper Eternal
5. While I understand that adding content isn't really your forte (see Q2), would you mind link an article or two where you have made significant content contributions? You don't claim any DYK's, GA's, or FA's on your userpage, and sifting through 78,000 edits is a rather daunting task. I'm looking for a sample or two showcasing your best work and demonstrating an understanding of Wikipedia's content policies. Thanks!
A: Cleanup and some limited expansion improving sourcing is what I do sometimes. For example, this conversation led to these edits. Another conversation led to this correction and small expansion. [16] Another (heated) conversation led to the May 5-7 2014 edits on Nazanin Afshin-Jam. Again, small things and nothing that is generally regarded as a significant content contribution but I think there are enough of them to demonstrate I understand Wikipedia's content policies. --NeilN talk to me 02:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Bosstopher
6. The only article you've created on Wikipedia (as already pointed out) is for a currently active business called NetMarket. What inspired you to write this article? Do you have any personal connection to the company in question?
A: No personal connection. I have Online shopping on my watchlist and when I saw these edits [17], [18] I thought being acknowledged as performing the first secure retail transaction on the Internet was pretty notable, given the huge presence of online shopping today. --NeilN talk to me 12:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Recall?
A: I want to keep this simple but not susceptible to gaming. So, I propose to resign if seven editors indicate I do so. These seven editors must include at least three uninvolved active admins and non-admins must be in good standing with respect to the topic and have at least a thousand edits each and at least four hundred in the last calendar year. I am open to tweaking this criteria. --NeilN talk to me 13:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Added four hundred qualifier --NeilN talk to me 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator recall I have detailed my recall criteria here: User:NeilN/Recall --NeilN talk to me 02:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ritchie333
8. Why did you call another user an idiot in the Teahouse? [19]. I sense this may have been harmless banter reading between the lines, can you explain?
A: I was following the self-deprecating style of AmaryllisGardener who said they had to learn to read. I was calling myself an idiot for having to make four edits for a post. By the way, although an occasional fixup is necessary, this is not a common occurrence. --NeilN talk to me 12:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Stuartyeates
9. On which topic do you consider yourself to be furthest from the general wikipedia consensus?
A: Very interesting question! Policies are built on consensus and I don't think WP:0RR should ever be imposed on articles. Full protection is a much better solution. For some background on why I feel this way please see this. To further expand on what I said there, editing restrictions on contentious articles should emphasize getting consensus before a change is made. I don't think WP:0RR does this. --NeilN talk to me 14:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from SNUGGUMS
10. You describe many articles you watch as controversial subjects. In what ways (if any) do you treat such articles differently than less controversial subjects?
A: I'm going to repeat what I said here: "If multiple experienced editors in good standing object to what you are doing, then slow down and edit cautiously, even if you are sure your edits are according to policy." Gnoming changes to controversial subjects usually pass without objection. Even substantial changes can be done fairly easily if they're obviously improving the article (see the recent history of Kent Hovind for an example). But controversial articles are likely to have a substantial talk page history which should be looked at as different editors can assign different weights and interpretations to the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Coming in and insisting something is an obvious BLP violation and repeatedly removing it as such when multiple experienced editors say it's not is a good way to further inflame the situation. In other words, on controversial subjects, be extra careful you're not acting like a bull in a china shop. --NeilN talk to me 12:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from User:Beyond My Ken
11. I'm about to add my support as soon as I post this question, so consider this as curiosity on my part as much as anything else. I'm not really concerned about your "content creation", 48% of your edits to articles seems OK to me - maybe a bit low, but not anything to be worried about. What I am curious about is the high number of edits to User talk pages (36%), as opposed to article talk pages (9%). What do you think accounts for that?
A: A majority of my semi-automated edits are reverts of problematic material - unsourced additions, spam, BLP violations, tests, and straight out vandalism. The reasons for these reverts need to be directly communicated to the editor, rather than a post to the article talk page, and this communication often triggers follow up posts. For example, this one article edit triggered all these ~8 user talk page posts. [20] [21] --NeilN talk to me 21:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support The two noms have expressed my thoughts exactly. NeilN should have become an admin a long time ago. Thoughtful, polite, well aware of policy. --regentspark (comment) 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support It is a pleasure to support this candidate who I know will be a great admin. I see no reasonable reason to oppose. Chillum 20:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rschen7754 20:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: NeilN's demeanor is what we need in an admin. Personally, I care that he cares about Wikipedia, not that he creates content; that's what matters. Epic Genius (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support with pleasure. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, I've seen lots of good work from him, no issues. Huon (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support NeilN is a levelheaded editor who does not shy of getting involved in difficult articles to assist with disputes, while being able to remain calm, collected, and disinterested enough not to take sides. He also pays attention to details, and does not jump to conclusions, always assuming good faith. His understanding of core polices is spot on, applying common sense rather than being over-dogmatic about them. In my interactions with him and in observing his interactions with others, my impression is that NeilN will make a hell of a good administrator. We need more like him to step up to the plate. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I can but agree with all the sentiments above. NeilN is an asset to the WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: One of the best Wikipedia editors, NeilN understands WP:Policies and guidelines better than many of our experienced editors. I very much admire how he upholds the WP:Neutral policy, given that so many people commonly misunderstand it. He is stern when he needs to be, often accommodating when he thinks he can be a help, and reflects a calm demeanor more often than not; I mean, even when you think he might be upset, it is likely that you don't know it for sure. That's not to state that getting upset on Wikipedia is a bad thing, but rather that we need more editors who can perform well under antagonism or other stress. And having a WP:Administrator with those qualities is one of the ideals. NeilN is very loyal, but never lets that get in the way if he thinks you are wrong. He is a well-rounded editor, and I am happy to support him becoming a WP:Administrator. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support 'bout time this RFA materialized. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Excellent candidate! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Neil clearly knows his way around the administrative areas of Wikipedia, I trust him to do good work and lord knows, we can use someone who can help with the backlogs on these pages. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. LOL, I thought NeilN was already an admin somehow...anyways, Strongest Support of all the Supports. I've seen NeilN sometimes and his experience and civility is helping the project a lot. --TL22 (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I know this is trope at this point, but I saw this on the list and thought it had to be a reconfirmation RFA. Apparently not. Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Sure. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Neil would make good use of the tools. Alakzi (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Not to undermine the many reasons there are to support this candidate, but there is no apparent reason to oppose and that's enough. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Neil shows excellent judgment and temperament. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Stable, wiki-knowledgeable, helpful, involved. Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - I have often been impressed by this editor's level-headedness and civility, even when interacting with some very difficult to deal with editors. I think he'd make an excellent admin. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support: Excellent contributions. There's no need for a 30/30 mainspace/project+talk distribution for someone to be trustable. The only (minor) problem is question 4: a better alternative would be to !vote B and relist (AfDs can't be definitely closed with one valid !vote). Esquivalience t 23:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - He's quite concerned with anti-vandalism but is also well rounded and educated and sincere. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I really did think he was an admin already. But he's not, and he should be. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support No worries; candidate seems eminently qualified. Miniapolis 23:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No problems found, and I support this candidate along with the others. Good luck with the mop! --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 23:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Of course Kharkiv07 (T) 23:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Seems like a good candidate. Would like to see more content work however. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support how has he escaped adminship until now? Andrevan@ 00:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per Epicgenius and Cwobeel. - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support A patient editor who has shown that he's able to interact appropriately in some of the most difficult situations on the wiki. Content work is a desirable plus, but is not essential in my view. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Good with new editors and has a good history. Content creation isn't everything, and definitely isn't very important when it comes to being an admin. I do want to see Niel attempting to save articles at AfD instead of going with the flow and voting delete. Other than that, no complaints about this good candidate. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Up until recently I thought he was admin and I mean this in a good way. Neil has the correct temperament and attitude we want from our administers. Calidum T|C 01:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Yes. The old trope about "content creation" is a red herring – not all Admins need that background: some need exactly the kind of background displayed here. --IJBall (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Giving NeilN the mop will clearly be a net positive to Wikipedia. The user understands policy, can remain calm and has plenty of editing experience (even if article creation is lacking), all of which are good traits for admins to have. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support — Great civility with users, and they have earned my trust with the mop. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support; one of the select few I can support from name recognition alone. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Basically what StringTheory11 said. They have beaten me countless times in vandal fighting and I have seen them around for long enough in a positive way to add my !vote here without any second thoughts. — Yash! (Y) 03:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support Looking at his contributions and his edit history I think he should be a suitable admin. EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Happy to support. About time! Jianhui67 T★C 03:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support – No concerns. NeilN has long experience on Wikipedia and good knowledge of policy. A reading of his talk page shows he is unusually patient with new editors and even with people who are quite confused. His calmness appears to be his secret weapon. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - The user is very level headed and civil, and the answers to the questions thus far are satisfactory. Content creation, in my opinion, while helpful, certainly should not be a prerequisite for an admin position. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support The idea behind "admins should be content creators" is that we don't want people who are impatient or insensitive about complex content disputes, or who get tunnel-vision about the behavioral aspects of a problem without recognizing the context that gave rise to them. NeilN has demonstrated an abundance of patience and thoughtfulness, particularly with new users. Looks like another case of the problem I pointed out in a recent AN thread: an obviously well-qualified candidate who could have been a productive admin a long time ago. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, but... I wish he had more content creation experience. My personal feeling is that in order for an administrator to truly understand what editors think, feel, and why they can be so emotionally invested in articles and content, that administrator needs to have been there. That said, Neil has, in my opinion, always been patient, thoughtful in responses, and wise in his comments in regard to conflict and out-of-control editors and/or vandals. Seems to be a good guy, and is worth the risk to give the mop, even in the face of a low content creation count for being here 10 years. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support Someone hand this editor a mop already, NeilN is a fine editor and definitely will make productive use of the tools. The idea that an editor needs "3 FAs and dozens of GAs" before becoming an admin is not helpful here. The editor has incredible experience in the fields where his tools are meaningful and making them an admin will be a net positive to Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support This user definitely would make good use of the extra tools. Don't know why he declined his last RFA. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Struck through WP:Sock's comment. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I have seen NeilN's work and he does it very carefully and definitely adds value. The nominators have done a fine job of summing up his contributions. I too would be a little more wary about low content contribution if he did not have a long history of productive contributions and good interactions but I think he has been around long enough and done enough to get past that type of objection. A person with his knowledge, experience and patience will be a great benefit to the project as an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Very impressed with his work, its about time he is provided the tools. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Very surprised to find he wasn't an admin already, he's such a positive contributor to the encyclopedia. And I disagree that creating lots of your own content is a necessity to be an admin, as working with others to discuss/add content on existing articles is equally valid, which is what they seem to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, obvious. Graham87 09:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Assumed he already had the bit. Yunshui 雲水 09:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Widr (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I actually, really did think he was already an admin. I'm not kidding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per the discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Happy to see him with the mop! Brookie :) { - like the mist, he's here and then gone!} (Whisper...) 10:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I'm twitchy about admins who don't have much content experience as they're always at risk of coming down like a ton of bricks on those that are (without realising), but Neil's work at AfD and the help desks, and the response to the question above, gives me confidence that he's not one of those people. (Oh, he also has more edits in article space than I do!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, I do not think writing new articles is the most important for an administrator, it is more important to have experience fixing other problems. Spumuq (talq) 13:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Seen him around without any problems. As to content creation, a theatre needs playwrights, but it also needs actors, stage hands, producers, electricians, people to sell ice cream, and someone to watch the back door - otherwise who is going to see the plays? Peridon (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Delighted to support based on what I've seen. Like others, I assumed he was an admin based on his extensive knowledge and "crisis management". Noms, answers to questions only help. If one of my created articles were brought to AfD, I'd be happy to have NeilN chime in, prolific content creator or not. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I have seen him handle difficult users, new users and difficult new users all with equal facility. I trust his knowledge of policy and his willingness to engage on content. I believe he can handle whatever is thrown at him as an admin. JbhTalk 13:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support extensive content creation is a nice to have for an admin candidate (in my opinion). While I do appreciate the concerns brought forth by Collect and Wehwalt, they don't sway my opinion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, don't see any major issues. Nakon 13:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, very good candidate. Best luck! Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I'm fairly certain that I've interacted with this editor before in controversial topic areas. However, I can't remember anything about them. This is a huge positive in my opinion, and a sign (along with all the evidence the nominators gave) that they'll be able to carry out difficult admin actions with minimum drama. Also if they one day turn out to secretly be an evil genius whose fooled us all, recall seems like it would be fairly easy. Bosstopher (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support A strong positive contributor. Will be an excellent janitor. BusterD (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - I've seen him around and actually thought he was an admin already. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Maintains a calm demeanor and neutral point of view in controversial articles. I think people obsess too much over whether someone is a "content creator". If they contribute to articles, they're a content creator. A longtime editor with solid policy knowledge who will work on backlogs sounds great to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70. What? I thought NeilN had been an administrator for a long time now. This is really quite a shock. Kurtis (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support No concerns here, especially since we need more people with your demeanor. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - no concerns, net positive etc. GiantSnowman 17:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support one of the editors I thought was an admin already. I agree with everyone above on the content creation thing and am not impressed with the opposing arguments in this regard. Not everyone needs to be a content creator. And in fact, using the tools correctly has nothing to do with content creation. Rather, it has more to do with determining consensus from articles and making policy decisions, both fields in which NeilN has proved to be very skilled. BenLinus1214talk 17:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - Like everyone above I too thought he was already an admin!, Excellent candidate, No issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 17:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Neil's track record speaks for itself. I don't understand the opposition based on minimal content creation -- don't we want out best content creators focusing on content creation and not using the mop? Neil has shown that he is the type of editor who should be wielding the mop. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 18:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Sure, why not? - everything I've looked over looks fine. WilyD 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support We need all the admins we can get, and with no red flags here, I am sure that NeilN will be a fine mop-wielder. Rcsprinter123 (intone) @ 18:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Another easy support vote that requires little discussion. Good luck with the mop -- please don't break the wiki. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support conceding that content creation is a little weak, the rest of his resume is excellent and more than compensates. The major items I look for are... basic competence (i.e. does he have a clue? Does he have sufficient command of policy and guidelines as well as how things work that he is unlikely to serious bleep something up?), demonstrated good will (no serious record of malicious behavior and a desire and willingness to help), and humility (is able to admit he doesn't have all the answers and is willing to ask for help... also owns his mistakes). As far as I can see he checks all the boxes. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support with confidence. Neil has a great attitude and does great work, and I'm confident in his ability to use the tools. Limited content creation does not worry me; I don't see that as negatively impacting the areas he'll be working in. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support A widely active and very able Wikipedian. (These people who bury their references in edit summaries...!): Noyster (talk), 20:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Concerns about a lack of content creation are persuasive, but only if there is evidence that it manifests itself in a lack of understanding and application of core content policies. That evidence does not exist here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support- interactions have all been positive, and editing history shows good work over time. Re content creation: people contribute in different ways, there's enough else here to support this RfA. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. My gosh, so many support votes from so many respected editors so quickly. Neil is one of my favorite editors on Wikipedia. I've had nothing but positive interaction with him. The content issue doesn't bother me a bit. He will be a worthy addition.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "respected editors" - isn't that subjective? Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 22:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support The right attitude is _everything_, and he's got it. KrakatoaKatie 22:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  86. I'm late to the party, apparently, but wanted to go on record as supporting NeilN's request for adminship. I've seen this editor in action; he demonstrates cluefulness and good judgement, and is unafraid to wade into controversial areas. I think he'll be an excellent admin. MastCell Talk 22:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Clearly knows what he's doing, lots of work in backlog areas already, no problems that I could deduce from his talk page. From this and my handful of interactions with him he seems to be very helpful and experienced and so I think he will make a good admin. I also think he understands policy well, as the nominators have noted already. Everymorning talk 23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Per everyone else who said they thought NeilN was already an admin. Clearly we need to correct this oversight. Monty845 23:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Like many others, I kind of thought they already were an admin. The low level of content creation doesn't bother me. So long as an admin has respect for users who create content they actually don't need to be creating it themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - Just about enough content creation for me to be satisfied. Not every admin needs to be a content creator; right now, what we urgently need are more good vandal fighters and page protectors with the bit. NeilN fits that bill. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Well-respected, long-time veteran editor. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - I'm another one who assumed NeilN was an admin already. Supporting based on my own experiences with NeilN, research I did before posting this, and in the absence of any compelling reason to oppose. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support An asset to the community.– Gilliam (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Stephen 05:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Haven't trawled the editors' edits in detail, but I've had positive interactions with them in the past. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Limited content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support He has done a lot of good work on this encyclopedia so far, and there is every indication that he will continue to do so if made an administrator. Mamyles (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support I was sure he was one already. I have been impressed by his restraint in trying circumstances. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support! - I can't say enough good things about this editor and I'm delighted that he's offered his services. I'm certain he will be a prototypical administrator.- MrX 18:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support obviously. HiDrNick! 18:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support dang it I missed #100. Zad68 18:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Me too, should've stayed online... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. I thought he was already an admin as well. I look forward to reality meeting that expectation. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - I've seen NeilN around, and there is no way he cannot know what he is doing. Like several of you, I was surprised that he wasn't already an admin. The work he has done is commendable, and it will only be done better with a mop. -- Orduin Discuss 23:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Very helpful friendly editor who works hard in the fields he is in, just what Wikipedia needs in an admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - Adequate tenure, 80K edits, just under half of which are to mainspace. Clean block log (other than a couple goof ups by admins), no indications of assholery. Zero concerns here. Carrite (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support surprised he wasn't one already. Very levelheaded and civil editor. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support I even didn't notice that he isn't an Admin. --115ash→(☏) 08:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Better late than never. Support WormTT(talk) 11:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support No reason he shouldn't be an admin. I appreciate that he uses talk pages on contentious articles and helps out new editors. -- haminoon (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support NeilN will be a positive addition to the administrator team. The opposition (and "lack" of content work) does not diminish the user's work in other areas and I am happy to support. MJ94 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support NeilN should be an admin for the reasons given above. AstroLynx (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Will be a good admin. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  114. We need more admins, and Neil wants to work in areas that are chronically short of admins. He's been around for a long time and I trust his judgement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support If NeilN isn't viewed as a near perfect candidate for the mop then there may be some substance to all of the hullabaloo about RfA being broken. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support While content is the be-all and end-all of the project as a whole, its production need not be for every admin; i have given this some thought, and the opposes (and neutrals) do not raise issues which concern me. Cheers, LindsayHello 20:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Reviewing the answers to the questions and the nomination statements, as well as the supports/opposes, there does not seem to be any major issue with NeilN getting the mop - I am inclined to consider the lack of article contributions a neutral argument rather than a serious concern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support I think he would make a good admin. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - just the kind of admin we need to see. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Bgwhite (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - Agree with Harry's take on this, especially regarding candidate's preferred areas of activity and our shortage of admins currently working in those areas. Irondome (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support I somehow missed this. Emphatic "yes".  Philg88 ♦talk 06:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support without hesitation. Though I understand the concerns about relatively little content creation, I have seen NeilN in action many times here on this encyclopedia, and have found him consistently helpful, well informed and competent. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support without hesitation, agree with C328. The Snowager-is awake 06:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support — MusikAnimal talk 12:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support no issues here, except that it's about time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support His noms forgot to mention that he has participated in 67 SPI cases, an area that I would like to see him continue working once he has the tools.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support He's not an admin already? Faizan (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Researching your edit history I found nearly 1,000 semi-automated edits using Popups, which inspired me to finally create my vector.js file. Great tool for fixing links to disambiguation! Congrats on your well-deserved pending promotion. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support - No better qualified candidate has ever sought the mop, period. Considering he has fooled many into thinking he was an admin already, concerns about him being an evil genius are not entirely without merit. - NQ (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support I trust his judgement to use the tools in areas he is familiar with, and to be cautious when dealing outside his comfort zone. Net positive, unquestionably. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Strong Support Clearly my support here is superfluous, as this is going to pass easily. But having not noticed this RfA until now, and having seen and greatly liked this editors work, I would like to add my comment to the landslide anyway. A great editor with a sound basis of admin-related work, he will be a seriously good admin. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support- absolutely no concerns with this editor. Reyk YO! 21:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support - BMK (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. Well-qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support - thought you were an admin already. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support - my only concern is how he has managed to duck and weave from being a sysop for so long. My criteria are anong the strictest of all but on aggregate he passes by a wide margin. Thus if by my barometer I can make allowance for the lack of actual creations, I find the oppose votes totally unconvincing and that they don't take into consideration the rest of the candidate's excellent work. Tops marks also to Strad for his brilliant nomination speech. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Absolutely. I've interacted with Neil on the indic pages, and he is friendly, level headed, and helpful, which is especially unusual in the morass that are our south-asian pages. When I first met him I assumed he was an admin; when I realized he was not I seriously considered nominating him myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support without the slightest reservation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Pile-on support. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 07:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Not that you need anymore supporters at this point. Definitely a net positive. You might find WP:RFACHEAT interesting to read at this point in your RFA. Mkdwtalk 08:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support He should of been an admin ages ago. Caden cool 15:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - His comments about editing, including disruptive editing, are on the mark. The real job of an admin is not content creation, but dealing reasonably with disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Not really anything I can add to what is said above, but nothing raised stops me from supporting. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support - The first oppose vote gives as a reason "Great at doing vandal reverts in vast numbers - but little actual content work". In my opinion people that are good at creating content should not be admins; they should continue to work on content and leave the administrative tasks to others. Eeekster (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - been around long enough that I feel confident to conclude he wouldn't do anything unusually stupid with the tools. That would be reason enough, but beyond that he has done good work around here, and seems to have a good modicum of sense. Guettarda (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - Thought he was one already. And since I didn't have a problem with that, logic suggests that I should be in favour... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support - Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 00:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - based on review, but needs to work on content. Kierzek (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Content contributions aren't that minuscule, just well hidden under other good work. Always helpful and civil. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 02:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Content contribution doesn't have to mean creating new articles: expansion, adding sources, and especially talk page work that negotiates article content, all help towards improving and adding to the content. Perhaps still a bit light, but I see good balance and competence in policy. Oh, and probably a good egg ;) --Stfg (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support: I've read through the neutral and oppose comments and still haven't found a single good reason to oppose. NeilN is one of the users I recognise on Wikipedia, not for anything big in particular but for lots of pieces of active discussion and well-considered comments all over the place. His content contributions are still significant: working on lots of different sections and articles is just as valuable (I'd argue more valuable, in many respects) than more concentrated contributions on specific articles / topics. I've done spot checks on various edits by NeilN in various namespaces, and haven't come across anything disagreeable or inappropriate. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support: He's been around long enough. David Cannon (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Wizardman 14:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support — NeilN's contribution to the anti-vandalism side of the project is much appreciated; that, and other factors suggest Neil will make a wonderful administrator. Good luck and all the best! —MelbourneStar☆talk 14:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support - Welcome aboard NeilN! -- Ϫ 18:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support per Collect. Anybody who is good at reverting tons of vandal edits is a fine candidate for the mop. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support Good to get the mop in my view. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support What the noms said. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support His work around Wikipedia shows he is well suited to be an admin. The idea that content creators should have to waste their time cleaning up is nonsensical. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Pile-on Support. Should have been admin'ed long ago. —Wasell(T) 13:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support - Sure, I'll pile on. Looks like a good candidate and the opposes fail to convince me otherwise. Jusdafax 13:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support - He has everything we expect from admin like experience and good communication skills. I think he will be a good addition to the group. Supdiop talk 14:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support per noms :) Abecedare (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support NeilN has always been a helpful presence in the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan area, and he would be even more helpful as an admin. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support without reservation, the opposing arguments are not persuasive. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support I feel confident in entrusting him with the tools. JimRenge (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support Yeah, yeah, not much content work, but seriously? No problems here. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Great at doing vandal reverts in vast numbers - but little actual content work, and zero minimal article creation. The part that puts me over a neutral !vote edge is his uniform position on AfDs where he appears to be quite willing to add a "delete !vote" to easy cases, but not as willing to demur on cases where "keep" is a supportable outcome. It is easy to !vote delete, indeed, but I prefer people who will try to find the ones where a keep !vote would make a difference. Collect (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of articles he has created isn't actually zero: he wrote NetMarket last year as I mentioned in the nom, and there is one more way back from 2009. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot claim credit for Sierra Repertory Theatre. The article history is a bit weird but an explanation can be found here: User_talk:Bsimonis#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Sierra_Repertory_Theatre. --NeilN talk to me 23:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just history-merged that page and reset the history, so it's not credited to you anymore. Graham87 09:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See further discussion at talkpage
    Oh noes, looks like someone has articlecountitis! --TL22 (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like lastworditis from you when it is clear the primary reason I gave was AfD behaviour. On the actual percentage of edits (other than reverts), I would have been neutral. Vast numbers of TW edits do not, however, impress me as much as article content edits would. Collect (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, I get a lot of heck for opposing candidates who are !vote delete on everything at AfD, but I don't follow your thinking here. Neil has voted to keep in >80% of cases where the final outcome was keep (and has been 7-3 keep in the no consensus cases). What're you seeing? WilyD 18:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Insufficient content created. GregJackP Boomer! 16:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I have not had much interaction with him, but what little I had recently does not inspire confidence. Over at Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a new editor was inserting content, and providing the source for it in the edit summary. For some reason, a tag-team of editors objected to this sourced content, and repeatedly removed it using different pretexts. One of these tag-teaming edit warriors was NeilN, who reverted the content with an edit summary that said "Source?" [22] - despite the fact that the easily verifiable source was given at least twice before, in edit summaries. [23][24]. (to preempt the inevitable rush to his defense by the tag-team, who are predictably voting to support him here, the editor was subsequently blocked as a sock-puppet, - but that was NOT the rationale NeilN used to revert the content.) The best case scenario for such behavior is that he was using an automated tool (TW) to revert something without bothering to go over the edit history. I don't think Wikipedia needs more admins with such trigger happy fingers who are quick to undo others' work using an automated tool, without bothering to follow the content dispute. And I can think of several other scenarios that would lead him to the article just minutes after his buddies were at 2 reverts, which would reflect even worse on him. Perhaps he can try again in a few months, after such behavior is shown to be an aberration, and his use of TW is moderated.. All Rows4 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose It's not just that he doesn't create content; he doesn't seem very interested or competent when content creation is required. For example, consider the history of Muara Bungo, which is a place in Indonesia. A page is created which is quite poor. Someone tries to delete it and the candidate gets to wrestling with them. He means well but seems quite incapable of doing much with the content and so the article is still junk, without any English-language sources. And this is after the candidate has been editing Wikipedia for years. I expect an admin to have enough grasp of the basics to be able to produce a better stub about such a place. Andrew D. (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are my arguments to keep: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muara_Bungo. Sometimes an article cannot currently progress beyond a stub. --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you're saying here at all, look at the history. Soon after the article was created, "Bobbertybob" tries to delete it five times with inappropriate methods. Neil is one of three different editors trying to stop these inappropriate delete attempts. Here Neil adds a referent to establish notability. What is the issue? Zad68 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That source is presumably in the Indonesian Malay language. What does it say and how does this support the article? My impression is that it's mainly about the airport for which we have a separate article already. Does the candidate speak this language or were they just grasping at straws? Why didn't they find an English language source instead such as this? Instead of adding some decent content, what they actually do is gut the article of most of its content with this edit. This claims that the material was a copyright violation. Really? I find this hard to believe and suspect that they were clutching at straws again. It doesn't appear that the candidate really knows what he's doing when it comes to working on a simple stub about a place. How can they be trusted to make judgement calls about more complex topics? Andrew D. (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that non-english sources are acceptable. Chillum 18:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, languages in sources other than English are perfectly acceptable. Even if you don't read the language, online translation tools can give you a pretty good idea of what they say. Secondly, the edit summary for the removal referred to advert and copyvio. Even if copyvio were not an issue, the removed material was definately poorly written and promotional: "we can buy anything..." clearly does not belong, and he was right to remove it. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The text was copied from here. --NeilN talk to me 18:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson, would you please clarify your position given the new information that non-english sources are fine and that the removal of the content was indeed the removal of copyvio/promotional material? Chillum 19:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-English sources are not fine if they are not understood or appropriate. Do we have a reliable translation of that source from anyone yet? Can the candidate tell us what he understands it to say? As for the copyvio, notice that the link above is to the blog of Suci Mei Khelly. This is the same name as the account that posted the material — User:Suci Mei Khelly — and so it seems reasonable to suppose that they are the same person. My impression is that this person wrote about their town on their blog and then posted the same material onto Wikipedia. The blogging site was Blogger and their terms of service indicate that authors retain ownership of their material and so they are free to post it elsewhere. The accusation of copyright violation therefore appears to be false. As making such false accusations is uncivil and bitey, it confirms my impression that the candidate is not yet sufficiently experienced to be an admin. Andrew D. (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not some subtle point that needed sourcing. I was simply looking for a source confirming that the place existed and the Google translated version of the article did that. As to the copyright issue, note that the copyright holder must explicitly release the text under a free-use license. Until that is done, the text should be removed for copyright reasons. I'm not sure why there are any objections to the removal of that material. It's certainly a poor example of "content creation". --NeilN talk to me 21:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct process is explained at WP:DCV, "The procedures for donation of non-free copyrighted material by its release is described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Until the donation process is complete the article should be replaced with the {{copyvio}} tag. Similarly, if they can verify compatible license through a notice at the external site or can prove that the content is public domain, this is not a copyright violation. A note explaining the situation should be made on the talk page..." The candidate didn't do any of this. Andrew D. (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there was no need. Copyvio or not, the text was unusable. Do you disagree with this? --NeilN talk to me 22:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I disagree. For example, that text gave the names of parks in the city such as Taman Pusparagam. That's actual content by someone who actually knows the place and speaks the language, not guesswork. Andrew D. (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Happysquirrel, per WP:Non-English, I wouldn't state that "languages in sources other than English are perfectly acceptable." I also recently made that clear on my talk page. But I certainly object to all of Andrew Davidson's oppose vote. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the issue with my statement. The first sentence of the policy you mentionned reads "Citations to non-English sources are allowed." It then goes on to say that English sources should be preferred if available. The context seems to indicate that good English sources were not available. In this case, the non-English courses are appropriate. The candidate should be willing to provide translations as required, but apart from that, non-English sources are not a problem, no more than offline, paywalled or otherwise hard to access sources. The policy also makes it clear that conflicts about non-English sources should be treated like English sources. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is whether the source is appropriate. The candidate's user page indicates that their native language is English and it doesn't appear that they have any fluency in Indonesian Malay. The source in question is mainly about a new airport runway but it was used by the candidate to support the following statement in the article, "Muara Bungo is a city in the Indonesian province of Jambi." My impression is that the source does not directly support any of these facts; one can only arrive at them by inference. Such inference might be reasonable in one's native language but seems to be quite unacceptable in a language that one does not know, about a place that one does not know. Now, I'm quite familiar with such issues myself because I've done quite a lot of content creation and article rescue. When one's work is exposed to review and scrutiny by hostile critics, such weaknesses and flaws are seized on and attacked. The candidate does not seem to have put his work through any peer review — not even a single DYK — and so is operating at quite a naive level. This is not adequate experience for an admin. Andrew D. (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins need to know policy to use the mop judiciously. I have not participated in these before, but I doubt that all admins have DYK or GAs under their belt. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Happysquirrel, it's the "perfectly acceptable" part that I objected to. WP:Non-English shows why citing non-English sources is not perfectly acceptable. It is allowed, but it is not ideal or completely fine. With non-English sources, there is the case that I need a translator and very likely will not find one if the editor who added the material does not translate. Not to mention, I have to trust that editor is translating correctly and is not abusing my WP:Assume good faith. By paying for a translator, I would certainly find one. The WP:Non-English policy (I'm glad it's a policy instead of a guideline) also makes it clear that online translator devices will likely be dubious, and states, "Editors should not use machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people. If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you." So, yeah, I also disagree with your "online translation tools" suggestion. At least in cases that are strictly a WP:Paywall matter, I can pay and then read the source. And in the case of a source that is simply offline, I can go to the library or to some other store. Usually anyway. I agree to disagree with you on the WP:Non-English topic. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson: If I am understanding right, you are objecting to:
    and calling the candidates behavior incompetent and their explanations "clutching at straws". I am admittedly biased as a nominator, but I think Neil's edits to the article and their response to this oppose are a great illustration of the two qualities I mentioned in my co-nomination statement. Abecedare (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's allowed to oppose a nomination for whatever reasons he wants, or no reason at all. As someone mentioned on the talkpage, Neil is going to pass the RFA and get a mop, lets focus on other issues. It's not that big a deal. GregJackP Boomer! 01:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And people are allowed to discuss opposition and support. It is a good thing. Chillum 05:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose -- running before he can walk. This editor has as much to do with article content creation as I do with open heart surgery on the Preying Mantis . Still, we seem to hand admin tools to just about anybody now so what would adding one more matter. WP:ADMIN is 70% full of bad-eggs. I just hope this user doesn't join their ranks. CassiantoTalk 17:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't usually challenge those who oppose a candidate, but bad egg? Do you really have that little faith in this candidate? —DoRD (talk)​ 18:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw how that read and I apologise, I didn't mean for it to come out like that. What I meant was that he will be joining a load of bad-eggs already there. CassiantoTalk 18:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Further discussion moved to talk page.
    "we seem to hand admin tools to just about anybody now" um, that's a quite impressive statement, given that it's the opposite of the truth. Go and look at AfDs from 2007 and before, you might change your mind on that one. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral I'm sure the candidate is worthy and will make a fine admin. But I like to see admins who have made more content, and had that content tested in the fire. How can you get in the middle of a battle which is basically over content, though it spills over into behavior, unless you've been there and know what it is like to feel strongly about language in an article that you've invested time and effort in? If you haven't been there, how can you help the situation? I want to see admins with more skin in the game.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt, is it that you feel NeilN is not passionate enough unless he added the content? Look at his edits to Talk:Sexism, the talk page of a contentious article; that seems like passion to me. He keeps a level head there, sometimes acting as a mediator, while caring strongly enough about the content of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't say he doesn't care. I just say he hasn't been there and may not really "get" it. My !vote speaks for itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I didn't state that you were saying he doesn't care; I asked you about passion because, in my opinion, NeilN does "get it." Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't debate my !votes. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: I thought NeilN's recent conduct at Talk:Bill Green (hammer thrower) was reasonable. Directing an IP user to the appropriate process (WP:30), even after they've questioned your objectivity and suggested you have a bias, shows restraint. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Per Wehwalt and Collect. I can't oppose given that everything else looks pretty good, but I would really like to see some form of significant content addition. Having no such article is a killer for me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - While I am not heavily opposed to the editor who is the subject of this RfA, I see the editor is heavily involved in the talk pages of Muhammed, Barack Obama, Sexism, and Wendy Davis (politican). IMHO that is concerning. I understand that others will disagree with me on my reasoning, of withholding a support vote, and that is fine, we can civilly disagree.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Request for clarification: Is your concern with how they are involved at those talk-pages (ie you feel that their contributions at the pages were a net negative), or just the fact that they have participated in the discussion? Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm. As written, this !vote doesn't say much about NeilN, but it says a lot about RightCowLeftCoast. The clarification requested by Abecedare would be welcome. MastCell Talk 16:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare: the edits are fine, the editor who is the subject of this RfA was defending consensus and asking for citation. However, defense of these articles, without defense of other articles on the opposite side of the spectrum that are also political lightning rods, is concerning. Again, I do not oppose the editor receiving the bits, but without balance, I cannot support it either.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what is the opposite side of the spectrum from Muhammad or Sexism. I'm also not sure how closely you've looked at my editing history. If you want to see my edits to articles of Republican politicians here are a few: [25], [26], [27]. There's probably a lot more but I usually don't pay much attention to who belongs to what party. --NeilN talk to me 05:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [ WP:Edit conflict ]: RightCowLeftCoast, let's use the Sexism article as an example since we both noted it above in this section. What would be the "opposite side of the spectrum" regarding that topic? And more generally, why should it necessarily be a good thing if editors edit both sides of a topic (if there are only two sides), in a polar opposite way, especially given that not all sides have the same weight? If you reply to me on this, there is no need to WP:Ping me to this section since this page is on my WP:Watchlist. I have not WP:Pinged you in this post because I assume that you will check back here to comment. Flyer22 (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral: I want to know whether NeilN remembers all shortcuts for Wikipedia guidelines, policies and sub-sections, which we have for Wikipedia pages. We need to mention those shortcut links during discussion.Cosmic  Emperor  06:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi CosmicEmperor. If you look at my talk page posts (e.g., [28], [29]), you'll see that I regularly link to policies, guidelines, and essays. Have I memorized all of them? No (there are dozens for WP:MOS topics alone), but it's easy enough to go to a page and look them up. --NeilN talk to me 12:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this vote supposed to be a joke? If so, it's not very funny. If not, I don't even have any words left.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the joke part in my question? So many administrators are supporting his nomination. I asked that question as only opposition from some users is due to his lack of content. I think it's not compulsory for Administrators to create featured article. Since Administrator also fights vandalism, it would be better to know whether he suspected sockpuppets and filed SPI, where his doubts and accusations were proved right by the Check User.Cosmic  Emperor  15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A joke would make more sense. Chillum 15:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HE WP:MUST WP:BE WP:KIDDING. WP:IHOPE. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well not knowing much of the shortcuts shouldn't be a problem, but what if I brought you a red link? --TL22 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, one could argue that not using the shortcuts and/or simply making it a point to pipe them with normal English in several admin duties could be a better sign. For example, when I close AfDs laden with shortcuts, I'll frequently try to translate the ones said by others into a more descriptive, 3rd-party-and-newbie-friendly blurb of text and then put the shortcut that others are referring to in parentheses (e.g., "... the general notability guideline (WP:GNG)"). --slakr\ talk / 04:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Telling people something isn't a reliable source doesn't help, but telling them it isn't WP:RS works. --
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/NeilN&oldid=1099567149"