Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naerii 2

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

Naerii[edit]

Final (18/18/6); Withdrawn by candidate at 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Naerii (talk · contribs) - Hi, I'm Naerii :) I've been around since March 2007, when I registered with my first account KamrynMatika. Since then, I've made around 5000 edits across most namespaces (even Portal), and have done some content work, having written 3 GAs, a DYK, half an FA, and a dozen or so new articles. I also regularly review good article nominations and occasionally comment on AfDs and revert vandals.

There are, I suppose, a few skeletons in my closet. I was blocked for 24 hours on my first account in June 2007 for adding a link to Wikipedia Review in an arbitration case that I felt was genuinely relevant. I was blocked again in March of this year for nominating the arbitration committee for deletion. My last RfA failed because of this. Nobody's perfect, and I guess this makes me a little more not-perfect than most. However, I genuinely think I've calmed down quite a bit over the past six months or so and I haven't nominated any policy pages for deletion or added links to Wikipedia Review since, so I'd like to think I've learned my lesson. naerii 12:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone withdraw this for me please? I'm off to bed now and it seems pointless to waste our time even more :) Thanks. naerii 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that; did it myself


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: AIV. I've reported there from time to time, it's fairly straightforward, and I've never had a request rejected to my knowledge. I'd also like the ability to view deleted revisions as I've been getting more active in Commons lately and sometimes I come across images that claim to have come from the English Wikipedia, but appear to have lost information in the process, such as sources or additional licenses.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my favourite thing was Black Holes and Revelations which I think is the best of the GAs that I've written. I also helped in part to bring Californication (album) up to FA, as I brought it up to GA myself and helped NSR77 bring it up to FA. The credit is mostly to him there, though ;) Another thing I was pleased with was Music for Tourists, my first (and only) DYK. It's pretty short and boring, but I think getting DYKs is actually the hardest of the three main content-y areas; I'm not creative enough to come up with anything to write about that hasn't already been written about in some detail. There are a few more things listed at User:Naerii/Contributions. Outside the mainspace, I often review GAs, do occasional anti-vandalism work, and sometimes try to improve notable articles before they are deleted (for example, this AfD these edits).
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, and I was indefinitely blocked (for an hour or so) because of it back in March. I discussed this in my my previous request. I have not been involved in any conflicts worth speaking of since then, so I suppose you could say that I have dealt with it. I'm quite relaxed really, I don't particularly mind if someone reverts me or disagrees with me, so I've found it's pretty easy to float on by without getting into any arguments.


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Per my support last time. --Cameron* 12:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikipedia needs more administrators with guts, who can make snap decisions. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 12:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Epbr123 (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support She's had a bit of a "controversial" past, but she's overcome that, as per her answer to q2. Also, I believe both of her blocks were misplaced; Wikipedia Review is regularly linked today without a problem, and the admin of the second block reversed himself. Other than that, she's very experienced all over and very dedicated - thus, will make a good admin in my opinion. how do you turn this on 13:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per my support last time around. Perhaps slightly impulsive at times, but has the best interests of the project at heart, I think. Although her old userpage was better =). Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  6. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support — Nice article work. You intend to work at AIV and, presumably, with images, so I don't find the deletion concerns too worrying. Just spend a lot of time thinking before you press any delete buttons, m'kay? Best of luck! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Sure, she's done some controversial stuff, but she also seems able to detatch herself and keep things in perspective. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Contrary to one of the other supports above, we certainly do not "need more administrators with guts, who can make snap decisions". Whilst Wikipedia is one of the few places where "all mouth and no action" is a compliment; I actually do trust Naerii not to make impulsive actions, as opposed to talking about them. – iridescent 16:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I thought you were an admin, I never knew about your past issues before today but they seem to be in the past. Done some nice article work too. — Realist2 16:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Dont see why you wouldnt make a great admin although you have had a rough past you seem to have gone past that now. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support — Clearly has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. An understanding of BOLD and the nature of wikis are sufficiently rare that I must lend my strongest support to this candidate. Policy pages are not article space, and the encyclopedia has not been disrupted for 99.9% of readers just because a policy page went into MfD. Though some in the oppose section have cited problems with CON, I ask you to consider that this editor has that uncommon awareness that consensus can change, and that putting consensus up for renewal every now and then is the best kind of BOLDness. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Absolutely. The removal of the cool-down blocks nonsense was a pretty excellent show of your good judgment. I also find the nonsense about policy being write only pretty depressing. Policy reflects consensus: if practise finds something is stupid, then clearly the policy is wrong and should be changed. Consensus is a wishy-washy concept and things can get inserted into policies without proper discussion - if something has been, it is absolutely not a bad thing to remove it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. As before: Naerii is someone who is very unlikely to abuse the tools. From what I know about her, abusing the tools would go against her opinions and thoughts on adminship. She's experienced, and I think she'll be fine. Acalamari 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support per Synergy and extreme unlikeliness to abuse the tools. Naerii has the best interests of the Wiki at heart. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you realise Synergy is opposing? Nev1 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Good faith user. Everyone hates the arbcom (and Prod, for that matter.) --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support A logical Wikipedia who reasons before taking decisions. I enjoy this user's contributions to discussions George The Dragon (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Two tickets for Papa Bear and His Oompah Band, please...oh, wrong queue. Well, why I am here: this candidate has experience, intelligence and the ability to successfully move beyond a rough past (hey, what's your secret?). Support Ecoleetage (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. It was only a few days ago, that you removed the CDB sentence, which I put back in. I left a message on your talk page, and there was no response. This could be because you have your archive set for one day. I would prefer that such edits be discussed, since as an admin you would have to discuss any possible objections over your actions. While you do look like a net positive as an editor, you give me no reason to suspect you would be trusted with the tools, or even need them. Also, even though its in the past, it was pointy to MfD ArbCom, I haven't been able to locate where you thought it was a mistake or resented having done it. Would you mind providing that diff please? Synergy 13:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well. This is a wiki and it seemed obvious to me that cool-down blocks happen quite often, so I removed it, per WP:BRD. You reverted and left a message on my talk page, as noted. I didn't start a discussion on the talk page after that because after reading your message and reflecting on it some more, I didn't think that removing the section was worth the pages and pages of discussion that was sure to follow, which would inevitably end without any consensus. It is kind of like the discussions that happen on WT:RFA often; often circular, self-defeating, with many people not reading what everyone else has said and just chiming in to give their opinion. I felt that if the section stayed removed, then it had consensus to not be there, and if someone reverted, then there was no consensus (which is fine), but I didn't feel the matter was enough of an issue to pursue a consensus which was unlikely to eventuate from a long discussion. Such are things on a wiki. I appreciate that you feel differently about the matter, however. naerii 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't revert, I just added it back (although I could have reverted I chose not to do so). A new thread had already begun with the initiation of your removal, and my restoration. I think that its both bad form and a clear lack of process in accordance with our policies. It shows that within the last 7 days, you still are not aware of how we do things in the project namespace. As a candidate for adminship, you should be aware of the controversy surrounding the removal or amendments to that specific section of WP:BLOCK. BRD is at best pointy for policy pages; we discuss the removal of sections, not remove them. Synergy 13:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I could never support someone who attempted to MFD ArbCom, note that I had made the decision to oppose before I read the nom-statement. (edit conflict, so I will add) Seems that you have not really learnt from past experiences: changing policy without consensus. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 13:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Unilaterally removing the CDB sentence is far too bold. As the use stated in Q1 is for blocking other users, I don't think candidate has sufficient understanding, and acceptance, of blocking policy. MFD'ing ARBCOM? What's up with that. Yoicks! Dlohcierekim 14:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (adding further rationale) Two retirements in 5,000 edits. The CDB thing so recently, moving Wikipedia:Wikipedians to Wikipedia:Mob rule on top of the rest, shows the rashness problem pattern from before persists. Only 2,000 edits since last RFA. I only see a few reports to WP:AIV, even going past last RFA. I would suggest further mellowing and gaining more experience in Admin related areas. Dlohcierekim 14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Deleting the cool down block policy was pointy. Doesn't match up with candidate's vow that the MfD'ing ArbCom type stuff is in the past. Townlake (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. per Townlake. I'd support, but I just don't think the right time has come. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I agree, deleting the cool down block section was being too bold, and too IAR-like. I would support, if this was a few months ago, but the fact that this was a few days ago is too much for me. Xclamation point 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose - The ARBCOM's MfD is enough to oppose. Macy 15:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, per recent CDB episode. There was a recent extensive discussion of the cool down block issue at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Cool down blocks and it was abundantly clear then that there was no consensus for removing the CDB provision from the policy (in fact, I think there was explicit consensus to keep it). A unilateral removal of the provision, like this one[1], in such a situation was clearly inappropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per same reasons as AmeIiorate and Dlohcierekim. I also think that on this case Kurt's prima facie argument applies, you should've waited until someone else thought you were ready. Where's the fire?--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 15:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Unfortunately I cannot see enough reason in the supporting votes, and alas, far too much reason in the opposing votes, to support this nomination. I'm sorry. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:53 7 September, 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose The article work is great, however, the MFD of ArbCom and removal of WP:COOLDOWN are simply too radical and breaking off from clear consensus. I do, however realize that the two blocks for Wikipedia Review linking were perhaps not appropriate, and I haven't used them in consideration for this. miquonranger03 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Sorry, but there are simply too many pointy events in your edit history for me to overlook. —Travistalk 16:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Because the candidate thinks that practice = policy [2], we already have enough admins who make that mistake. TigerShark (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Synergy and miquonranger03. Wether people use them or not, Cool Down Blocks are against policy. If they are current practice, that means the practice is wrong, not the policy. Like last time, the ArbCom MfD shows alot of pointyness, and blatant disregard for authority. I also find the response to Oppose #1 "I changed Policy X per Essay X" to show a huge misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.--KojiDude (C) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per above. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Yikes, definitely not. Naerii says she's "calmed down," but there's still a lot of contentious pointy events in her recent history. GlassCobra 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'lots'? naerii 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - Just no, we don't need more admins that think that think policy shouldn't be followed. The CDB policy is there for a reason, it shouldn't be removed just on anyone's whim against consensus. --Coffee // talk // ark // 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that policy shouldn't be followed. I think that consensus can change. It hasn't, which is fine. naerii 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't tell me you missed this from only 2 months ago? Consensus doesn't normally change that fast, and changes to policy should always be discussed or "proposed". --Coffee // talk // ark // 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I did. The talk page is huge, and I don't have the page watchlisted. naerii 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose First, though ArbCom can always be improved, that MfD was enough to oppose in itself. Otherwise I just don't trust his behavior and judgment. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral (for now). I have seen this editor around often and I often thought, that it is weird that he/she is no admin. But reviewing the previous RfAs, some things mentioned there are concerning; but I will wait to see if others noted that those problems are still existing. Also, whenever I see him/her participating in an RfA, the only comment is usually "Support" or "Oppose", without any reason. And every time I feel that this user is thinking that numbers matter more than reasoning (see WP:NOT#DEM). While I will of course think that this is not true (WP:AGF anyone?), I think an admin should not be so brief on words but rather explain his/her reasoning to everyone else. While this is not enough to oppose, it (and what I read in the previous RfAs) is enough to stop me from supporting, for now that is. I will most likely change my vote as the RfA progresses. SoWhy 13:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey there SoWhy. Could you do me a favour and point out the RfAs where I've opposed without a reason? I can't recall any to my knowledge. It's funny you should mention this actually. I had a conversation with Useight and Gwynand a while ago, located here, that explains why I comment as I do. naerii 13:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I should point out before anybody reads that, that I don't think any of my comments in that discussion apply to AFD or any other consensus-building area of Wikipedia. I just think that in a place that gets as much attention as RFA, where all opinions are by definition subjective, and there are no policies or guidelines on the reasoning you're allowed to use (as there is for AFD, etc), trying to gather a real consensus is futile. naerii 13:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your reply. Sorry, if you haven't, I did not go and search through all RfAs. I just remembered that you hardly ever specified a reason and I thought to remember there were opposes as well. I apologize if this was not the case. I did not want to imply it as true.
    As for your point, I do not think reasoning is futile. If you think an user is a great guy, then just write, why you think so. It might influence others to see that point of view. On the other hand, blank supports might spawn aforementioned suspicions and people (like me) might get the wrong idea. My point was (and I think it still is valid) not that you think Wikipedia a democracy but that your actions may lead others to believe you do. And I think there are good guidelines to follow in an RfA is well (for example WP:ATA and WP:AAAD). SoWhy 13:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough. Thanks. naerii 14:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral The MfD of the ArbCom scares me, but you're a GA reviewer and article writer, and we could always use more of those. iMatthew (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NOTNOW, but at some later time, sure. user:Everyme 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - Not going to pile on. I thought Naerii was an administrator already, and I wasn't intimately familiar with the above actions until reading the above thoroughly. the CDB and MFD are enough to prevent me from supporting. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No-Pile Neutral - MfD ArmCom caught my eye. This user seems to want to take a step in the right direction. I just think that this RfA is a bit immature. I think 5000 edits in two years may be a little bit low when considering there were two retirements. However, I do recognize naerii's article contributions. (Actually I'm listening to Black Holes and Revelations right now...) I don't want to vote oppose, I hope more consistent contributions and active participation in AIV and other processes will help naerii secure the mop in a few months. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been editing for one year, just fyi. Good music taste too. You know at first I thought Knights of Cydonia was the best on the album, but Assassin has really grown on me :) naerii 17:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I bounce between Absolution and Black Holes and Revelations a lot. Knights of Cydonia, Stockholm Syndrome, and Apocalypse Please are one of the most played songs in my iTunes library.  :) I can't wait for them to finish their new album. (And hey, as I say with many of the RfA candiditate... Moral Support is a definite. It takes a lot of have people take your entire edit history and put it through a microscope.) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral seen the name around and generally impressed, but the cool down blocks issue suggests a lack of full understanding of the admin role. Feel sure it will come with more experience, just think this is a bit premature. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Naerii_2&oldid=1142540758"