Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nishkid64

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

Nishkid64[edit]

Final (60/9/4) Ended 21:37:42 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) – I have been a member of Wikipedia since January 2, 2006, editing more frequently (50+ edits per day) in the last few months. I have around 6,000 edits in total. I participate in AfD discussion, vandal-fighting, tagging articles for deletion, participating in WikiProjects, maintaining portals (such as Portal:Philosophy, Portal:Baseball, Portal:Business and Economics, all of which I frequently update and fix up). I have been able to successfully fix any problems that have arisen during my stay in Wikipedia, and I have always been civil in manner. I am requesting adminship so I can contribute more to the Wikipedia community and help out with maintaining this wonderful and treasured Internet resource. --Nishkid64 22:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom. --Nishkid64 22:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Although it may seem that I might not have the experience that others would require in potential sysops, I have clearly shown an understand for Wikipedia protocol and principles. I would try to make myself useful in all aspects of Wikipedia maintenance. A few particular things that I would like to help out on include admin intervention (something that would come quite useful with my vandal-fighting tools), speedy deletion, AfD closings, and trying to reduce the backlogs (One day we will conquer these massive beasts!). I also intend to participate in things that I wasn't really active in before, such as dealing with requests for page protection, personal attack intervention noticeboard, and dealing with image deletion (something I wasn't very observant about in my early days of Wikipedia, but I have gradually learned how to deal with it now and I think I can definitely help out here).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Although I haven't been able to bring any article to FA status, I have still tried my best to contribute to Wikipedia with creations such as Tôn Đức Thắng (which I nominated for WP:AID, but unfortunately did not pass) and various other articles on baseball-related topics. I also expanded the article Lee Smith (baseball) significantly with fellow editors during the time it was a CoTW. I have participated in stub-sorting, and I can proudly say that I successfully advocated for the addition of new stub templates such as Template:NA-composer-stub and Template:Japan-composer-stub and I have also added the appropriate templates to articles in Category:Composer stubs.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I haven't really had what you would call a "conflict", but in times of arguments and disagreements, I have tried to act civil, attentive and I also always provide an explanation for my actions. There are times when I have made mistakes with vandal-fighting, and I have gone far enough to apologize to the people involved. Although I have only had some minor conflicts, I have yet to be involved in a significantly stressful conflict, and I hope I won't have to deal with something very serious in the future.
4. Having looked through some of your most recent article contribs, I've noticed several mistakes that might have been avoided through use of the preview button. For example, here you created a double redirect, and here you added a category that seems to have never existed. These are only a sampling of errors I've noticed. Do you regularly use the preview button? If not, will you try to? (I'm not saying I'm perfect, either; I just wanted to bring this up.) Picaroon9288 00:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Oh wow. I was looking through the categories and I thought I saw the Economies by Country category. Okay, I usually preview my edits a majority of the time, but with my eyes, I tend to easily miss stuff. I don't know why, but when I click "Save Page", I automatically see the mistake I make, and I go back and quickly fix it up. I'm not perfect, and neither is anyone else, but I will definitely commit to improving my slight personal hindrance here.
5. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an experienced editor? --Mcginnly | Natter 11:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Although, I personally think that a little leniency should be given to an experienced editor, since they have given a great deal to the community through previous editing. However, such things do happen and admins have to always deal with it. It really depends on the offense they committed. Without real specifics I can't answer the question. Every case is unique in its own way, and has to be dealt in its own way. I can give you a general idea of possible offenses, though. Some things that come up in my mind include possible sock puppetry (it does happen to some people), repeated vandalism, constant personal attacks on other users (as stated WP:ATTACK; also see WP:CIVIL), violating 3RR, etc. If an experienced user commits a severe offense, then I would seek the opinions of other admins before a decision shall be made.
Firstly some specifics for the above:- a) Would you block a user who was dissenting of wikipedia or it's processes. b)Would you block a user for incivility? c)Would you block a sock puppet as soon as it is discovered the user has another account?
I would put a bit more weight on an offense that is targetted against Wikipedia. So, if someone made 2-3 anti-Wikipedia offenses, I would definitely block them. I see lots of people who vandalize pages with "Wikipedia sucks" and stuff like that, and I usually just warn them. If a user hasn't been civil in an article edit or user space edit, I would probably do as per what I would do with anti-Wikipedia remarks. Maybe I'm not getting this here, but if a sockpuppet made a new account, I would definitely block the user per WP:SOCK.
Secondly, what sort of severe offence - Surely if it was severe the case is open and shut and the block wouldn't require another admins opinion? I would have thought it more important to consult on the borderline cases.--Mcginnly | Natter 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess you bring up a good point there. I probably will act on my own, but a few times, like in borderline cases, I will probably first consult with the inflicted party. Regardless of the situation, I would definitely at least inform the inflicted admin about what happened.
Questions from Andeh
6 Hi, could you point me to some of your AfD nominations and/or any AfDs which you have had a discussion in? (They should still be on your watchlist) Thanks.
A: Here's a few 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Here are a few I nominated: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
7 If a users first edit was a personal attack on an admins talk page and you spotted it on RC patrol, what would you do?
A: I would try to follow WP:NPA and we'd take it from there. I'd try to get the admin who has been attacked to get involved in the situation and we'd decide the appropriate punishment. Also, if this is the user's first edit, I wouldn't rule out a possible sockpuppet and/or a previously banned user out to take revenge on whoever banned him.
Question from JungleCat
8 Would you please examine the Image:Trosky Columbie.jpg photo as it is used on the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster page. Are there any concerns here?
A: I went to the link, and unfortunately I can't understand the language, but I don't really see where there is any proof that it was created by NASA (unless it's some website affiliated with NASA). Isn't it possible that a third-party source took a picture of the image, and not NASA? Like I said earlier, I'm still getting accustomed with this whole fair use and image regulations. Hopefully, I will fully understand this jargon.
Comment - The “answer” to Q8 can be found here as it is an AP photo taken by a civilian doctor. However, there was no “wrong” answer to that question above. I was looking to see how you would handle the uncertainty of the image. You didn’t know, and I wouldn’t have known the true source either had it not been for a Google search (In advance I knew this photo, taken looking up in the sky above Tyler, Texas, was used for a TIME cover). I’m sure you will encounter quite a few of these. You were asking more questions, which is great. It shows you were doing some consideration, doing a little “research” mentally. Good thinking.. JungleCat talk/contrib 22:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Wknight94
9 What's the most critical step before doing a speedy delete?
A: There are times when other users nominate articles for speedy deletion as a joke or based on their lack of knowledge on the WP:CSD policy. I guess when I see an article tagged for speedy deletion with a tag such as {{db-bio}} or {{db-group}}, it would be best to check over and verify if such a tag is in fact necessary and accurate. I have seen articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion out of "bad faith", and I know this can potentially lead to mistaken deletions if it the situation is not handled in the correct manner. For articles that are tagged as {{db-reason}}, I would try to see if the reason the user who tagged the article is indeed correct. I would base my response to the speedy deletion request upon reviewing this. Also, from my experiences in AfD debates, I have seen that users get over-anxious and vote to speedy delete articles with neologisms, original research, fake information (as with hoaxes), spam or advertisements. I know that some people fail to read the WP:CSD guidelines and will subsequently fail to note that such reasons as stated above are not criteria for speedy deletion.
9a: All true as you said. Let me try to be more specific (please bear with me - this is my first attempt at standardizing this RFA pop quiz question). You're perusing CAT:ASD and find an article called "Fred Jones" which has the content, "Fred Jones is a scumbag bottomfeeder with no reason to live" and it has a db-attack tag on it. Per your answer above, your checking over the content takes 2 seconds - it is clearly of an attacking nature. What do you do? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: First thing I would do is check the article's history. It's possible that someone unknowingly tagged it for speedy deletion after seeing the attack page, when in fact it might have just been mere vandalism. However, in the case of this "Fred Jones" who in fact is not notable and whose article is just an attack page, I would speedy delete it and warn the user. If the person is notable (which I would discern from independent research) and his/her article is just an attack page, with no history, then I would either blank or delete the article and then re-write it as per WP:APAGE.
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support wherever I've seen you, you've been doing a good job. Good luck! --Alex (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Ditto. I've seen this user around and have been very impressed. - Mike 22:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Looks good. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. - Mailer Diablo 23:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support very impressive, especially on your tireless work with sports articles. Stubbleboy 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Why the hell not? --Aaron 23:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Huzzah! Dar-Ape (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per nom. Michael 00:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support. Great editor, very civil and friendly.--TBCTaLk?!? 00:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support based soley on current talk page and most recent archive.Dlohcierekim 01:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support An impressive editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Extraordinary and hyper active user. I just want to know whether you are going to join the Indian admins club or not. --Ageo020 02:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe. You can count on it. Yay Indians! --Nishkid64 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I encountered Nishkid several times before and I'm impressed, Still a bit new in my opinion, but he shows an willingness of learning that not much people have. Was thinking of nominating him in October. Jaranda wat's sup 02:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support, ditto Jaranda - only met Nishkid64 on a few occasions, but displayed the qualities that I want in an admin. Daniel.Bryant 03:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support Good editor, remarkable participation in AfD, and visible willingness to meet what's expected in an administrator. Also knows how to cheer up this place.--Húsönd 03:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per all above. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 03:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - good participation in AfD discussions. --Ineffable3000 04:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. From what I can see there don't seem to be any problems. —Khoikhoi 04:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - well, isn't it obvious I was going to support :) -- Tawker 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Good participation at AfD, in addition to vandal patrolling. (aeropagitica) 04:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Merovingian - Talk 06:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I strongly support you. Keep up the good work! •Sean•gorter•(Talk) 09:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Well, eleven days thither, following our having amicably resolved some issues relative to Portal:Baseball/News, about the proper content of which we were of different minds, I offered to nominate Nish, and, even as he wasn't then sure that he was ready for an RfA, I was and am. Joe 16:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per nom. John254 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I have been consistently impressed with Nishkid's work. He (I'm assuming) is always encouraging, civil, able to reference policy for his arguments, and is a great RC patroller. As for the below neutral, it appears to have been an honest mistake. Keep up the great work, Nish! :) Srose (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per nom Hello32020 19:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support T REXspeak 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. G.He 22:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support A strong editor. BTW, IIRC, the image is from CNN.-- danntm T C 22:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Per good answers to the questions above. Give-em-the-mop - JungleCat talk/contrib 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Seems like he will work hard and be a good admin ~ Dinojerm 22:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Nice answers to the questions, deserves a mop. BaseballBaby 23:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Good editor, excellent XFD discussion. Canadian-Bacon t c e 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Constructive editor and good vandal fighter. NawlinWiki 00:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, I like the answers and the large amount of wp-space contribs. Picaroon9288 00:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, seems fit.--Andeh 07:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. A few minor misunderstandings apart, this editor seems responsible and committed to the project. Experienced enough for me also. Rockpocket 07:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, I have seen your great work on Wikipedia and I have to say you are great I really hope you get the position----Seadog.M.S 22:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: Good dedicated editor with a good answer to my quiz queston! —Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Arbusto 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Яabi∂ςa√in 11:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support You do good work around Wikipedia. Your usage of admin tools could really help out. huntersquid 12:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. SupportDavidJJJ 13:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, good user. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - per nom --T-rex 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, good distribution of edits, does not appear to fall into any category of users I hate. Will likely do well. —freak(talk) 19:05, Sep. 22, 2006 (UTC)
    Wow, any chance of seeing any of those categories?  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Great user, lots of experience in his 8 months with the project, and aside from what seems to be an honest mistake - no reason to think he'll abuse the tools; all this results in support. Themindset 19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Although editor is a little weak on article-building and hasn't had much experience dealing with conflicts, he is active, he seems to be conscientious about improving, and he's unlikely to abuse the tools. --Alan Au 20:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Permission to land into Adminship, i.e. Support - I only think he could do with a bit more previewing, but the rest is OK.—Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, I trust this person to become a administrator. Yamaguchi先生 23:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - a familiar face on afd.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Hungover Support Stay away from the Vodka, thats all I can say. Oh, and give 'em the mop. TruthCrusader 08:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidates answer to question 5. regading blocking was given rather late - he'd block for having a sock account and seems unable to differentiate vandalism from dissent. Are we all sure about this?--Mcginnly | Natter 10:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I even said on my user talk page that my response would come a day after because I spent the night doing my english essay. You really didn't provide me that many specifics the second time around, btw. I naturally thought you were asking about sockpuppets for users who have already had been blocked previously on Wikipedia and other such stuff. I even said "Maybe I'm not getting this here", and you could have told me specifically (I even left messages on your talk page) what you were asking. And how did you possibly get under the assumption that I was a girl!??! You could have said "he/she". --Nishkid64 18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishkid - I wasn't criticising you for answering late that's fine - I posted because 50 odd people had already voted and not heard your reply, I was simply pointing the reply out and summarising the conclusions. I've apologised below and I'll do it again here - I'm sorry for using the wrong pronoun; I'd be offended too if someone had done that to me (and then rather amused as I'm currently growing a beard). Regarding specifics, I've asked the same question of the last couple of weeks' candidates, for some, if requested I'll elaborate - no one else has had a problem with this and the candidates I've supported as a result of the question have given clear and unambiguous response concerning what their position on blocking established users is. I'm really not sure what you're trying to achieve by arguing this. I wan't to see calm generalists with good communications skills receive adminship - in the last few exchanges with you I've moved from weak oppose to oppose to strong oppose, I don't think you have the maturity or command of the language that is necessary. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this diff [1] from my talk page again - perhaps you'd like to read the section at the head of this page marked "Expressing opinions", there's no mention restricting where I can make them within your RfA. Sorry. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On my RfA page, you will see the words "Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)". I may have been mistaken about the RfA talk page (I guess they added the discussion section so they're would be no need to do all the discussion on the RfA talk page), but I don't believe I'm mistaken that your comments should have been added the Discussion section of the page, because you are expressing a view, and you already had voted. Anyway, the matter's over now, and I am not really bothered by it, so you can leave it as it is for now. --Nishkid64 13:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I see, even within this Rfa: thoughtful responses to criticism, good humor and a willingness to admit when wrong. I think being an admin has its own learning curve, as does Wikipedia, and this user has the potential to do really well. And if he (?) makes a mistake, I see a lot of evidence that it'll be corrected and learned from. Great qualities in an admin. Dina 18:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per above. Valuable contributions in several different areas. The Oppose comments suggest that the candidate isn't perfect, but which of us is? Newyorkbrad 19:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I trust this users judgement, and think the he is ready for the mop. A thoughtful and fast learning user, you should grow into the tools quickly. Good luck. Thε Halo Θ 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Yanksox 00:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - quite impressive credentials, good guy abakharev 07:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Sorry put a vote over wrong RfA. This one fully satisfies my requirements. The argument about Macginny's question seems to be a misunderstanding. I am supporting this nomination as well abakharev 07:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to disagree here, but I really don't think it's just a misunderstanding - Nishkid doesn't even seem to realise we can comment on each others votes where they will make most sense - in direct response to each others comments - why should we be required to confine comments just to oppose or support 'sections' of the RfA? Hasn't read the instructions, hasn't thought it through - but still took me to task about it on my talk page - I'm really worried about this one guys (and gals). --Mcginnly | Natter 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't adding non-vote comments on the discussion part of this page not make any sense? I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that I haven't read the instructions. How could I have possibly answered the other 8 questions accurately if I had not read Wikipedia guidelines before? By the way, I had to fix up your comment about by adding a "#" before it because it made the support vote below change to "1." when it was really "59.". Also, this comment is placed in the correct location, because it's in response to a user's support comment. However, I don't believe your comment to #53 was appropriately placed. I could be wrong, but when I took a look at it, it appeared to be irrelevant to the user's comments. All he said was "Oh, and give 'em the mop." How is adding a comment about my answer to Q5 really relevant to that user's comments. --Nishkid64 21:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per Dina. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 13:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, I've seen consistently solid work. Stilgar135 23:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support good editor. Anger22 23:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Inability to investigate even simple mixups. (The attack below was by User:Jpfloru, as User:The Golux pointed out repeatedly, and as is clear from the edit history.) (Resolved) I also have a hard time finding editorial contributions over the last eight weeks or so, and none of the AfD contributions I checked showed independent research efforts. The Tôn Đức Thắng article uses other encyclopediae as sources, so I can't find enough evidence to trust that User:Nishkid64 has enough research competence required for an admin. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that I was a bit moronic here in the way I handled the situation. Even after the number of times I read the page, I still failed to see that it wasn't Golux who made those comments, but User:Jpfloru. Regarding AfD's, there are times when other people have already summed up what I would probably say. In these cases, I usually do what other people do and say "Delete per nom" and add another two cents to the discussion. Also, if you would like to, go back and check my AfD discussions from the last two weeks and you'll see that I contributed significantly to many AfD discussions and even helped swing the consensus. (A few will be highlighted in my answer to Q6, which I am adding right now). Now, regarding Tôn Đức Thắng, all I can say is that I used the sources that I had available. While doing my research online and on Wikipedia, I only found that he was in one book, published 2 years ago by Washington U (St. Louis) professor. So, I just used various internet sources, and I was quite pleased with the article I initially created. It was of pretty good length for an article on a subject that I basically researched from other websites. --Nishkid64 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose (changed from oppose)In most respects you're a good candidate, but I'm seriously concerned about your attitude to blocking, it appears to be quite uninformed - and so reluctantly, I can't support you at this time. I really think you need to have a good read of WP:SOCK, WP:CIVIL and WP:BLOCK and then consider how you might treat an established user differently from a newbie vandal. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since posting this and the note above I've received this [2] on my talk page, firstly I think I comment on anyone's posts here (people certainly seem to comment on mine), secondly the tone isn't exactly what I'd call friendly, indeed it seems to be instructing me, no please, no manners, no grammar - I'm really not quite sure what the objection is other than the last mistake on my part, for which I humbly apologise here, now, publicly and immediately.--Mcginnly | Natter 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Per McGinnly. The seemingly simple decisions are the ones that need the most care sometimes, this is one of those times. People Powered 13:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose The reply on McGinnly's page isn't the kind of behaviour I would expect from an admin. Equendil Talk 05:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose as Equendil. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 21:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Equendil. Singopo 12:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Equendil. Moreschi 17:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, wow, that reply on User:Mcginnly's talk page (cited above) was not a good sign. What were you thinking Nishkid? That kind of interaction does not represent the level headed attitude I would expect from an admin. Calming problem situations is one of the jobs, not inflaming them. Sorry, but this is not usenet. David D. (Talk) 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did calm down problems. What McGinnly quoted on his talk page was the first edit I made. I ended up changing that a bit after I had cooled down a bit. I even repeatedly apologized on McGinnly's talk page, and I went as far as re-answering his question. We have resolved our conflict. Apparently, people may not have seen this yet (and I would understand why), but if people had seen it, they would have seen how that I avoided a potentially huge conflict by eventually resolving it in due time. 6 of these oppose votes came as a result of the comment I left on McGinnly's talk page the first time, and people haven't checked to see how I tried to make amends for my behavior. I apologize for my erratic behavior, which I assure you was just an anomaly and that if I am successful in my RfA and I become an admin, I will not let my emotions get the best of me. --Nishkid64 20:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - If you were to become an admin, you would undoubtedly be subjected to real attacks from others (not just ones that you misinterpret). Despite your attempts to defuse this situation, it's a troubling sign that you reacted the way you did, especially in the middle of your own RFA. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Don't know if I have enough contributions to count (I normally just read stuff) but this user did misread someone else's contribution as mine and accuse me of a personal attack - here. The Golux 17:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A simple mistake from what it seems, but an apology and correction might be in order. ~ trialsanderrors 17:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, from my understanding, it looked like a personal attack. In your user talk page, I mentioned that I thought it was a personal attack because you stated "There are plenty of entries in the Wikipedia which have been accepted and which are very similar in nature. If anything should be deleted it is RHaworth's entry." With this statement, I thought you were basically attacking RHaworth for "voting" to delete the page. I then said you may disagree, but then I further went on to say that regardless just avoid any comments that might seem negative to other users or subjects of articles. Nevertheless, I have apologized to you on your talk page. --Nishkid64 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh god. I am so sorry, The Golux. I added a full apology on your page. Even when I went back to read the comments, I failed to notice that it wasn't you who made that comment. I am really sorry, and I hope you accept my apology. --Nishkid64 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No offence taken, and I wish you good luck with your bid for admin status. The Golux 16:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral no real reason to oppose, but Tôn Đức Thắng, one of his proudest contributions, has an unreferenced tag on it. Opabinia regalis 02:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I addressed the issue on the article's talk page. I'm going to add references in the coming days. --Nishkid64 14:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I'm appreciative of Nishkid's frequent contributions to AfD, but I feel his encyclopedia building experience is on the weak side, particularly the issue of referencing. Espresso Addict 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: Changing my vote from support. I'm getting a little nervous with a few things:
    • This supposed vandalism reversion which included a vandalism warning when it really doesn't look at all like vandalism to me.
    • Confusion about image policies here and here which included replacing free images with fair use ones. First, that's a clear violation of WP:FU and, second, that was barely two months ago. I could easily forgive if it was longer but suddenly the fact that he's only been editing heavily for three months is starting to nag at me.
    • The reaction (or overreaction as it were) to various criticisms here is not admin'ish.
    • A little too many instances of fighting with vandals here and here and here which shows a lick of wikimaturity.
    • I'm not so sure about this edit. Doesn't exactly sound like a personal attack to me.
    • Looking over his talk page edits a little more closely shows a tad too few mentions of policy and such, which is basically what an admin is for IMHO. I'm thinking a few more months to ripen might do well. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2006 (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/Nishkid64&oldid=1147968824"