Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nja247 2

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

Nja247

Nomination

FINAL (61/3/1); closed 08:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC) by EVula

Nja247 (talk · contribs) – This is going to be one of my shorter nominations. NJA came before us back in November seeking to become an admin. Unfortunately, at the time he had just come back from a WP hiatus, thus did not have any measurable recent activity. His RfA basically failed because of his lack of recent activity, but a quick glance at it will show you a person who, despite his inactivity, is well regarded and trusted. When he withdrew his first RfA he approached me for coaching, which I accepted. But like most of my coachees I encouraged time and building footprints.

Over the past three and a half months, NJA has done everything he was asked to do at his first RfA. He it thoughtful, considerate, and how proven to me that he deserves the bit.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 03:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes I accept, and I want to thank you for the nomination. I look forward to this process. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A:

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

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

In summary, I’d continue doing my current admin-like tasks, which I believe would be greatly helped by being an admin myself. Further I’d work to ensure that the issues raised by fellow Wikipedians are addressed as quickly as possible and dealt with fairly. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

A:

Without a doubt my work as a Good articles project reviewer has made the most positive impact to the quality of Wikipedia. Admittedly I do not do as much work as I'd like to in this area, but I do so when I can. I recognise the importance of article review, and being active in that project taught me to be thorough in my edits, and also to engage others in their editing and to guide them so they too can make higher quality additions to Wikipedia. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:

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

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

Overall, I do my best to ensure my actions are done after some thought and review of policy, especially when in conflict. As an admin I would continue to ensure my actions were done with a cool head and are justified. I'd be even more cautious so that I'm projecting a positive example to fellow editors. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from SchfiftyThree

4. In your own words, what is the difference between a block and a ban?

A.

A block is a protective measure which is presumably to end. If it becomes permanent then I'd say it's more of a 'ban'. Thus a ban would be something more permanent than a block (though it too can be lifted). For example a ban may be decided for particularly obscence/disruptive/vandal only users, especially when previous blocks proved ineffective. And of course there are the instances which fall within the banning policy (eg ArbCom, etc). I never noticed that it really can be tricky business to sort the two out. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Oren0

5. Most administrative tasks are supposed to be performed by "uninvolved" administrators. How do you define "involvement"? In what circumstances might an administrator be too involved to protect a page? To block a user?

A:

To me, the term uninvolved in relation to admin guidelines means that when, for example one is deciding whether or not to unblock a blocked user the admin in question should not have been involved in the original block or dispute. This promotes the view of fairness and increases transparency in the process, which is important when dealing with the editing rights of blocked users. Also an admin who's in dispute personally with another should not block that user, but rather report genuine violations of policy on the noticeboard. This again supports the view of fairness and transparency.

In relation to the second bit of your question: I would think that an admin who regularly watches a page (or interested in a specific topic of pages) and borderline 'owns' articles has then become too involved, especially if they block those who are attempting to make changes he/she may not like. Wikipedia is built upon consensus and thus this type of scenario and over involvement should be avoided by the admin who should simply know better. They should take genuine disputes through to the relevant established resolution channels. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

6. If a user makes positive contributions to the project after being banned (say, by use of a sockpuppet), can/should those contributions be kept?

A:

By whichever process the community has decided to ban the user, essentially their edits should be viewed as not likely to be helpful to the project without some type of further qualification. I suppose you could say edits made by a banned user is an exception to AGF, or should be viewed as a pseudo qualified-AGF. Clearly harmless edits, such as copyedits should not be reverted simply because the user was banned. More substantial edits must be viewed with greater care in relation to normal policy (i.e. verifiability, NPOV, etc) to ensure there's nothing hidden within. Use of a sockpuppet however shows even more bad faith as it's an obvious type of evasion. Therefore the edits would require even greater scrutiny. Further the sock should be reported and it may end up having some further consequences for that editor. Though in relation to the edits, again if everything checks out after a thorough review, then there's no reason to delete the edits 'just because' if they're clearly helpful (and uncontroversial) to the project. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Optional question(s) from Protonk (talk)

7: You are one of the first admin candidates I have seen whose deleted contributions number more in the "I created this" than the "I tagged this" category. There are a number of exceptionally bad tags in there (not your tags, someone else's tags on your articles) especially on Arthur Baldwinson, Australian Architect, deleted as an A7 (He's the subject of multiple books & scholarly works) and Oink's Pink Palace (check the deletion logs), deleted as an A1, twice. Edit: Perhaps I wasn't clear, I don't see very many poor tags (candidate uses predominantly prods). The examples I was referring to were cases where the candidate worked on something and an admin came by and deleted it with little grounds to do so. The two I mentioned were just cases where s/he may have felt upset because of those deletions. Let me repeat, in the main, the candidates speedy/prod/afd tags are very good. the question was about their article work which was deleted. /Edit (Protonk (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC))--has that influenced your feelings about speedy deletion? If so, how?

I've been asked to elaborate: Do you remember (I know those articles were created a long time ago and you can't review their contents until this passes!) having your work speedily deleted for any particularly bad reason? Has that influenced how you approach speedy tagging and how you would approach speedy deletion? I ask this because we normally get candidates with very few deleted contributions who don't necessarily intend to work a lot in CSD (like me) or candidates with many deleted contributions, most of which are tags to articles. Yours in a cool case because you've got a reasonable number of deleted contributions, but they are mainly your work. so I wanted to ask a question specific to that. Protonk (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A

Thanks for the elaboration, and it's actually a very good question. On first read it seemed slightly negative, but as I wrote my response I realised what I think you're actually asking, ie as someone who's done a decent job at tagging CSD/PROD/AFD's and also as someone who's had their content deleted -- how do you feel about the whole process?

Admittedly my early editing days were far from being my best work. From what I do recall, having edits deleted was not pleasant because (at that time anyhow) you were given very little reasoning for why it happened. Things are clearly better now (or at least it appears to be better to me as I understand the policies), but when you're unfamiliar with the policy it can be intimidating. I personally do not seek out CSD work, but I did enough of it to get a grasp on how difficult it can be for those tagging, and how to best handle new editors to give proper guidance so that they do not feel unwelcome, which is how I was made to feel years back. As noted by Protonk, I've been on both sides, which is why I rather tag articles and engage new editors and watch for improvements and use PROD and AFD if things haven't progressed. Though there are clearly times were CSD is the best option. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. As was pointed out to me earlier, the candidate didn't create Arthur Baldwinson, Australian Architect, which may explain why they have no memory of creating that article. That was my mistake. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is good to hear, as I thought I might have some type of weird editing of Wikipedia in the middle of the night sleeping disorder :) Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

8: I'll ask a more conventional set of questions. Who may decline a speedy? What happens after a speedy is declined but an editor feels the article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria?

A

Anyone who believes the page does not meet CSD guidelines, or intends to fix it can remove the tag. The content creator cannot, but they can add a 'hangon' tag to allow for some discussion. Though the decision on whether to delete or not comes down to administrators. If the speedy is declined the editor who's concerned about it should properly tag the article and engage others on how to bring it within guidelines, and then if nothing progresses consider using PROD, AFD or even MFD. However they are not required to do this, and they could do PROD, AFD straight away. I tend to think the former route is best, save for when the article is in very bad shape, and/or its creator has been blocked, is uncooperative, etc. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Hipocrite

9. Have you been involved in a long running dispute as a neutral third party? How did you address it? If not, could you please pick a current long running dispute and discuss how you might help address it?

A

As noted briefly in my response to Q3, I try to resolve any disputes I may get into as quickly as possible. I'm not the type of person to drag things out relentlessly, but I do recognise that certain issues are sensitive and that long-term quarrels can happen, which is why Wikipedia has several dispute resolution processes.

I've found a particularly interesting long-running dispute by various editors of the Homosexual transsexual article. It's gone through various stages of dispute resolution, yet from the talk page there are still disputes, particularly in relation to POV. I could (in the future as I'm busy for at least 2-3 weeks) work on trying to bring the page in-line with fundamental Wikipedia article guidelines, and being that I've never seen the article until today, I would hopefully be seen by those in dispute as a incoming neutral who's not taking any particular 'side' and who's simply trying to uphold the important basics (NPOV, reliable 3rd party sources, etc). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases

10. On December 21st, you welcomed new user Alansshole. Do you believe that is an appropriate user name?

A:

While I'd love to welcome all new comers to Wikipedia, that of course is just not possible. I typically welcome someone when I believe there's a reason to pay attention to them. I hope my early guidance on policy will steer them clear of whatever it is they may have intended. It usually doesn't make a difference, but there are those rare occasions that it just might. Anyhow, the name got my attention so I welcomed the user and kept an eye out for behaviour which would confirm whether or not the user was planning to disrupt Wikipedia or make it clear that the name should be seen as offensive. Obviously people have different levels of tolerance, and I try to assume good faith when considering username policy so that people aren't immediately put off. For me, the name as formatted wasn't particularly offensive; it was Christmas (around the holidays I'm even more keen to AGF) so I gave my welcome and watched and would have reported to UAA once their actions demonstrated otherwise. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from KillerChihuahua

11. Define Wheel warring.

12. Did you take Admin coaching? Was it helpful, and in what way?

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Nja247
• Requests for adminship/Nja247 2

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

---

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

Discussion

• It's 2.7 months, not 3.5 months, since his first RFA; on the other hand, the candidate withdrew his nomination early last time, which saved us all some time, and it was specifically mentioned that the candidate intended to return sooner than 3 months. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Hm, this might be appropriate here, but if anyone objects to bringing this up, please let me know; I see this on a lot of the RFA Review pages. Candidate, you may find the Guide to requests for adminship helpful. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

D0H! That is my fault, I miscounted... and to think WSC and I gave Cyclonenim a hard time for making the same math error!---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 19:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, oh the irony. Easy mistake, I'd know... —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I see no problems with the candidate and like the answers so support.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 18:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - I see no problems. Simon^KSK 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support No problems here. User seems to understand the areas he wishes to work in. SF3 ^(talk!) 18:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Been here a while. Edits sufficient to show a good reliable established editor. I trust this person with the admin tools. --NrDg 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
5. I supported him the last time, and he's only improved since that point. Nja is a fantastic contributor, and exactiy the type of person we want as an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Naturally. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
7. per my neutral –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support While I question the judgment of a user who prefers Microsoft, I trust his judgment as a wiki editor. This is very confusing, but I'm dealing with it. FlyingToaster 22:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support-I see no reason why not to support.-Kieran4 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose I understand he prefers Microsoft. Support, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support reviews article.Patton^t/c 23:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Support - In recent years, it has become somewhat of an overused cliché, or some sort of standard saying or ideology to dislike or even hate Microsoft, both inside and out of intellectual circles. Linux is an overrated, overhyped, hypocritical and overcomplicated mess, especially in distros such as Ubuntu. Saying "I hate Microsoft" is kind of like saying "I hate George W. Bush" - it is "the cool thing to say", if you like. I say no more. Microsoft have a superb financial strategy, an active user base, a huge list of compatible applications for their Windows OS, and despite their dabblings in restricting their users, they often act in appropriate ways to comments, complaints and other feedback. It's NetBSD and Windows XP for me, simply because they do what I ask them to do, albeit in different ways.
    
    Shit, sorry, wrong queue.— neuro^(talk) 00:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    Neuro, are we going to have to do Checkuser on you???---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 01:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    No, don't worry. NetBSD was mentioned, that's neuro alright :) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    Checkuser comes back  Likely insane. — neuro^(talk) 19:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

     Confirmed –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    Quacking all the way :) Protonk (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    Please tell me there is a template for that, and you just substed it. It would make my day. — neuro^(talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    Close your eyes and hold out your hand: {{User:Protonk/Duck}}. :) Protonk (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    Y Looks like that's a yes.--Giants27 TC 02:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

     CheckUser is not a crystal ball. I have yet to find any practical use for this template. That doesn't stop me loving it... --Deskana (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

14. Support — Would make a fine administrator. — RyanCross (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - would have supported his first RFA if I'd been following RFA then. No problems that I can see. Terraxos (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - yep. Matt (Talk) 04:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Everything checks out fine. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - Trust this user, would makes a fine admin. Xclamation point 05:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - Ditto with everyone else. You'd be a great sysop. Ginbot86 (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - see no reason not to. Richard⁰⁶¹² 10:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Slightly concerned over Protonk's question but I'm sure there's a viable explanation.  GARDEN  15:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Weak Support from the edit count and the contributions. 3,000 edits doesn't appall me, but looking at your contributions, you had several minor edits in the first 250 I looked at. After that, not as many, but the edits are also very scattered in the edit count. Between January and August 2008 you didn't have a month above 100 edits, and in August you didn't have any period. And in July you had one single edit. Besides that, I do like the user, and his work at WP:UAA. K50 Dude R♥CKS! 16:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Looks great! LittleMountain5 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
25. I hate per votes, but everything I've got to say has been said already. Support per everyone above. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Per trust, and he's not likely to set fire to Wikipedia. And liking Microsoft is OK, since all the good games run best on it, and there's still not a mail client on *nix that comes close to the calendar firepower of Outlook. Don't be hating on the MS lovers, according to this Linux lover. rootology (C)(T) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Support per answers to the questions and the fact that he prefers Microsoft. Oren0 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Seems competent enough. --ERK ^{talk • contribs} 21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Seems competent and calm. Apologies for the quirky question. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
30. miranda 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Sure. Spinach Monster (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Support We have both been involved in the MacBook article. Nja was very patient when dealing with users who kept trying to insert incorrect information, and got the article through it's GA review. A patient editor who I do not see abusing the tools. --Terrillja _talk 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Support as candidate meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards (never been blocked, no memorable negative interactions in AfDs, etc.). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Support All looks fine. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. You've done well here on Wikipedia, it's time to give you the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Support per my RFA criteria - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Support - I think this editor could be trusted with the admin tools. From what I see, he seems clearheaded and rational—both positives IMHO. On another note, did I just stumble into an OS war? Perhaps just an OS skirmish? I'll grab my Linux flag. —Archon Magnus^{(Talk | Home)} 15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Support - I was originally going to either lean oppose or go neutral until I read your definition of "uninvolved" and "involved". You answered in a manner that, if you actually live up to it, would be one of the most important things needed in an admin. If only you could teach the rest of them. : P Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Looks good to me. --Chasingsol^(talk) 19:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Majorly talk 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support per answer to #10, or more specifically, how Nja answered it rather than the answer itself. That was a very difficult judgement call and i'm glad that good faith was assumed to a new user in that borderline case. Spinach Monster (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    Vote indented. You cannot support twice :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

42. Support; no warning signs and an excellent, excellent answer to Q.10. Indeed, my only problem with supporting this user is that should they succeed their new tasks will leave them less time to do such excellent work.Ironholds (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
43. Ironic Oppose Support OMG he looked forward to this RFA we cant have that now can we. Seddσn ^talk 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. No problems here. Tan | 39 00:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. Seems trustworthy. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Wizardman 01:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
47. Support I like your mainspace editing and believe that all Wikipedians should be mainspace editors first and foremost. I like you answer to the "who can oppose CSD" and I think that you'd show wisdom and restraint. Therefore, yes! Good luck, all the best fr33kman -s- 02:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Seems trustworthy to me. hmwithτ 02:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
49. Support — Jake Wartenberg 13:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Support No objection. America69 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
51. support --Baiji (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Why not? --Carbon Rodney 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
53. Huge improvement since the last time. Acalamari 23:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
54. Support: I really like the overall impression of fairness and neutrality, in his attitude and edits. Maedin\^talk 13:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
55. Support You have enough article work, you seem very qualified. iMatthew // talk // 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
56. Support As Acalamari puts it rightly there has been a lot of improvement since the last RFA when I was neutral. and the candidate has shown great dedication and commitment towards Wikipedia.Further feel that the project will only gain with the user getting tools.The user has been around since Feb 2006 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support fr33kman -s- 04:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support rootology (C)(T) 06:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    Duplicated votes. →Na·gy 17:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

57. Support Has a level of experience and tenure that would have been considered more than sufficient in the days when RFA worked properly, clean block log, sensible user and talk pages and I trust the nominator. :-) WereSpielChequers 13:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

    You trust the nominator? Did you see the first two edits that last person I nominated made when he became an admin?---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

58. Support. Good contributions and reasonable answers. However I'm concerned by this comment in Nja247's RfA acceptance: "I look forward to this process." This shows a lack of insight into the RfA process. ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. —_macy 17:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Thelittlegreyman (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. Last minute support never hurt. DiverseMentality 03:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I believe Protonk's original question is a valid one and that gives me pause, and would like to see an answer to. I have my general ambivalence about admin coaching grooming candidates for what we want to see, which unfortunately happens to taint any candidate that I see here. I would like to see some content promotion on Nja's side, and question some of his edits which might suggest misunderstanding guidelines/policy, for example this and then this rather strange edit where he reverts fixes to make the English of a page standard and fix spelling[1], combined with some other diffs I saw, suggest he's more likely to hit the button and revert than take a careful look at edits. For someone with the ability to block, that worries me slightly more. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

   I wish to briefly note that in the first example the edit was completely unreferenced, and the wording sounded like something I'd read in an advert. However I suppose the edit summary would have read better as 'removal of uncited statement'. Obviously if it had been cited (or a search on google would have confirmed the statement, which it did not) then I would have simply re-worded the odd language. It wasn't really a confusion of policy or guidelines on my part, but an issue with the wording, and as it wasn't verifiable at the time I simply removed it. In the second example there really was no reason to change from one version of English to another. I could have left it alone, though essentially to me as long as the style of English remains consistent there's no issue. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

   My question wasn't designed to give pause, per se. Remember, I listed two articles he created (or worked substantively on) which were deleted unfairly. Though I can understand that different interpretations of the question and the possible answers may vary. Protonk (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, that wasn't mean to be a specific reasoning for opposing, just a question that I would like to see answered (probably shouldn't have lead off with that :P) I didn't mean to cast aspersions on his taggings or whatnot. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

   Not a problem. Figured you had some good reason in mind, just wanted to make sure it wasn't due to some lack of clarity on my part. Protonk (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Seems a little light on general experience. Also concur with David Fuchs. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Not enough experience. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now. I've looked through the candidate's most recent 500 contributions, and I'm generally impressed. While he's not terribly active in terms of edit count, Nja247 seems to have an excellent ability to maintain articles and fight vandalism. I also noticed that he uses thorough and in-depth rationales in his AfD votes. My only concern is that he seems to have a bit of trouble with images, demonstrated by this thread on his talk page from less than a month ago. So, for now, I'm going to wait a bit and watch how this RfA plays out. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC) changed to support –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're neutral solely because an image which he uploaded in November ended up being orphaned in January? Really? --Deskana (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm simply not entirely convinced. I'll most likely end up supporting. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I still see the candidate's very low-level activities in admin-areas, and I'm not sure whether he is talking much with editors when a conflict is raised per his edit count at talk pages--Caspian blue 01:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I question whether your point on his edit count at talkpages holds any real merit when looked in context. Over 34% of his edits are on some sort of talk page or another, with 20% of his total edits occuring on article talk pages which rules out any argument that they are all huggle template warnings. Having looked at his talk page edits he seems to partake in discussions with other editors. Could you clarify what you mean? :)Seddσn ^talk 10:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.