Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nthep

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

Nthep

Final (78/1/3); Closed as successful by Wizardman at 03:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Nthep (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians, today I bring forth Nthep for your consideration as a candidate for Adminship. Like so many others, I first met Nthep at the Teahouse, where he spends much time helping new users. As a matter of fact, as of my last check a few weeks ago, he has made the most edits to the Teahouse question forum which shows his dedication to the assistance of newcomers, an ideal characteristic in an administrator. In addition to his marvelous work in that facet of the encyclopedia, Nthep has also contributed to four good articles and has gnomed around the encyclopedia to rack up over 20,000 edits. To summarize: a calm demeanor, a willingness to help out wherever needed, and content experience. What more can we ask? I urge my fellow Wikipedians to issue Nthep a mop and bucket. Thank you. Go Phightins! 18:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am privileged to accept this nomination and I'd like to thank Go Phightins! for his faith in me. NtheP (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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 have a particular interest in copyright so dealing with copyvios, both images and content, would be a primary area to address, also AIV and speedy deletion requests. 3RR & EW are likely areas for me to get involved in to. Other areas like AFD, ANI would, I think, come in time but wouldn't be where I would start out. NtheP (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

A: Federation of Stoke-on-Trent is the article I'm most proud of, but I think my best work has been at the Teahouse and helping (I hope) new editors to develop and remain with Wikipedia. Editor retention is very important to the future of Wikipedia and keeping new blood interested is something to strive for as much as possible. Explaining policy and technical how-to's are part of this and I'd like to think that in my own small way I;m doing something to help towards that.

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: Have I been in major conflicts? No I don't think so, there have been a couple of minor spats (one of which is recentish and can be seen on my talk page) but apart from a touch of annoyance at the time they haven't caused me any stress. I do try and assume good faith as much as possible and remembering that reminds me that there are always two sides to any story and that conflict is normally the result of miscommunication. In the case on my talk page, I didn't answer a question at the Teahouse as clearly as I could have done and I got riled by the way this was pointed out. A more conciliatory attitude on either side may have led to a different outcome but after a couple of sharp exchanges my response was to walk away from the situation. For an administrator I recognise that's not always an option and you have to be prepared to see things through to a resolution, however difficult that might be. Lesson learned - always take a pause before replying and think about how the message may be perceived by the recipient before hitting Save page. NtheP (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast

4. What is your opinion of the policy WP:NEU, and the guideline WP:COI?

A: WP:NPOV is a core policy, which has developed over the years into what I consider to be a well written and clear statement on the issue. When we all start on Wikpedia it is mostly because we have some "gem" of information we are itching to share with the world and because we know it, we know that it's also true. And that's where the problems start, put aside for a moment the questions of verification and/or original research, and consider the "gem"; a lot of times it is going to be a fact, however other times it's going to be an opinion. As a new editor I don't care if my gem is fringe, conspiracy theory or genuinely mainstream, I just want to get it in there because it's "important". This is where the NPOV policy comes into it's own. As a well developed policy most (never say all) the arguments about what is or isn't a neutral edit have been laid out, so where reference is need to guide an editor towards maintaining neutrality the references are there already and it doesn't need me to reinvent them.

As the policy itself says though it has to be taken in connection with WP:V & WP:OR and the triumvirate must be considered equally at all times. This is another advantage as they support each other. If there is a debate about whether an opinion is undue or not then how that opinion was arrived at by looking at the sources that support the opinion i.e. verification or is it original research can help in establishing a consensus about the opinion and how much, if at all, it should be referred to.

COI is a difficult field and although the guideline is well established and like the neutrality policy I think it is well thought out it isn't without it's operational problems. For me the nushell paragraph is very good "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia." However operationally there is something of a tendency to label editors/articles with COI on the basis of the first sentence without considering the second. In a majority of cases there is nothing wrong with that as the COI is blatent and sticks out like a sore thumb and deserves, rightly, to be dealt with promptly to maintain NPOV. Sometimes there just needs to be that pause though to consider the editing before taking action. It's probably something I have been guilty of myself lest anyone thinks I am promoting myself as being without sin but it is something I try to be more considerate of now. The guideline needs to exist, without it Wikipedia would cease to be workable but apart from what I have already said about how it is applied, would I change it - at the moment no I wouldn't. NtheP (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

5. Would you consider yourself an inclusionist or deletionist, and why?

A: Neither. In my early days I was probably more of a deletionist but now especially when looking at new pages I try and take more of an objective view and am now more of an inclusionist. That's not to say I'm shy of slapping a CSD tag onto an article where I think it is merited but especially with articles that may be A7 (notability) candidates I try and consider if the article is factual, has merit or is useful first as well as considering notability, neutrality etc. Why the move? Probably because I think that some of the most interesting articles I have read on Wikipedia are those where notability isn't great but from humble beginnings some editors have crafted well constructed, informative articles. Some of these may not have got to that stage if at the start, the first edits hadn't been given a break and/or the benefit of the doubt. It's also because I support editor retention and the one thing more likely to put people off straight away is to see their first efforts deleted with little explanation, this isn't about retaining rubbish for the sake of not upsetting someone but about considering potential rather than current position.

I would add that I don't have 100% accuracy rate on nominations for CSD or AFD and if made an admin I am sure I wouldn't achieve a 100% accuracy rate either. NtheP (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from B

6. As you most likely know, administrators are not permitted to block users with whom they are "involved". What does "involved" mean to you? Consider this scenario: You block a user for a clear and unambiguous case of 3RR based on a report at AN3. He or she immediately contests the block on the grounds that you are an "involved" editor, pointing to a debate from some time ago in which the two of you held opposite views. (You had forgotten about the debate and did not make the connection until he pointed it out.) What would you do?

A: Involved is defined quite strictly in the link you have given. In this instance I would recuse myself and immediately raise the matter at ANI for another admin to decide if the block was neutrally applied i.e. in line with policy or whether my action could be interpreted as biased because of the on previous interaction with the editor. NtheP (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

7. As you have probably noticed, PUF and FFD tend to get massive backlogs because only a limited number of admins understand our complicated policies/procedures for images and it's very easy to get burned out. Based on you saying that you hope to help by "dealing with copyvios, both images and content", am I correct in assuming that PUF and IFD are areas you would like to help with? Please pick one or two open and contested (meaning at least one person has !voted keep) PUF or FFD discussion and say how you would close it and why. (Some examples of good ones to try: a, b, c)

A: They are areas I would like to help out with and I'll use the examples you've listed.

a) I would close as delete for failing NFCC#8. It neither significantly increases a readers understanding nor is it's omission detrimental. I presume it is related to the second paragraph in the Dylan McAvoy#Storylines where the prose does a much better job of explaining the scene than the image does.

b) More borderline but I think here I would fall on the side of keep. I can see the argument that it fails NFCC#8 in terms of the massacre but Hennard doesn't merit an article about him and the information about him is correctly included as a section within Luby's massacre per the first paragraph of WP:CRIMINAL and an image of him does add to the understanding of him. Unlike a) this isn't a case where prose could do a better job in explaining a person rather than a situation.

c) A delete for failing NFCC#8. While the image may reference the war room from Dr Strangelove there is no comparison with the original setting in Dr Strangelove so it doesn't significantly add to understanding because there is no reference point to relate the image to. That reduces it to the status of decoration. Compare this with File:SmithersDream.png in the episode The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular where the image caused problems about the episode with the censor and seeing the image does explain what the censor saw and how they came to the conclusions they did. NtheP (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Binksternet

8. Can you explain your relationship to Hostelling International? You created several articles about the organization but they are largely if not entirely referenced with primary sources. (See Hostelling International – Canada, Hostelling International Northern Ireland, and Youth Hostels Association (England & Wales).)

A: I'm a life member of YHA (England & Wales) and the history of the organisation is a particular interest of mine. I have no relationship with HI-Canada, HI-Northern Ireland or Hostelling International other than those benefits granted by being a member of YHA (England & Wales). If you suggesting that the articles are in need of an overhaul to reduce the reliance on primary sources I entirely agree. It's four years since I created the articles, the commencement of the article on YHA(E&W) is in my earliest 50 edits and as I said in reply to Q4, as a new editor at the time it was important to me to get the information out there. Now I understand far better the value of more quality in exchange for possibly less content. NtheP (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Binksternet

9. Please describe your personal policy on edit summaries, bearing in mind the following:
 • recent Wikipedia space diffs with no summary [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
 • recent article and article talk space diffs with no summary [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
 • recent other user talk diffs with no summary [24][25][26][27][28][29][30]
 • recent diffs on your own talk page with no summary: ([31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]

A: In general I agree that edit summaries are useful/helpful especially on non user user/talk space and I can only say most of those identified are oversights in entering one (I don't have the prompt switched on in Preferences). User talk pages, especially mine, I see these as mostly less public conversations between individuals where the context of the message can be understood directly from the content rather than a summary and/or the edit could be counted as a minor edit even if not indicated as such. NtheP (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Nthep: Nthep (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Nthep can be found here.
• Edit stats are on the talk page. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Proudly, as the nominator. Go Phightins! 03:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, per nom. Looks good. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - Everything looks good to me. Seems like a very helpful, friendly user who will make a great admin. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
4. Support per nomination statement. TBrandley 05:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - I'm not a big teahouse person but I appreciate what the tea-makers do and Nthep is among their best. Happy to support. Stalwart111 05:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
6. Support – Article creation, AfD, CSD, and other contributions seem good. And the Teahouse work is the "icing on the cake". The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 06:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. INeverCry 06:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
8. Support - At first I was a little concerned by the answer to the conflict question, but a quick look made me realize the problem was not the RFA candidate at all, but a truly confrontational editor that was simply unable to express themselves clearly and was not getting an answer to his "question" (and I use that term loosely here) in any of the venues he was asking because it was a very badly formulated question with distracting graphics and long over written, and confusing prose. That was a no win scenario as Nthep gave a number of answers to cover what he thought was the question. I thought it was fine but the contributor that was asking flipped out and "nutted" up. The reason it turns out was the editor did not have even a basic understanding of how to download an image to his own computer and had over complicated his question so much it was impossible for anyone to know their basic limitations.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
9. Support - I've not crossed paths with the candidate before, but the stats looks fine, the history of editor retention goals looks solid, Teahouse is good experience and he has done well there, and I always appreciate candidates that have a calm demeanor and the ability (and willingness) to explain details to editors. He seems to understand that communications is of the utmost importance, and willing to admit when he falls a little short, as we all do from time to time. I agree with Amadscientist above as well. Very likely to be helpful with admin/non-admin relations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
10. I love his answer to Q4; it is very well thought out and reflects a depth of understanding as to what Wikipedia is all about. The interaction he mentions in Q3 demonstrates a very calm yet assertive approach to disagreements and disputes, a crucial trait to have as an administrator. A quick look through his Wikipedia namespace edits indicates that he has sufficient experience in administrative areas (particularly those specified in Q1). I am convinced that Nthep will do a great job, and I see no reason whatsoever to oppose. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
11. Support - Nthep is one of the Wikipedians I admire most, particularly because of his work to the Teahouse. As a fellow Teahouse host, I know how well Nthep has familiarized with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If others also take a look at his responses to the WP:THQ you'll see what I am taking about. --Ushau97 ^talk 11:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
12. Support. I have to confess I hadn't heard of Nthep before I saw this RfA, but I've spent some time examining things now. I came up with three specific things I wanted to comment on - and then I saw that Amadscientist, Dennis Brown and Kurtis have beaten me to it on exactly the same issues. The editor in Q3 was rather aggressive (and really not making the question clear), Nthep looks to be very good on communication and has a very positive demeanour, and Q4 is answered very well indeed. Overall, I see a great admin candidate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
13. Support Looks fine as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
14. Support trust the nom and like what I see. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 18:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
15. Support I don't make it any secret that I think the Teahouse, like Esperanza before it, is an enormous waste of time which speaks more of social networking than it does encyclopedia building. Normally, a candidate that claims Teahouse as their greatest achievement would simply make me say "maybe you need to go work on something else, then come back later." However, I do like what I see when I go over this user's contributions, and if you were to take the "Facebook by way of Wikipedia" aspect totally out of the mix, I would support him without reservation. He is drama-free. He doesn't burden himself with Wikibureaucracy any more than is necessary to get things done. He is active in a wide range of tasks. His answer to Q4 is something I find particularly impressive. It was well thought out, thought provoking, and proves that the candidate is more than just a parrot that can recite policy - something I love to see in an admin candidate. All in all... I see a definite net-positive. Trusilver 18:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
16. (edit conflict)Support, everything is good as far as I can see. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 18:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
17. Support. Fully qualified candidates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
18. I was supposed to be the other nominator with Go Phightins but I couldn't write an extremely detailed nomination because of school and stuff. Nthep fully qualifies my strict criteria for administrative status. His help in the Teahouse shows a calm demeanor with newer editors that is sorely needed in the administrative ranks. He also has a clear need for the tools as more of a cleanup type editor, so I trust him in doing tasks such as CSD. Secret ^account 22:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
19. Support - answers look good to me and we desperately need admins who understand image issues and will work on the related backlogs. --B (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
20. Support, I presently am not seeing any reason to object to this nomination. The editor's activities appear to be above the board. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
21. Support. Responding to PaleAqua's oppose below: FFD and PUF, where copyright law takes priority and participants are scarce, cannot be closed like AfDs. Admins have to use their judgment. The candidate's answers to question 7 are much better than PaleAqua's suggestion. Chick Bowen 01:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
22. (edit conflict)Support Writing skills are a bit sketchy, but contribs look good and I'm happy to see that the candidate wants to take on some of the less-popular grunt work. Miniapolis 01:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
23. Support Mediran (t • c) 03:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
24. Support. Long-term editor with solid content contributions. The answers to the optional questions are strong. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
25. Support Seems trustworthy and has clue. Spencer^T♦C 06:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
26. Support - Seen this editor about, no reason to doubt that he can't be trusted with the tools. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
27. Support Long term editor experienced with over 59 articles.We need more admins to work with copyright and images.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
28. Support per Kurtis (#10) and Pharaoh (#27), and because he helps new users a lot. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
29. Support T4B (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
30. Support - per Kurtis and "A calm demeanor, a willingness to help out wherever needed, and content experience." Deserves the mop! Good luck! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
31. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 13:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
32. Sure - Keeper | 76 19:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
33. Support Unlike some, I have encountered this user and haven't come across any problems that I can recall. Seems polite and clueful. The archaeologists don't seem to have unearthed evidence pointing to any serious misdemeanours yet, anyway. Peridon (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
34. We need more admins dealing with copyvios! Many admins simply don't have the experience and the knowledge in that (not that easy) area! mabdul 20:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
35. Support - Nthep was one of the first contributors to help me out when I was getting started, well before Teahouse days. They were helpful, knowledgeable and encouraging then, and they have been since both to me and to others. Policy knowledge, content creation, demeanour etc - all boxes ticked, although I don't have one for Teahouse. The numerous faults that I exhibit today are completely unrelated to Nthep's guidance when I was a tyro ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
36. Stephen 05:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
37. Support - We could always use more help, and I see no problems here. Michael (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
38. Support I've seen Nthep around (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) and been quietly impressed; I like the answers to the questions above, and I reckon he's got the right attitude to be a competent admin. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
39. Support – The answer to Q7 indicates that they do indeed have (a) the requisite knowledge and (b) the motivation to work in their chosen area of copyright violations. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
40. Support I don't see any problems - he has good answers to questions and he's very helpful. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 15:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
41. Support —stay (sic)! 15:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
42. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Sufficient tenure. Outstanding answers on Q4 and Q5. Dennis Brown support adds another point. Carrite (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
43. Support. Qualified candidate, respectable contributions, solid article creation record, strikes the correct tone in his responses. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
44. Support. I'm another person who hasn't crossed paths with the candidate before, but the honest answer to question 3 is a plus for me. I had much the same reaction to it as Amadscientist did, above. I look very positively on the track record of helping new editors. I also think that the interests in copyvio and images address important needs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
45. Support. Good content contributions, a helpful and friendly demeanour, and spot checks of Wikipedia-space edits and deleted contribs didn't show up any problems. I'm happy to support. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
46. Support - Based on what I see, I trust this user with the admin tools. Edit summaries are useful, but not mandatory. James086^Talk 10:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
47. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
48. Swaha (read Support) Passed most of the criteria I generally check. except B1. Also, several times, I have seen the candidate's contributions and edits, which I felt where highly helpful/constructive, which makes me believe that he'll be a good admin as well. Good wishes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 12:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
49. Support. Generally good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
50. Support, seems helpful, patient and well-spoken. Looks like he'd make a great admin. CaSJer (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
51. Support as there is no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 15:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
52. Support no concerns, following some spot checks of contributions, answers to questions. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
53. Support; looks good to me. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
54. Support No problems as far as I can tell. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
55. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
56. Support per User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
57. Yo. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 22:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
58. Support No concerns -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
59. Support Looks fine. Widr (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
60. Support No problem.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 07:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
61. Support There is no major problems that he has caused or have been involved in, so he will probably not misuse the tools.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 08:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
62. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
63. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
64. Support. Good contributions, no reason to think this editor will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
65. Support, looks fine. --Makecat 03:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
66. Support Your response to my follow-up question has impressed me. I hope you will live up to this. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC))
67. Support Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
68. Support Great contributions all around and steady demeanor. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 20:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
69. 'Support Adminship = No Big Deal.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
70. Support After more looking, found no other concerns. And have seen some interactions on the various pages that I watch which lead me to believe that Nthep will make a good admin. I still have slight concerns with the nuances of phrasing ( but not the reasonings ) in the answer to question 7, but not enough to be neutral or restore my original oppose. PaleAqua (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
71. Support No concerns. Good luck as an admin! Vacation9 06:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
72. Support Appears to be experienced, reasonable and polite. Iselilja (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
73. I'm pleased to make it 73. Support. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
74. Support. No concerns, no big deal. — sparklism ^hey! 10:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
75. Support Looks good to me.. TheStrikeΣagle 16:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
76. Support - Of course! I've seen Nthep's Teahouse work show how polite and reasonable he can be. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
77. The outcome of this RFA is pretty evident no matter how I !vote, but I'll chime in here at the end to offer my thoughts. First of all, I'm impressed with your involvement at the Tea House. Advising newcomers is not easy work and requires a broad knowledge of policy, a friendly demeanor, and level-headedness. I'm convinced you have all three characteristics, which are crucial to being a successful administrator. I've perused your talk page archives going back to last January and see an editor who's friendly and willing to learn from mistakes. I also like your answer to Q3; sysops must learn from mistakes. Lastly, you have a good amount of experience and a clean block log. I'm more than happy to support. Good luck Happy Easter if you celebrate it. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
78. Support looks okay.--Staberinde (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - The answers to question 7 leaves me a little concerned. They are more in terms of how one would reason for !voting, rather then how one should close based on the arguments presented by the !voters. I haven't had a chance to the rest of my usual checks yet so still might support or switch to neutral, but this jumped out at me. I would have been happier seeing an answer saying that outcome (Delete/Keep/Other) has stronger argument because, or as it doesn't look like their is consensus yet, I will !vote (Delete/Keep/Other) because of (...) and let another admin !vote. PaleAqua (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC) - Striking for now. It isn't fair of me to oppose only on disliking the phrasing of the answers when I agree with the reasoning within. PaleAqua (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Clicked on Federation of Stoke-on-Trent in Q2 as evidence given by candidate of best work. Skimmed it quickly and paused when I saw something that didn't look right.

Apart from an abortive scheme proposed in 1889 by Longton for Stoke, Fenton and Longton to become a county borough, the events of 1888–1889 proved to be the last attempt at federation until the 20th century.

Quote from Wikipedia article; cited to Miller 1960, p. 10

Apart from a nugatory effort in April of the same year by Longton to promote a scheme for making Stoke, Fenton, and Longton a county borough, (fn. 32) no further attempt to secure the whole or partial union of the Pottery towns was made during the succeeding decade...(fn. 33)

Quote from Jenkins 1963; fn.32 and fn.33 are citations to Miller 1960

Then, a few paragraphs up looked odd.

With Fenton, Tunstall and Burslem all opposing federation it was left to Hanley, Stoke and Longton to submit proposals to the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board ruled that only the submission made by Longton met the statutory and other formal requirements and that it alone would form the basis of the subsequent local inquiry, held in January 1908.

Quote from Wikipedia article; cited to House of Lords Select Committee 1908, 30 November, pp 15, 40.

With Burslem, Fenton, and Tunstall standing out, it was Hanley, Longton, and Stoke who, on 30 November, lodged three separate representations with the Local Government Board. (fn. 61) ... The statutory and other formalities were complied with in respect of the Longton representation only, and so it was upon the latter that the subsequent local inquiry was held. (fn. 63)

Quote from Jenkins 1963; fn.61 and fn.63 are citations to the House of Lords committee

That's as far as I got before having enough information to oppose. If I was still a TA and getting paid, I'd break out the colored markers and set aside a couple hours for some fun. But I'm not, so I shan't. (Feel free to fix formatting because I'm sure this will break something.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I don't follow. Why are you opposing? StAnselm (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I second StAnselm's comment. Is this oppose based on suspicion of plagiarism? That's what i'm understanding by the way it's laid out. If so, it seems a little bit of a reach; certainly not enough for an oppose (in mine opinion) unless it's part of a huge pattern. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 07:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Response from candisate Jenkins is the mostly widely available source on the subject but a lot of it is a tertiary source. In the course of compiling this article I went past Jenkins and looked at a number of the the secondary sources, Miller, various local and regional newspapers and the parliamentary papers, directly. I'd refute plagarism but accept that paraphrasing might be an issue, actually, even if one person is raising it, it is an issue. I've had a back burner idea of pushing this for FAC for a while now, this is probably the stimulus to do a through review and submit for GAR first. I would most certainly say that this is not part of a pattern, large or small in this article or across my editing as a whole. NtheP (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, NtheP. Just to be clear, i don't see a problem with plagiarism here; it was the only thing i could think of as a reason for Nathan Johnson's oppose. I shall wait a wee bit to see if he clarifies ~ maybe i completely misunderstood his opposition ~ but i expect to drop into the support column soon. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

imho these examples fall short of plagiarism but the paraphrasing is rather too close, especially in the second example. I haven't removed my support yet, but I must admit that it is now a bit iffy. I'd appreciate if NtheP would state how he plans to ensure that close paraphrasing will not be an issue in future, and how he will handle any issues of copyright he might encounter if he becomes an admin. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Response Like many things on Wikipedia, it works on consensus and peer contributions, when I originally wrote those words I didn't consider that paraphrasing was an issue. With the benefit of additonal pairs of eyes I see know that my view at that time sailed too close to the wind. Armed with that knowledge I can work in future knowing that the gap between sources and the article content needs to be greater e.g. more thorough comparison of the article and sources with specific reference to similarities in style, words etc before saving. To have been on the receiving end of criticism will have been beneficial if I become an admin as I know how it has made me react and think about what I need to do to rectify the situation. Therefore where I encounter an instance on what can be a very subjective issue I will be better able to communicate to the editor why it has been raised as an issue and can discuss how to deal with it, preferably without the issue becoming a drama or a crisis. NtheP (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Good insight. I once saw a good editor leave in embarrassment because he had been found to sail too close to the wind on close paraphrasing. He was persuaded back with suitable advice and soothing words, but it's better to avoid that when education suffices. Thanks for your reply. --Stfg (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

The candidate seems great, but I would like to see a few Q&A's before most likely supporting. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 06:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)(edit conflict)The !vote police stopped by my talk page, moving to support before this turns into a huge puffed up problem.

Anybody can ask a question. Feel free to ask anything that you'd like to see answered. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

1. The candidate seems competent but I would like to see a few Q&A's before making a decision. (IP24 whoever you are, I'll remove this when I'm ready) Leaky Caldron 18:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Neutral - I'm neutral for now because I, like a few of the supporters have indicated, have never heard of this nominee. That's not a bad thing... but it makes me wonder a bit about experience in admin areas. The teahouse and other village pump areas are all well and good, but being friendly at the local watering hole isn't necessarily what we need to get things done. I'm neutral because right now, I'm precisely that. I haven't seen anything particularly good or bad looking through the history. I do want to maybe ask some people to put some breaks on and look a bit deeper, maybe ask some questions... and not gotcha questions, or hypothetical policy ones... but I'd like to hear Nthep point to some of the admin areas they'd work in and what they've done in the past in those areas. I'll be looking into stuff more within the next day or so, but I just want to register my thoughts now. Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

   Response As I highlighted in Q1, media licencing and copyright is an area I'm interested in. There are quite a lot of F-category CSD nominations in my contributions and contributions/nominations to PFU & FFD (more to PFU). I've also a number of discussions helping people out with image licencing so it's not all been deletion. I'm not one to keep logs of items I've nominated for deletion so it's an estimate when I say CSD nominations in article space probably number hundreds going on posts to user talk pages where the edit summary now contains a redlink. Assisting at AIV is another starting point and I have a fair number of reports to AIV and UAA. There are contributions elsewhere e.g. SPI, AFD. Apart from that I'm not sure what more I can tell you about my contributions and work in admin areas, but please ask if you want more. NtheP (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral I am moving to support - I liked your answer for number #6 and I have a follow up: What are the potential consequences if conflict of interest are not avoided by administrators, even in small cases like the one described in question 6? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC))

   Response Blocking a user is a serious sanction and "The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested." (WP:EXPLAINBLOCK) This is, to me, an extension of WP:NPOV but applying the same principles to non-content actions. I don't think you have to look too deeply into the archives of pages like WP:ANI to see that there are editors who believe that administrators act in a high handed, partisan manner with a vested interest in achieving their own (admins') ends. Much as this stance may be considered a fringe theory, administrators should act in such a way as to avoid fueling such beliefs and responding to allegations of bias or COI openly and honestly is a method of doing this. NtheP (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

   Indented this vote to remove the count since lowkeyvision now supports, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I would have liked to see a more positive response to question #9, especially a declared intention to increase edit summary employment to virtually 100% in the future, at least outside of Nthep's own user space. Nthep might have offered to turn on the warning message in user preferences. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2013 (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.