Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nae'blis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 13 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Nae'blis

[edit]

Final (104/0/0) Ended 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nae'blis (talk · contribs) – I made an offer to nominate Nae'blis for adminship three months ago, and for good reasons. Nae'blis is a detail editor, working across all namespaces to help keep the project running. With over 7,000 edits since first joining us in August 2005, Nae'blis also has over 1,500 edits to wikinamespace, contributing to Afd's and other deletion categories, and has now informed me that the tools would be welcomed. Nae'blis works in all areas of the the wiki and there is little doubt that this editor is civil, well established and provides excellent contributions. It's my pleasure to nominate.--MONGO 06:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having fallen deep into the Wikibyss, I accept. -- nae'blis 16:49, 21 November 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 do 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: I have helped out with unambiguous closes in XfD, and orphaning those that clearly look like they will be deleted by an admin at closing. I've also got a penchant for patrolling Candidates for speedy deletion, as while I can't delete problems there now, I can occasionally help lower the backlog by redirecting too-specific titles, or expanding/sourcing/AFDing borderline articles. In addition to those, I expect I'll be able to help out with copyvio articles and images (only the blatant ones at first), and two that are near and dear to my heart, Requested Moves and merging page histories. Protected templates are also an area I have confidence in my ability to assist; being an administrator on A Wheel of Time wiki over on Wikia gives me some familiarity with the tools, including blocking, fixing cut-and-paste moves, and editing the MediaWiki namespace.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've tried to keep track of articles I've started or significantly improved; no Featured Articles or the like, but to my knowledge no page I've started has ever been AFDed or Speedied, probably because I take time to ensure that even my first "progressive save" has some reliable sources and a summary of why the topic needs an article. I've also added sources on a number of articles that I both do and don't have an interest in; the {{fact}} tag draws me like a moth to a flame. *laugh* Actually, I'm working right now on an idea to make the {{unreferenced}} tag "dated" like the {{wikify}}/{{cleanup}} tags are; we've got to get a grip somehow on the number of unsourced articles, even though I don't agree with timed deletion as the answer. I'm recently proud of rescuing Free Hugs Campaign from deletion, and translating Raymond Ditmars from the French Wikipedia.
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: My edits tend to be to out-of-the-way articles for the most part (there's enough eyes on George W. Bush, but vandalism on domestic goat can stay for hours or days), so I don't get into a lot of tenditious editing or conflicts. The biggest situations that come to mind are:
  1. Rigoberto Alpizar - in January 2005, there was a persistent effort to label the shooting death here a "murder" before any trial or formal inquiry had occurred. The talk page ended up in quite a stink over the whole affair, but my NPOV edits/reverts had the backing of most editors involved, although it later led to related problems on Police state.
  2. Megadeth - on 16 May 2006, a user started adding what appeared to be fan art on this page in rapid-fire fashion. This was spectacularly frustrating because it was literally being redone every few minutes, with unrelated edit summaries. There seemed to be some language-barrier/policy understanding issues going on, but eventually the user got blocked for more than 3 reversions of the page, and has calmed significantly since then.
  3. Ancient Anguish - a MUD I still visit, and which attracts strong opinions from some players and ex-players. It's on my regularly patrolled pages list, and a user had some strong words about my tendency to remove opinions and criticisms from the article on the talk page.
Mostly, though, I don't edit often enough or contentious enough topics to get into edit wars. I'd rather fill in the blanks and tidy up the place, than get into a pissing contest. So I'll go edit elsewhere if things get hot, or go do something in the real world for a time.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. As nominator.--MONGO 17:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, even if we disagree on a few things. The few things that worry me don't affect me enough otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. Seems good. ↔ ANAS - Talk 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support from past experience with this user, I believe the user can be trusted with admin tools. The user also passes their own standards at User:Nae'blis/Standards. Carcharoth 17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support.  Grue  18:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Demonstrates a clarity of vision regarding site policies that mirror the founding principles. Any new tools granted to this user are highly unlikely to be abused, and that's really the most important standard of all. Unfocused 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I wasn't able to find anything that would hurt the nominee's case. Also, coming across edits like this make me feel very comfortable with Nae'blis' potential adminship. --Brad Beattie (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Good answers, especially question 1. Good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per answers, and not only good edit summary percentage, but good edit summaries. --Daniel Olsen 18:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Though it isn't an admin-chore, I'm especially glad to see someone attacking those {{fact}} tags! -- Renesis (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I've seen this user around being helpful, thoughtful and most importantly, civil. Looks like a good candidate. —Doug Bell talk 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I support. Conscious 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Highly qualified, he's done well around AfD, and I'm happy to support.-- danntm T C 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support ~ trialsanderrors 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - per Brad Beattie --T-rex 20:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Looks like a good candidate. (aeropagitica) 20:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Khoikhoi 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. WP:SNOW Support ST47Talk 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support very good editor. Rama's arrow 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. - crz crztalk 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - good devoted editor, and, frankly, I thought he is an admin already Alex Bakharev 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I thought he was an admin this summer. ~ crazytales-talk- 22:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support...as long as I can call you "Moridin." :) --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, so long as I can call you Mister Sinister. -- nae'blis 04:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Nae'blis would make a great admin. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I performed a review of his contributions (though admittedly not as deep as for someone I nominate) and found nothing wanting. Outstanding candidate, and should be given a mop with extra big mop head. --Durin 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you flirting with me, Durin? -- nae'blis 04:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support From what I can tell, this user qualifies. =) Nishkid64 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, civil and well spoken. Must obviously be patient and driven as well since he made it through all 9,685 pages of the Wheel of Time series. :) Kuru talk 01:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Despite the fact that nae'blis read all 9,685 pages of the Wheel of Time series --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle
  31. Support per good answers, comments above, no concerns with this editor. Newyorkbrad 02:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support semper fi — Moe 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Liked your answer to question 3. Very comprehensive --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. You deserve it. bibliomaniac15 03:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support; of course. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Just don't fall into the Wikibyss again! ;-) 1ne 04:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Good answers to questions as well! Jam01 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Support, I've seen Nae'blis around the place often (although never actually talked to him), and everywhere I have his input and edits have been thoughtful. Wikipedia will benefit if this user gets the mop. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Merovingian ※ Talk 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support (rubs eyes in disbelief)  Jorcogα  06:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. What have you been waiting for? Dragons flight 07:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    24 hours ago, I'm sure I could have said... now I'm looking at the RfA so far and couldn't tell you. *sheepish grin* -- nae'blis 13:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. A good editor. NauticaShades 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Kimchi.sg 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Kusma (討論) 08:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I thought he already was one. Eluchil404 09:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. RFA cliche #1. And I don't say that often ;) (Radiant) 09:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 10:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support, per above/answers, plus when I was rather a casual user on wikipedia, still having it bookmarked under references along with Webster’s online dictionary, I was rather upset to have my first category placed on cfd around aug, Nae'blis was considerate enough to drop a message helping me understand better. I'm not supporting based on that alone, however it is why it's strong ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 11:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support - In my dealings with Nae'blis, I have gotten the impression that he already not only was an admin, but was one of the most pleasant to work with. I was wrong on the first point, but I have no reason to believe that this promotion will change my opinion on the second point. Badbilltucker 14:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support A familiar name on AfD's. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. For your work at the help desk. yandman 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Without any reservation. Khukri (talk . contribs) 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Zaxem 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per nom. VegaDark 23:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. El_C 00:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 02:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support He seems to know what he's doing. Will be a good admin? Yep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Geez, are you kidding me? I thought he was an Arbitrator... well, not really, but you know what I mean. Titoxd(?!?) 05:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, hey look, it's a round 60. Please let there be more admin candidates like this. -Amarkov blahedits 05:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Support ViridaeTalk 11:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. I've run into him occasionally. Good editor. Give him the mop already. - Mgm|(talk) 12:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support sounds good, very good. James086 Talk | Contribs 13:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - good guy. Tom Harrison Talk 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Thought he was one. Haukur 17:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support per nomination. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support #include i-can't-believe-this-one-not-an-admin-already.cliché Guy (Help!) 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per nom. --Aude (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, as per nom. Very good editor. --Carioca 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, great user. Looks good. --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support A big YES to much-needed sanity and reason. metaspheres 04:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  72. Strong Support The Wheel of Time thing does show deep psychological issues but otherwise great user who can be trusted with admin powers. Good luck Nae'blis! You should also consider getting active in dispute resolution tasks as your levelheadness and great communication skills would be very valuable in those aspects of Wikipedia Lostkiwi 05:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, can I really say anything that 72 others haven't already said? :) riana_dzasta 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Sniper support Right on target. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. I though Nae'blis already was one... — Gary Kirk // talk! 13:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per above, thought he was one as well. ;o) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Strong Support Emerging from my flu-induced haze to sing the praise of this candidate, thoughtful and kind. There is no one better suited for the job. Xoloz 23:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I see nothing wrong here. Nae'blis is very, very patient. This is a quality that many more Wikipedia admins need. Give him the mop!Sharkface217 04:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. G.He 04:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Knowledgeable, solicitous, and committed editor. -- Satori Son 06:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Very, very, *very* obvious. —Nightstallion (?) 12:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support per nom and comment above.MustTC 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support (almost superfluously) --Docg 01:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support per nominator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, of course. Grutness...wha? 05:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. strong support --Dario vet 13:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, too tough to find a good reason not to support! Mathmo 14:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Very capable of becoming an administrator. Hello32020 15:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. --Rudjek 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. JoshuaZ 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. JYolkowski // talk 00:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Axl 08:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. strong support- Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Accurizer 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. I, too, watch the vast herds of goats alone. ... aa:talk 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. SUpport - clearly knows ins and outs of WP. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42 27 November 2006 (GMT).
  97. WP:97 Support Yanksox 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Wheel of Time support! I was going to wait to be number 100, but I think everyone else has the same idea, and I'm not very patient. ;) I've been wondering when someone was going to nom you... Nae'blis is a fantastic candidate: he's a civil user, great vandal fighter AND participates in XfDs. Srose (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support and gripe about not getting to be the magic 100th supporter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. Bucketsofg 02:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. No doubts here. Good luck! -- AuburnPilottalk 03:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support; looks good: I see everything I like. Antandrus (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support good editor, hopefully better admin. Tbeatty 05:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support, three months late but finally done ;). NoSeptember 11:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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/Nae%27blis&oldid=1144416481"