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

Neelix[edit]

Final (69/14/12); Closed as successful by Dweller (talk) at 21:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Neelix (talk · contribs) – I have been editing since March of 2006. I am the 39th editor by article count and the 110th editor by edit count. I have made more than 100,000 edits, more than 90,000 of which are live edits to articles. I have created over 4000 articles and uploaded over 800 images. For the past few years, I have not seen the need for me to become an administrator because there is so much work that needs to be done that does not require administrator tools. Nonetheless, the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves has been an impediment to the general development of the project for some time now, so I am requesting adminship so that I can help lighten the load of administrators currently working on that backlog. Neelix (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: My primary concern is to deal with the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I would also like to be able to move articles over redirects with page histories so that I don't have to bring uncontroversial moves to 'Requested moves' each time.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I translated the Carabane article from the French Wikipedia into English and was then successful in causing it to achieve featured status. Nonetheless, the majority of my work on Wikipedia is organizational, so I consider the best of my work to be the creation of a large number of well-needed disambiguation pages over the years.
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: I was blocked for a few hours a while ago because an administrator believed that my account had been compromised. I had created a significant number of redirects to an article that dealt with profanity. The redirects were profanity themselves, which I believed to be appropriate considering that they were redirecting to an article about profanity. While I still believe that they were valid redirects, they were deleted. I was unblocked as soon as other editors realized that my account had not been compromised. I did not attempt to recreate the redirects because community concensus appeared to be against their recreation. I also recall dealing with a stressful situation last year outside of Wikipedia and I was therefore insufficiently curtious in my relations with another editor on Wikipedia. When another editor informed me that I was not being considerate, I apologized and took a break from editing for a few days. If I encounter stressful situations outside Wikipedia in the future, I will likely do the same, but as a preventative measure.
Questions from FASTILY
4. Would you ever take it upon yourself to, without any warning whatsoever, indefinitely block a registered user?
A: No. I don't foresee blocking any editors, but I may be convinced to do so by community concensus. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. During your duties as a sysop, you come across an article about an upcoming film. You note that someone has uploaded a screenshot from that upcoming film and that it is quite obvious that this image has never been published elsewhere. What is your course of action? Note that I'm not looking for a specific answer (e.g. this file violates such and such policy), but rather how you yourself would deal with this hypothetical situation.
A: I don't generally patrol images to determine whether or not they violate policy; that simply isn't an area of Wikipedia I often get involved with. Nonetheless, if I did end up working in that area, I wouldn't initially have experience to know what the appropriate course of action would be, so I would probably check with other administrators to see what the standard procedure is. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from Highspeedrailguy
6. If you were repeatedly attacked by another admin, what would you do?
A: If normal dispute resolution procedure did not result in resolution and the other administrator was clearly abusing his or her position, I would probably post a notice at the appropriate notice board. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note to candidate: this user account was created today. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional questions from Armbrust
7. Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose.
A: Oppose rationale: I hold very strongly to the general notability guideline and I believe that articles on topics that do not meet that guideline should be deleted. For this reason, I am likely to delete articles that other, more inclusivist editors believe should be kept.
Rebuttal: I do not expect to be doing a lot of deleting. When I do, it will only be because another user placed a proposed deletion tag on an article and that tag has expired or else because an AfD has run its course and the discussion has demonstrated that the article should be deleted. I will hold to concensus. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8. Should Foo (disambiguation) be moved to Foo if Foo is redlink or a redirect to the dab page? And if moved should the dab page be deleted?
A: If there is no article that should become the primary target, then the disambiguation page should become the primary target. The dab page redirect should not be deleted because disambiguation pages with titles that do not include the term "(disambiguation)" in the title should have that title redirecting to the page anyway. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
9. If there was one thing you could change about Wikipedia (a new policy, or a new guideline, or something else entirely, for instance), what would it be, and why?
A: I would instate a guideline stating that standalone topical bibliographies are not appropriate mainspace pages on Wikipedia. I don't think that the few currently existing ones should be deleted, but I would like to see them moved out of the mainspace because I do not believe them to be articles. Bibliographies of a single person's works or a single historical personal library's holdings are encyclopedic pages, but I do not believe that standalone, subjectively selected lists of books and articles on particular topics should be considered articles. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
10. How likely would you be to close AfD discussions, if at all?
A: It's probable that I will eventually, although that isn't my intended focus and I will, of course, only close those discussions in which I have not participated. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:11. Do you think this question is really optional? Why? ::A: Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional optional question from NuclearWarfare
12. Why the hell have 8 (well, 9 now) questions have been asked three hours into the nomination?
A: I'm a very active Wikipedian. Perhaps other editors want to be especially sure that I'll use administrator tools wisely. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Keepscases
13. As an administrator, would you be interested in being involved with others' future RfAs? Why or why not?
A: If a user requested that I become involved in a particular RfA, I would likely comply, but I don't have any intentions of becoming regularly involved in the process; I believe my time is better used elsewhere in the project. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from TParis
14. I understand your interest is specific, but what are the chances that as an administrator you will broaden your scope into other areas such as WP:CSD, WP:AfD, WP:AN/V and how will you approach these areas at first?
A: I don't think it likely that I will get involved with WP:AN/V, but it is probable that I will eventually do some work with WP:AfD and possibly with WP:CSD as well. Nonetheless, I doubt that either of these areas will ever become my focus on Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
15. How will you approach these areas when and if you do eventually become involved?
A: In the unlikely event that I get involved with AN/V, it will probably be because another user asked me to intervene; in that case, I will privilege discussion over use of administrator tools. If I get involved with CSD, it will most likely be because I came across an article that was tagged and agreed with the user who tagged the article that the article should be deleted. Similarly, if I close any AfD's, it will most likely be because I stumbled across the article. I have no intentions of monitoring CSD or AfD backlog, although I may be persuaded to do so at some future juncture if more administrators are required in that capacity. Neelix (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from Wireless Keyboard
16. What do you think of the current warning system for vandals, is it too leinent - 4 warnings before a block? Would you change this policy (more or less warnings)?
A: The four-warning system is not often treated as four required steps before a user can be blocked; the warning levels pertain to the degree of vandalism incurred, therefore a Level 4im may be issued to a user who has never before received a warning. I like the four warning levels because I believe them to sufficiently cover the range of vandalism that might be prevented by warnings. Nonetheless, I think that prolific vandals who demonstrate no sign of good faith should be blocked irrespective of whether or not they have already received four warnings, although this should not be done lightly. Neelix (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One quick question from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
17. My apologies for adding to your pile of questions, but this one is fairly simple. If you decided to broaden your focus beyond the areas you've expressed an interest in here, would you go through a second RfA?
A: I don't think that it would make sense for me to request adminship if I am already an administrator. I would certainly be receptive to guidance and criticism if I were to start working in a new area, but I don't think that any formal process should be necessary unless my actions are clearly out of line, which will not be the case. Neelix (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from Chzz
18. Four username concerns; how would you deal with them? relating to user-name concern; not CSD of any articles;
i. User name "Breegle", 1 edit, "Breegle is the best band in Memphis".
ii. User name "Fnaar" 1 edit, "Fnaar builds the best cars in France"
iii User name "Maxi Sausage" 1 edit, "Maxi Sausage is a youtube pop sensation, with her 13 mix-tapes in the Swiss Hot-100"
iv User name "BobsChipShop", no edits
A:
Note: Apologies; I did not notice that the RfA had only about 12 hours left to run when I posted this. Nothing should be inferred from the lack of an answer. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Eleven questions already? The RfA's only been open for about 30 minutes. —Soap— 20:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heheh, I came here and was like, "Why isn't the candidate answering questions?" Then I saw the tiestamp. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the number and rapidity of the questions, you could, if you like, just pick one question to answer from each questioner, and we'll see if the voters are sympathetic ... I expect they will be. - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see 5 (yes, 5) have been posted by one person, none of which are at all insightful or useful - especially number 11 which is plain stupid. We really need some groundrules for questioning - such as, one question per person, and they must be about the candidate's suitability as an admin. Number 12 is a daft, irrelevant question too. How could the candidate possibly know, and why does it even matter? AD 13:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Number 18 is equally crap. Why ask something once, when you can ask the exact same thing 4 times? 143.167.2.191 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support - Very good article contributions! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Impressed by contribs. Baseball Watcher 21:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moving to neutral because of what Fastily is saying. Baseball Watcher 23:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support long term editor with even more edits than me. There is a block from ten months ago, but due to the subsequent unblock I'm more than happy to disregard it and treat it as a clean blocklog. Deleted edits look OK to me, though one very minor point, I'd prefer edit summaries that say whether you are prodding or using a particular CSD tag instead of just "suggested deletion". There is some concern in the oppose section about diversity of editing, if other editors share those concerns may I suggest they look at the editors contributions to the FAC for Neelix's FA. This is an editor with a proven record of doing good stuff in multiple areas, and who is clueful and civil. The proportion of edits doesn't bother me when compared to their diversity and breadth - Neelix has done humongous amount of certain things and perfectly adequate amounts of others. ϢereSpielChequers 00:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support Checks of a month of user and article talk reveal competent communication skills. Other contributions reveal a strong grasp of policy. In regards to the opposes as of this vote, I think it's important to frame the candidate's namespace spread in terms of the type of editing they do. Neelix appears to be a classic gnome. When one spends one's time fixing disambiguation pages and making other uncontroversial but critical fixes to standardize the 'pedia, 1 or 2 edits in one hundred being direct communication is perfectly reasonable. I am more concerned with the quality of that communication than with the amount (which even at 1% of the candidate's contributions is a reasonable number for a candidate with a more "normal" edit count). When the editor is challenged on a move, they respond appropriately and are able to explain their reasoning clearly. Regarding concerns about the lack of projectspace edits, to me this indicates a focused editor. Not everyone is interested in whack-a-mole, and there's no reason to deny useful tools to an editor who isn't. Clearly the candidate is able to learn policy well and I have no doubt that should they decide to become active in deletion or vandal fighting that they will easily master that policy as well. This is Wikipedia, not a sickbay. :) --Danger (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Having 13 questions already? Sheesh, auto-support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Mainly per WSC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support Good communication skills, definitely has a clue, knows what the project is all about and trustworthy. He wants to work in requested moves which is pretty straightforward. He has experience with deletion discussions. This is a guaranteed net positive. Pichpich (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support - More than enough experience in the proposed work areas to use the tools with a minimum of mistakes. No reason to believe candidate will deliberately misuse tools. Candidate's work will clearly benefit from tools. Candidate seems open to constructive criticism and review of their use of the tools. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support Some amazing edits. Some good article creations. Talk page interactions seem well too. – Novice7 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Long term editor, definitely will not delete the main page and would benefit from the tools. Edit counts or percentages aren't very relevant with someone who has this much experience. Royalbroil 05:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. "How is this user not already an admin?" support Comments made thus far by those opposing do not convince me that it would not be a strong net positive for this candidate not to have the mop. Good luck! Strikerforce (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. I disagree with Royalbroil's second sentence to a certain extent. Nonetheless, everything is exactly as has been been stated in the nomination statement and opening questions. Wikispace contributions were a cause for concern (not in terms of the overall number, but frequency: a lot of them were years ago). I looked deeper, and the quality of AfD participation is very high on the whole. As an example, this user clearly has an interest in The Bill, but if you check out his Bill-related AfD participation, it's even-handed, and his arguments grounded in policy and sitewide practise. In summary, I trust him to primarily work on moves (for which he is clearly qualified), and I am not concerned should he decide to expand into other areas. In response to the three current opposes (two of which go much further than editcountitis and should therefore be respected), deletion is far and away the biggest deal of all, because it's the area you can get away with murder in. Neelix has proven himself to be trusted to delete/not delete things as appropriate. —WFC— 07:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here's a diff for those looking to more closely analyse recent contributions to Wikispace. —WFC— 09:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support I would oppose if there is a mistake this editor has made, but when there are lack of edits in the Wikipedia and talk space, this isn't the case. Other important thing is, the editor likes to start slowly (i.e. on one area) which is a good start for an administrator. I'm pleased that the expected outcome of this area would be a lot of "Thank you" based comments. These are the several reasons why I support this candidate. Minimac (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. All things considered, I think you'll be fine. Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support. Simply awesome work done for Wikipedia. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 08:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support. Someone with that amount of experience who wants the tools to do a specific job that is often backlogged - sounds fine to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support - Wikipedia has benefited hugely from having you here. Great work. Orphan Wiki 11:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support Very valuable and prolific editor; I'm not impressed by the oppose rationales. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support Prolific contributions, no concerns, appreciate the temperament evidenced at the Carabane FAC. Review of random contributions looked great. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 16:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support. A review of a sampling of contributions in various namespaces didn't reveal any red flags. Neelix appears to be a hard-working editor with sufficient clue, appropriate temperament and an appreciation of their own limitations. I might be concerned by the percentage of project space edits if there were any indication that the candidate barrels into unfamiliar areas without carefully understanding them first, but I have yet to see such evidence, and the answer to question 5 suggests the candidate is comfortable asking others for advice in new or unfamiliar areas. 28bytes (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support. By all appearances, neelix is a hard working editor who is well focused on content. The desire to work on requested moves is likely a symptom of this content focus (and we definitely need more admins willing to work on that backlog). The lack of wikispace edits is, to me, a plus because it shows a lack of interest in the drama and social side of wikipedia (not that there's anything wrong with that side!) and probably means that neelix will continue to work on content while also taking on the mop-wielding (as opposed to the fist wielding - not that there's anything wrong with that either!) duties of an admin. All in all, I'm happy to support this request. --rgpk (comment) 19:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support Keepscases (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Everything checks out just fine with me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support I see a competent content producing editor who has the right temperament. I am confident that he will not abuse the tools. Lovetinkle (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support A good content contributor, knows the policy well and great answers to the questions. I'm confident he will be net positive as an admin. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support per my general rule of supporting anyone where the only reason to oppose is edit namespace balance. You're obviously a fine and trusted editor. --B (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support - Nice content edits and nice job answering questions. :) WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 01:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support' - trustworthy editor. Agree with RegentsPark about the lack of project space edits. PhilKnight (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support - Candidate has been here a long time, has been an extremely prolific editor, and shows no signs of being clueless. Answers to the questions indicate that he's likely to tread carefully when in unfamiliar areas. That he has less than X edits in Y namespace is immaterial. —SW— verbalize 03:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. The oppose rationales are entirely unconvincing, regarding lack of edits in the Project space. Neelix has more edits there than I did when I passed RfA (in fact, I think he still might be ahead of me) so the proportion of edits compared to Article space is irrelevant. Some editors prefer actually editing articles (shock, horror!) to chasing vandals and requesting page protection, and it doesn't mean they will make a bad administrator. To be honest, I think we could do with more article-building admins. BigDom talk 10:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support I went through the talk page archives of this editor, and all I can see is a friendly and communicative person who works on improving this encyclopedia. In my opinion, Neelix has sufficient experience and dedication to the project. I don't think s/he'll misuse the tool. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Clearly dedicated and trustworthy, opposition are grasping at straws. AD 13:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support - Like the answer to question 16. I trust this user with the mop. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄. 16:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Per Chaser, RegentsPark. NW (Talk) 18:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support. I've seen Neelix around the wiki and I fully trust him and his abilities. I think we desperately need another admin to help out with the backlogs, especially at WP:RM because it's an oft neglected process. Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs) has been doing a awesome job so far at manually evaluating and closing the discussions, but it seems like he's all alone out there, meanwhile some requests sit there for months. Yes, if Neelix was to help out in the area he's got a definite strong support from me. -- œ™ 18:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support RayTalk 19:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. support Worried a bit about ability to deal with conflict and limited areas of interest/experience, otherwise looks great and has good attitude about things. Will clearly help in areas that need help. Hobit (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support Ratio of edits to Wikipedia project space doesn't concern me that much. Neelix has made similar amounts of edits to project space as several of January's successful RfA candidates ([1], [2], [3]). I'm going to assume that over the course of his/her 95,000 edits to article space, s/he has learned through trial and error a lot of the skills/policy needed to wield the mop. If there was a demonstrated tendency by this editor to "lone wolf" it in contentious areas, I would be worried, but I haven't seen that here. The Interior (Talk) 22:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support. The answer to my question wasn't quite what I was expecting, but it was well reasoned (and concisely so, which is never a bad thing!). If you do broaden your horizons, I would encourage you to seek feedback, but you're a competent and obviously dedicated editor. I think you posses sufficient clue to be trusted with the entire toolset and to not wade in aimlessly, so I wish you the very best of luck. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support See my comments below. After five years, the only real question for me is whether there is affirmative evidence that someone would abuse the tools. I see quite the opposite here.--Chaser (away) - talk 05:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Trustworthy user needs tools to work on RMs, and we need more people working on RMs. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Bonus points for self-nomination, no-BS approach to answering the optional questions is impressive, extensive experience with improving the project, areas of inexperience don't persuade me to oppose. Townlake (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Incredibly prolific, good communication, experienced in applying policy and a clear rationale. Both deserving of greater responsibility and capable of exercising it wisely.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support - Good luck. Monterey Bay (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support Seems trustworthy to me. Steven Walling 20:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. From what I've read above and below looks like a good candidate. If anyone comes up with evidence that suggests Neelix might use the tools unwisely other than what is listed below already (as of 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)) please do ping me on my talk page. Peter 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  46. Support. Fully qualified candidate, strong history of contributions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support If we start rejecting or opposing such candidates, I'm afraid that credible candidates would simply stop requesting for adminship. After such a dedicated commitment to this project - obviously in those areas that the editor is interested in - and especially over so many years, I would have expected this editor's request to pass with flying colors. I do hope that !voters in this RfA view this editor in the perspective of whether this editor would be a benefit to the project if their adminship request were to be passed. I believe the answer to that would determine the fact that this editor can be trusted without any issues with the tools. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support Give him a mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 10:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support Seems competent and level headed, that's all you really need. Matty (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support Long established record of encyclopedia building, not pursuaded by the opposes. I will concede that proportionately his project space experience isn't that great, but the absolute quantity is fine. The user's record shows an appropriate temperment, and his/her history shows that they are unlikely to cause damage to the project. Given the way that most admins ignore requested moves (guilty!), we should be supportive of a credible claim of wishing to work there. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support per Wifione and Xymmax. Salih (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support - moved from neutral. Obviously a clueful editor with a background that has demonstrated commitment to the project. I appreciate the candidate's straightforward answers to the questions. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support - Generally good editor and community member. Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  54. Support - but no big deal. Abeg92contribs 05:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Won't abuse the tools Secret account 20:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Seen Neelix around: impressive contributions, good behavior, and decent attitude in this RfA. Acalamari 22:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support: Net positive for Wikipedia - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support Anyone with this much content creation experience ought to have a pretty good idea of how the tools should be used. --Sodabottle (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support as per Newyorkbrads position, trustable experianced user who won't make the wheels drop of with the mop. Neelix has also stated on his talkpage his acceptance of community recall using User:Lar/Accountability. I trust them to take their time as they develop their mopping skills. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support- Absolutely. Clearly knows their stuff and I see no convincing evidence that they will misuse the tools. Reyk YO! 20:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support. Long-term, dedicated editor with no apparent competence or behavioral issues? These are the type of admins we want. I see no evidence presented to suggest that Neelix wouldn't be perfectly capable of learning any admin tasks outside of his or her present interests and judiciously following Wiki policy. Sheesh people. — Scientizzle 20:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support. This is the type of reasonable, experienced, trusted editor that should have admin tools. Users that are primarily content contributors and don't spend their time in drama-burdened areas of Wikipedia namespace make the best admins. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support. I waited until fairly late in this RfA before deciding, because I haven't crossed paths with the candidate despite the extensive edit history, and I wanted to see what would come up in the opposition. Honestly, I'm underwhelmed with the reasons that have been given for opposing, and I've read them carefully and looked at the provided links. What I think I see is a user who has a long track record that is free of trouble-making, who wants to make contributions to a specific administrative area where there is an unmet need. It seems to me that this is a net positive with very little risk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support Anyone who is aware of my participation rate at RFA will know that I don't support many candidates, but Neelix is one of those who I do support. Horologium (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support - Like Tryptofish, I waited to see if the opposers could convince me. They have not been able to, and I support with thanks to the candidate for his many acts of service. My best to you, Jusdafax 01:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support - Looks fine; no concerns. AlexiusHoratius 05:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support. Too many article edits?? WTF?? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Concerns with breadth of exposure. While your article contributions are certainly sound, I am concerned by your low number and lack of frequent edits in the Wikipedia and User talk namespaces. With regards to your Wikipedia namespace contributions, I would like to see work outside of AfD. I've taken into account that you only wish to work in moves, but IMO, it is necessary that admin candidates be well-rounded, with some degree of experience in most fields pertaining to administrators (e.g. XfD, AIV, ANI, RFPP, CSD). The sysop toolset comes as a complete package, and campaign promises to remain within a certain discipline can quickly drift off into the sidelines when one is presented with the entire toolset. With regards to your edits in the User talk namespace, I feel that the number of edits you make to the mainspace is largely disproportionate to the number of edits you make in the user talk namespace. The ability of an sysop to communicate on a frequent basis is essential and I'm not seeing nearly as much activity from you here as I would like to see. Alas, I feel you're on the right track to adminship, but are not yet ready. Sorry. Sincerely, FASTILY (TALK) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. If someone has spent five years mostly editing articles, he's unlikely to suddenly branch out into XfD or other areas in which he is inexperienced. (N.B.: Neelix says in response to some optional questions above that he only plans to do this work as he comes across articles with deletion tags.)--Chaser (away) - talk 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you had actually bothered to read my rationale, you probably would not have challenged my oppose. "The sysop toolset comes as a complete package, and campaign promises to remain within a certain discipline can quickly drift off into the sidelines when one is presented with the entire toolset." -FASTILY (TALK) 02:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't be a dick. Your assumption is wrong. I did read your rationale. I disagree.--Chaser (away) - talk 09:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Over 100,000 edits ... and less than 1,000 of them to the project or projectalk namespaces? I'm open to being convinced that this is not necessary, but it's rather worrying. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1000 is significant but the proportion is not relevant. The experience you get by participating in AfDs is not suddenly annihilated when you do other stuff. Plenty of admins have passed RfA with 1000 edits in the project space. There are often complaints that the admin corps is too bureaucratic and detached from the experience of content contributors (as RfA observers well know). Here we have a candidate whose astounding volume of content contributions is a concern. I think this makes no sense. That vast editing experience is worth more than 100 AIV reports. For example, admins who delete CSD pages need to know the rules but they're not complex rules that take years to master. The most delicate task is to deal with editors whose page has just been deleted and if you've created 4000 articles yourself, you have a better sense of how the editor feels. Pichpich (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, but certainly it would help to see daily examples of this. Could you point out some recent diffs where the candidate discussed a CSD nominatio with a new user, perhaps? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Daily" is not the way I view this because experience gathered over a long period of time is still experience. Adminship isn't rocket science: you need a clue (I think we can agree Neeflix has that), you need a good sense of how Wikipedia works (ditto), you need to be able to communicate well in the WP context (I see evidence of that) and you just need to be a little careful. Literacy in WP policy is obviously required but a PhD in the project namespace is not. In fact the list of infamous admins is littered with people who spent 75% of their time in the project namespace and who could recite every bit of the most obscure guideline yet failed in catastrophic fashion. Pichpich (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great, all non-content admins are going to get banned one day. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All I'm saying is that knowledge of policy is not a guarantee of respect of policy. Like anyone, I'd love to have an admin corps that consists solely of people who have extensive content experience, extensive project-space experience and extensive policy knowledge. But those are rare and I believe that there are fully competent admins that don't have all of that. If you look at my RfA participation, you'll find that I often support people with, say, limited content experience. Pichpich (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose. Largely per Fastily. Although the number of your contributions is impressive, I am concerned you do not have enough evident experience in AIV, ANI, RFPP, CSD etc. or in counter vandalism work. Whilst I appreciate you want to work in a specific area, I too feel the admin bit is a complete toolset. I generally do not support admin candidates that do not have experience in counter vandal work—per my criteria. Pol430 talk to me 23:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose. Concerns about Editcountitis (evidenced by their self-nom statement and userboxes), lack of WP namespace experience in terms of both proportion and overall number: less than 0.75% of overall edits, less than 1,000 edits, not seeing the required experience. Swarm X 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not saying this concern isn't valid. But it's a bit odd to hold editcountitis against the candidate, when the rest of the rationale is based predominantly on editing statistics. —WFC— 09:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed. "Editcountitis" is very rarely a malicious attribute; it's simply a nice number to look at. Juliancolton (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think WFC is hinting at the paradox that I'm opposing partially based on editcountitis, partially based on edit count. The potential of irony isn't beyond me. However, the two main reasons for my oppose are the candidate's [alleged] fixation on their edit count, and a lack of experience. Not so paradoxical when you look at it like that. If I demonstrated editcountitis in my oppose (i.e. 'candidate has less than 10,000 edits' or something like that) while simultaneously citing concerns of editcountitis on their part, you would have a valid point. If anyone can't take the 'editcountitis' argument seriously, let me stress my other concern regarding their lack of experience, as noted by the other opposes. Good day, Swarm X 12:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You guys are aware of the impending admin shortage, yes? Now we are turning away editors with over 100,000 edits because "they don't have enough edits"? Really? Suppose there was a user who was virtually identical to Neelix, except that he had only been here for 2 years, had the same number of FA's and GA's and such, and had 10,000 edits total, 10% of which were to the WP namespace. Would you support that candidate? If you do the math on Neelix's WP namespace edits, it works out to about one edit every two days for the full 5 years he's been here. —SW— speak 03:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Based on my RfA criteria (which I feel are very lenient), I probably wouldn't support that candidate. While Neelix's article space contributions should be commended, that doesn't necessarily mean they're trustworthy with the admin tools. Adminship is a tool granted to experienced and trustworthy users, not a reward for article work, however outstanding. Swarm X 04:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're right, it's not a reward, but it's also WP:NOBIGDEAL. I find it hard to understand that you (and others) can base your oppose of this particular candidate on inexperience. He's been here for 5 years, and has a six-figure edit count, you don't think he's figured out how things work around here yet? I understand your RfA criteria, and I think that's a valid rule of thumb for ordinary RfA candidates with edit counts in the 5000-25000 range. But for a candidate who's been editing non-stop for 5 years, I think we need to show a little more respect and perhaps do a little more research than just looking at a percentage. Do the candidate's answers show that he intends to work in areas in which he is inexperienced? Do you have any diffs that show he is inexperienced in certain areas? I think his answers show clearly that even if he did start working in other areas with which he is unfamiliar, he would approach them cautiously and ask questions. What else can we possibly ask of any candidate? —SW— spout 14:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't have any diffs to show he is inexperienced; indeed there's no diffs to be had to evaluate them by. That's what concerns me. While I a little feel bad for opposing a candidate who has dedicated so much time to Wikipedia, I'd rather see experience that I can actually evaluate their potential skills of admin related areas. Swarm X 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That was a bad response, let me rephrase: I once supported a candidate out of respect to their article contributions and their assertions that they would stay away from the WP space. I recently saw them perform a pretty terrible AfD close. And I regretted giving them my trust based on an assumption. Swarm X 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I appreciate how that experience would make you more hesitant. But for individual AFDs, we have deletion review. The more important issue is whether one could take Neelix aside and talk to him about his tool use in particular instances. The fact is that a lot of adminship is learning on the job. I see nothing in Neelix's temperament to make me think he wouldn't be capable of it.--Chaser (away) - talk 05:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The original answer was questionable, so a few of us questioned it. But Swarm has gone on to justify it in subsequent responses. It was a constructive discussion, but I think it has run its course now. —WFC— 07:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You know, Chaser, I almost moved to neutral after Snottywong's second comment; I still had my concerns but the points raised against them are valid. Yours is yet another comment making me feel bad about myself :P. It was because I remembered that situation that I decided to remain in the oppose section. I definitely feel bad about opposing someone who has contributed so much, especially with the amount of flak I've gotten over it and the fact that it contradicts many of my previous statements and overall relaxed RfA attitude. While I'm not comfortable supporting, I've changed to weak oppose; my opposition in, in fact, borderline neutral at this point. I've considered everyone's comments; I'm not ignoring anyone's opinion. Swarm X 23:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose. While the candidate appears to have the right temperment to be an administrator I feel he lacks the experience. I find myself amazed that I'm saying that since he's made so many edits, but in the last 6 months he's only made around 60 edits to wikipedia space - many directly related to articles he is working on. I have no doubt of his content creating credentials, and he is a credit to encyclopedia but I do not believe adminship is the right place for him to move. WormTT 09:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Opposemoving to neutral I thought I was going to support because of ignoring all the lame questions, but The Gingerbread Man (series) and Freddie Widgeon prods lead me to oppose. I can't see any AFD's or speedy deletions, only one TfD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you elaborate on your example above. Do you mean because Freddie Widgeon should have been speedied or because it should not have been prod-ed as it is worth keeping? --rgpk (comment) 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I feel that it should not have been nominated for deletion. Freddie Widgeon was a character article that should have been merged and turned into a redirect. For The Gingerbread Man (series) we are suffering from recentism, and references for this would not be online but found in newspapers and magazines as it was before the internet became popular. I would not oppose forever if I saw nominations for deletion of things that should go, rather than marginal items getting prodded. More experience in this area should develop this skill! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the elaboration. Much though I have a soft spot for young Freddie Widgeon - kiss fweddie! has to be one of the classic lines from the short story world, and not just because Wodehouse plagiarized himself when writing it - I don't think you should penalize neelix for prodding the article. The article was unsourced and reliable sources didn't spring out on me when I did (an admittedly cursory) search on "Freddie Widgeon". Just a thought. --rgpk (comment) 22:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not enough activity in project space.Inka888 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC) moved to neutral Inka888 08:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Reply[reply]
  6. actions and comments at Anthropogenic and Talk:Anthropogenic are enough for me to oppose. haven't looked at anything else yet. -Atmoz (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Exactly which actions and/or comments demonstrate that the candidate is unfit for adminship? I've read through and it appears he is trying to fix the problem with the article whereby its title is an adjective. This would be like having Science redirect to Scientific (instead of the other way around). You, on the other hand, appear to be on the verge of starting a move war against consensus, and you haven't even cleaned up after your disruptive revert (i.e. the hatnote still says that "Anthropogenic redirects here". Your oppose appears to be based on a single recent disagreement with the editor. —SW— express 16:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No. This is the same sort of concerns brought up by others, only it is a specific example. And I found that example from the RfA, not the other way around. -Atmoz (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose (Moving to 'neutral') Your contributions of some types are excellent and badly needed. However I am also, along with Fetchcomms, Fastily (especially), and Worm, concerned that there are not enough of the kind of edits to be able to measure your communication skills, and competency in other areas that you will almost certainly venture into. No single editor's work is so indispensable to the project that an aspiring admin can't take the time to demonstrate their fluency and basic knowledge of other areas. I have absolutely nothing against self-nominations, but I see undue emphasis in the statistics that your self-nom is almost entirely based on, and these are things we can look up for ourselves. Carabane, was based on a translation and not on your own research for sources or or content, but nevertheless I congratulate you on the challenge it posed because I know for a fact that the fr.Wiki WP:RS, WP:V GA and FA standards nowhere even nearly match our own. Getting it to FA was a lot of work because you did most of it yourself, although you did have excellent support from some of Wikipedia's top FA specialists. Random hits at 100 of your 4,000 creations seem to be mostly DAB pages which are all too easy to create, but I currently have no way of parsing such a high number. I have no reason to doubt your honesty and enthusiasm and if your work demonstrates a broader experience over the next few months - maybe only three at the rate you work - I will almost certainly support your next application. Kudpung (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On further review of your contributions to discussions I no longer find them to be a reason to oppose. I have struck my comments. Kudpung (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Weak Oppose I feel the arguments above are compelling enough to make me feel uncomfortable with a Support vote. My mind is shaky on this one though, I may move to neutral. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Weak Oppose slightly regretfully. I just don't feel that the answers to questions 4/5 and to 17 are compatible. You can't have it both ways really. Since you would not have a second RFA if you took on additional tasks (which is fair enough, of course, as that's hardly common practice), it is only right that we take this opportunity to judge you on all tasks that you might one day feel like doing, and it seems that you are not clear on blocking policy or on how to deal with potential non-free image issues.--KorruskiTalk 09:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose. User recently unilaterally enforced their own interpretation of naming conventions on Hawaiian cuisine without consulting the extensive discussion about the title in the talk archives. In the user's edit summary, Neelix claimed they were implementing the move "To be consistent with other regional cuisine articles" because "there is no reason to make this article's title an exception."[4] Yet, the talk page archives indicate that there was a reason. Further, the reason itself was also expressed in the old move log entry which appears visible at the bottom of the screen prior to moving the article.[5] Neelix's claim that "there is no reason" for the title is clearly at odds with the stated reason that is in evidence in both the move log and in the talk page archive. If this is the kind of informed administration we can look forward to, then I must regretfully oppose. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think "unilaterally enforced" is a bit hyperbolic considering that no one objected to the move on the article talk page or on the user's talk page, the last discussion about the name was in March 2009 and you are apparently the only editor who objected in the first place. RfA really isn't the place to discuss content disputes. --Danger (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The unilateral move of this stable article was made without discussion on 17 February 2011. This self-nom was made by Neelix on 24 February. I have neither responded to his move nor discussed or have been involved in any "content dispute". Since I rarely participate here, I came here for one reason: to note that a week before this self-nom, Neelix made a page move with a rationale that was not supported by the facts. The move log was clearly visible with the rationale in the edit summary when he moved the page, and the talk archives contain several discussions on the subject. Several editors, beside myself, have discussed issues with the title in the archives, and WikiProject Food and drink article guidelines explicitly allow for exceptions "when the adjective is too ambiguous", which is the case here. Furthermore, the best academic sources on the subject use "Cuisine of Hawaii" for this very reason, (Laudan 1996, etc.) and those sources are cited in the article. An administrator needs to have good judgment and Neelix does not seem to show it. When he claimed "there is no reason to make this article's title an exception", the reason was staring at him in the move log at the very bottom of the page he was using to move the title.[6] It very clearly says: "This is a special case that is an exception to the rule. Hawaiian cuisine and cuisine of Hawaii are generally two different things. That's why the contemporary version is known as Hawaii Regional Cuisine." Because of his unilateral action in regards to a stable article, as well as an edit summary that distorted the known facts, I don't think Neelix is a good fit as an administrator. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose Largely per Fastily. Also, rather worried with the obsession with DYK. We all know where that can lead... (yes, that was a plagiarism reference) Ronk01 talk 01:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now that is a new one. 100,000 edits, and 4 DYKs. Hmmm. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yep, there goes my RfA... Drmies (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you sure you're commenting on the right RfA? Neelix hasn't even mentioned DYK in this RfA... in fact, no one has, until you did, in your oppose. 28bytes (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    oops, wrong RfA. The vote is still oppose though. (And my point about DYK still stands) Ronk01 talk 17:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well it's very hard to see what it stands on! Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It stands on the plagiarism scandal of this fall. An Arb got sucked in, so why not anyone else? Wkikpedia is not a competition to get the most DYKs, it is first and foremost a free content encyclopedia that does not plagiarize for convenience. Ronk01 talk 23:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You should make those comments somewhere they are remotely relevant. It just misleading to do so on the RFA of someone with, I repeat, over 100,000 edits and only 4 DYKs. This is not chat corner. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Concerned about "If a user requested that I become involved in a particular RfA, I would likely comply" (q13). I hope the candidate won't similarly be open to being solicited to use administrative tools in contested situations. I'll happily reconsider my !vote if I can be convinced by the candidate (not random third parties) that I'm reading too much into that answer. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I hope I have understood you properly that you want me to respond to your concern here. In the statement that you have quoted, I was not suggesting that if a user asked me to support their RfA then I would support. I was suggesting that if a user asked me to participate in an RfA (whether it is theirs or someone else's) then I would likely participate. For example, User:Chipmunkdavis asked me about a month ago if I would participate in a particular discussion about the organization of country articles because s/he and another user disagreed on several points and no other users were joining the discussion. I complied with Chipmunkdavis's request in that I evaluated both users' arguments and then participated in the discussion, but the positions for which I argued were in opposition to those maintained by Chipmunkdavis and in accord with the other user. Ultimately, I am glad to be drawn into specific discussions by users who desire me to voice my opinion, but I am not necessarily going to support that user's position. Neelix (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for that - my concern is more general than being drawn to support a viewpoint. Being drawn into using one's admin tools by solicitation means that if you exercise the tools in accordance with that user's wishes (even if you do so impartially, which I have no doubt you would), there is a risk your decision will be tainted in the eyes of disaffected parties. We have more than enough noticeboards for users to seek administrative attention without the need to ask for the help of a particular user. And if User X and User Y are involved in a dispute and want the assistance of Admin Z, Users X and Y can ask Admin Z together. But if User X asks Admin Z alone, and Admin Z intervenes, Admin Z is immediately in a difficult position.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Felt the candidate gave a good and honest answer. Seems like trick questionry or reading into things too much on your part (you want third parties, here is one, and I'm not even supporting).TCO (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Mkativerta. I do believe Neelix means well in his answer and understands the exact concerns you're bringing up. He's not quite verbose in describing his positions - and that may well be the reason why, what he intends to mean, may not come out perfectly well. But what I can understand of his intent is that he is quintessentially compliant with the issues you're worried about. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Re Wifione and TCO: your speculation, and my speculative doubts, as to what the candidate really means is exactly why I'm looking to engage directly with the candidate rather than third parties. Many admins don't understand the concerns so I'd like to be confident that the candidate does, thank you. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, I understand you, yet feel you are forwarding a wrong argument to a prospective administrator. When policy pages themselves encourage our users to either go to individual administrators or to ANI to resolve specific issues, then testing a prospective administrator on this line of thought may elicit a misplaced response. My apologies in advance to you for disagreeing with you. I rarely do - and would have rather not even dissented had this not been an RfA. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Weak oppose per Fastily. With so little contribution to the admin-type areas, it is hard for me to muster the trust that the RfA requires. Oppose is weak because adminship is, or should be, no big deal. --John (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose - Neelix appears to be very active in the article namespace. However there are a few things that concern me. Firstly he doesn't appear to have demonstrated understanding of the CSD policy. Particularly in question 15. Deleting an article under CSD is not about agreeing or disagreeing with the tagger. It is about being able to determine whether or not the article meets the CSD criteria. Question 4 is also concerning as it demonstrates lack of understanding of the blocking policy. Per the blocking policy, if a registered account is a disruption/vandalism only account it should be blocked indefinitely. Question 5 evades much of the question, as he said he would consult another admin. However, as an administrator primary working with content they should generally know how to handle a possible Conflicting Interest issue. If the article contained screenshots from a film still under production it is quite likely the author is working for the film company. With these issues I am quite concerned about how Neelix will handle administrative work outside of requested moves. Alpha Quadrant talk 19:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose - Per the above comment. That Meddling Kid (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    — That Meddling Kid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    User blocked for block evasion. Nakon 20:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Little experience in areas that require admin intervention. Unlikely to use the tools effectively. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutal I am impressed with your contribs but I also noticed of the lack of edits in the Wikipedia and User talk namespaces. In this case I agree with what Fastily is saying and this why I am here in neutral. Good luck though! Baseball Watcher 23:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral A trustworthy, prolific user who wants access to the tools for very limited and clearly articulated purposes. The only hesitation that I have here is lack of edits in Wikipedia and User talk namespaces; and a general lack of experience in the traditional admin. areas (e.g. vandal fighting).--Hokeman (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral - I tend not to support self-noms, and I agree with most of the opposes thus far that the candidate needs more all-around experience with the system. BOZ (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neutral - for now. I think your contribution history is impressive and you seem to have a grasp of policy. I'd like to see how you deal with the questions presented above - perhaps silence is your answer. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moved to support. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neutral - He is a very good content contributor, but the low number of edits in the project namespace bothers me. Pending on answers to my questions. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (move to support) Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral - Great contributor, but Fastily makes a solid argument. Leaning toward support though.--v/r - TP 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Moved from oppose, I appreciate all the hard work in article space but Fastily and Fetchcomms bring up good arguments. I would still like to see a bit more in project space before I would support. Inka888 08:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Neutral With TP on this one requires more thought. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Neutral Good work as far as I can see, but both Fastily and Fetchcomms raise valid considerations. As I write this, neither side outweighs the other. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Neutral allthough I disagree with some deletion nominations and think there should be more experience in admin related areas, other characteristics are good. I thought that requested moves would be a reason to be an admin too, but in fact there is not much work there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Neutral - While this user's content contributions are superb, I'd like to see more project/project talk namespace edits. A prospective admin needs to have experience in the "administrative" areas of Wikipedia and in comparison to their content edits I'm not satisfied by what I see, though I don't think that not having a substantial amount project/project talk edits merits an oppose !vote. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:56am • 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Neutral - moved from 'Oppose'. User talk:Keepscases question #13 impresses me - although I don't generally ask questions, it's one I've often pondered asking at RfA, and I'm disappointed in your answer. However, in view of the support you have, I have now been able to review a lot more of your contributions, and I no longer see a reason to oppose, so I'm moving here. The comments in my oppose statement still stand, and I hope you will take them into consideration in good faith, in your work as an admin. Kudpung (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Neutral Carabane needs work (confusing read). Concerned about level of English language competence as well. On the positive side, you are a big content contributor and "content is king". TCO (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Neutral - Many edits but relatively few in areas where the admin tools would be used, and more experience in those areas would be preferred before getting the tools.--Michig (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[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.
Category