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

Nick Moyes[edit]

Final: (180/3/3) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 21:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Nick Moyes (talk · contribs) – If you're not familiar with the work of Nick Moyes, it is my great pleasure to introduce him to you. I first looked into Nick sometime about a year ago, and everything I saw was and has been stellar. He's got a lot of experience at AIV and UAA alongside a killer AfD percentage, but I'd like to talk more about how incredibly thoughtful Nick is. Whether it's excellent and well informed arguments at AfD or extensive help at the teahouse, he's got a good sense for the values that are important and a kind, level head that I always appreciate hearing from. You can see the signs at his ORCP from nearly two years ago - this is a long time coming.

Nick always makes an effort to explain himself at AfD, and does well and with clear understanding of policies and what makes this project good. This is one of the first I noticed, but there are plenty recent examples that show considered attention to the important and relevant factors and policies at AfD. He's honest and transparent, and, my word, is he just excellent with new folks. Nick is a prolific Teahouse contributor, and his ORCP responses cited his great work there. I've got a few favorite examples (1, 2, 3) of superb help for folks that went above-and-beyond the necessary, but what's rare for many is the norm for Nick; this is his typical behavior and it's exactly what we want in a sysop. He's a kind and thoughtful editor who has the right values and commitment with a wealth of experience; he'd be a huge help with the sysop tools on day one, so I hope you'll join me in supporting this request. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination[edit]

It's been a long time coming, but good administrator candidates wait until they're absolutely ready, and so it is with Nick. I originally approached him two years ago when I suggested his useful comments and polite demeanour meant he should give RfA a go. His AfD track record is one of the best I have seen in any candidate here - out of over 250 debates, he matched consensus more than 90% of the time (well over, if discounting "no consensus" closes, and what's left over is largely "noise" like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone 11), and that's with a significant chunk of "keep" !votes such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Goold. He is capable of writing a significant amount of content, such as the GA Mont Blanc massif, creating Émile Rey from scratch, and graciously helping out at Coropuna, where he politely but regrettably opposed its promotion to FA. He's one of the most prolific contributors to the Teahouse, and regularly helps out there - no less an authority than Cullen328 is happy to trust his judgement; what better endorsement of his polite and helpful treatment to newbies could one ask for? Many of you will have seen him on project and policy pages, helpfully giving his opinion and frequently making insightful comments. He's also not afraid to criticise our existing policies and help pages where appropriate and suggest alternatives, such as User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. In short, Nick has all the attributes we want in an administrator - a strong understanding of policy, a civil and polite attitude, and an ability to diffuse difficult situations and keep the project moving forward. He has my full support for RfA and I hope you agree. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination[edit]

I first came across Nick, as many others do, giving advice to newbies at the teahouse. I cannot recall the precise instance (he has made over 2500 edits there) but I do remember being impressed with the patience and policy knowledge he demonstrated. After investigating his background, I found he also has a stellar record at AfD, where he could make good use of the tools. He has also done some solid content work, with a majority of his contributions being to mainspace, and while he largely avoid the drama boards, on the few occasions he has ventured there it is to make a thoughtful and perceptive comment. I suggested he request a mop some five months ago, and I'm glad he's decided to take the plunge. I hope you will join me in supporting his request. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and, as my userpage COI declaration states, yes, I realise with hindsight that I did do paid editing when I started back in 2010. I was a professional museum curator and, purely on my own volition, I chose to create content about topics I had expertise and resources on (e.g. Matlockite). I was at the end of my museum career, and the start of my Wikipedia one. I admit I had no idea in those early days that editing without a clear declaration was against policy; my apologies for that. I left the museum profession in March 2011. More recently, I have accepted small fees for lecturing on Wikipedia, or expenses for helping to run Editathons, but I would never take any form of payment for editing which could conceivably be construed as a conflict of interest. In 2017 I created an alternative account (User:NM Demo) in order to test and create screenshots as a teaching resource, or for Commons.

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: I am currently most active helping new users at the Teahouse and monitoring Special:RecentChanges for bad faith edits. At the former I would find it useful to be able to view deleted content in order to help editors understand why their work has been removed, or to take further action if necessary. In anti-vandalism, being able to directly block vandals (after relevant warnings), responding to reports at WP:AIV or WP:UAA would be helpful. I would learn how to revdel personal content that inexperienced users have unwittingly posted about themselves (prior to requesting a follow-up by oversight), or other edits that are grossly offensive or which breach copyright (per WP:CRD), as not every admin I’ve sought help from has been familiar with the process.
As my experience/confidence grows as an admin, I would look to develop skills in other areas. I would probably monitor some of the simpler sections at CAT:ADMINBACKLOG, and continue watching and learning at WP:ANI and at WP:AN for areas I could contribute to, and would continue some involvement at WP:AFD. Longer term, I’m aware that copyright and DYK needs more admin input and, further still, I find SPI/checkuser work of potential interest, but know nothing about it right now. I would, of course, seek to fully understand any new process before contributing, and would follow guidance and seek help, as appropriate. As I see it, the purpose of using relevant parts of the toolset is to both protect the encyclopaedia and to support and encourage editors in their efforts to create good content that everyone can access.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have tried to contribute across a broad spectrum of Wikipedia activities, so as to learn as much as I can. In 2011 I was proud of making Derby Museum and Art Gallery the first UK provincial museum to introduce QRpedia codes to a public gallery (with honourable mentions by both Jimbo Wales (link) and Wittylama). See my user page for relevant videos.
In 2016 I took this simple list of alpine summits and turned it into a GA status article about the Mont Blanc massif. It was a labour of love, and I also created the map graphics. Doing so taught me a lot, and also enabled me to intellectually revisit many of the range's glaciers and major summits that I had scaled over a mountaineering career spanning thirty years. (I will be taking the article back for FA review later this year.)
I have been proud for the last two years to be able to contribute as one of the helpful, friendly and supportive faces of Wikipedia at the Teahouse, and have also adopted two excellent, committed new editors under WP:AAU. One was a schoolgirl; the other is a retired geology professor. I do my best to support, protect and encourage young editors, sometimes requiring a few firm words. I find it sad when some go too far and end up blocked, so I do try my best to advise and steer where I can. Guiding and helping others to learn is something I find hugely satisfying, and in that way am proud to do my bit to encourage the next generation of Wikipedia editors and potential administrators. Without them our project will stagnate. 
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 try to be a calm, supportive editor, assuming WP:AGF. I have little interest in editing on politics/living people/sports/popular culture (preferring the sciences or geography), so my own content creation rarely gets me into conflict. But one can hardly avoid minor conflicts or exasperation when doing administrative chores, such as preventing vandalism, removing POV editing, or trying to be fair but firm to new editors who fail to understand what they're doing is not OK (example thread).
I have only been really stressed once in my ten years here, but that was because I was the one to make a serious error of judgement by wrongly (and repeatedly) accusing another editor of adding copyrighted content whilst I was otherwise helping them at the Teahouse. A second experienced editor supported my accusation. So, I was mortified when a third editor pointed out they were innocent on that matter. After checking and realising my mistake, I made strenuous efforts, both at the Teahouse see full thread and on their talk page to directly apologise. It’s irrelevant that the editor was blocked as a sock soon after; I was in the wrong, and I could not rest until I had tried to make amends for my mistake. It was a valuable lesson in AGF, and I have tried to be extra careful since then. But when I make mistakes I will always say sorry.
Of the very few conflicts I encounter, most if not all result through monitoring Special:RecentChanges and reverting vandalism or bad edits. In March 2018 I came close to an edit war with an IP editor over their repeated removal of all content, bar one short sentence, about the ship, Naeraberg. Initially it seemed like blanking or vandalism, and both times I reverted, leaving templated warnings with additional explanatory comments, but soon realised the IP was asserting the article had conflated information on two ships of identical name, and thus it had become a complex content dispute. I deleted my warnings and reinstated the blanked content with a clear edit summary and started investigating. I then explained my concerns directly on the IP editor's talk page (diff), outlining my concern about edit warring; the need to discuss, plus my intent to reinstate the content one final time to permit talk page discussion about it. Having posted my concerns on the article's Talk Page (diff), I added back the blanked content once more, plus a 'disputed' template template. I also pinged an editor and contacted an admin (diff) both of whom previously worked on the article, explaining to the admin my concerns about 3RR. Next day, the IP blanked content again, thus breaching WP:3RR. As I would have too, I backed off, leaving this dummy edit, and relied on subsequent article talk page discussion to resolve the matter, which it eventually did with the involvement of more knowledgeable editors.
I have, of course, had the odd foul-mouthed abuse (dealt with in this thread), and implied threats (now revdeled), but these are easily handled by remaining calm and polite, waiting a while before replying, and following procedure. As for the future, I hope my attitudes to others won’t change. I have signed up to WP:OFWV and I will apologise whenever I foul up. I'm prepared to call out another editor if I see our standards slipping, and I hope others will treat me likewise.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from LindsayH
4. As you are so active at the Teahouse (a place i confess i'm not sure i've ever visited), i hope you have an opinion: What is the best thing we can do to encourage new editors to stay and be active? I'm wondering about either "we" the community or each of us as individuals. Thank you.
A: Thank you for your question. If you seek just one short answer, I would have to say it is: “be supportive to new editors”.
Going further, I would ask individual editors always to try their best always to understand the newcomer’s perspective in this strange and complex place and assume good faith. Most, but not all, editors come here with the aspiration of improving this encyclopaedia; not scaring them away is paramount to them staying around as useful contributors. First impressions really count. So welcoming, guiding and offering help or support is crucial. Here is a recent example where I approached a new female editor, specifically with a view of making them feel welcome and sticking around. Not befuddling new users with complex acronyms, or assuming that they know all the rules, and not leaving overly harsh templated messages for minor errors is paramount to them staying around and active. Giving ‘thanks’ for a constructive edit is also part of a positive feedback loop, though I confess I probably don’t do that as often as I could.
As a community, the best thing "we" can do is to set a good example by the way we interact with one another (WP:5P4 and WP:BITE apply here). We could do more to keep our help and guidance pages up-to-date, succinct and accessible (the 2017 WMF switch to "Publish changes" was a bit of mess, which took some cleaning up). Supporting and enhancing our resources like WP:HD; WP:TH, WP:WER and even WP:AAU, and supporting research into editor welcoming and retention are also important.
I could write an essay on this subject as it is dear to my heart! I am happy to expand more, should you wish.
Additional question from Reyk
5. In your opinion, what is the most important policy on Wikipedia and why?
A:The short answer is Wikipedia:Verifiability.
I say this because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which collates and presents factual statements, published elsewhere, about Notable subjects. We do not publish original research nor promote unfounded stories and allegations. Thus, everything that we place here must be checkable by any user, wherever they may be. From that one essential policy (WP:V) stems many other key policies. The next most important ones of which I would say are WP:BLP (to protect living people from falsehoods), WP:NPOV to ensure the content we present to readers is unbiased and reliable, and WP:COPYRIGHT to protect the legal rights of others.
Additional question from John M Wolfson
6. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?
A:: I will answer this in two ways if I may, John? First, I’ll specifically address your question, then I’d like to explain how I would hope to act on seeing such an article put up for speedy deletion.
Of greatest concern is the potential copyright infringement. If a check of the school’s website showed no CC_BY_SA release statement, the content is unacceptable for Wikipedia.
WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement) is therefore the most appropriate speedy deletion criterion.
The following are other criteria which, in descending order of likelihood, might - under very specific circumstances - also be added to create a ‘multiple’ reasoned CSD nomination.
  • WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) - depending upon what had been copied over.
  • WP:G4 (Recreation of a page deleted per a deletion discussion) might apply if the content were very similar to a previously AFD-ed page about this school.
  • WP:G5 (Creation by a banned/blocked user)
  • WP:G7 (Author asks for deletion) – i.e. they’ve realised their error in creating the page and want it removing.
None of the other CSD General criteria would apply to this article, i.e.patent nonsense (WP:G1); a test page (WP:G2); a hoax (WP:G3); a technical deletion (WP:G6); Office action (WP:G9); harassment (WP:G10); abandoned pages (WP:G13), or irrelevant DAB page (WP:G14).
Only one of the CSD ‘Article’ criteria could apply here. Most obviously, CSD A7 for organisations might be thought to apply, but this criterion specifically excludes educational institutions, which are defined on that page as including elementary/primary schools. CSD A10 might apply, but only if the page under consideration is a recently created duplicate of an existing page about the same school which we already have here because it meets our WP:NORG criteria.
However, had you asked me how I would actually handle seeing this speedy deletion nomination, I could have replied that I would be acting quite reasonably under our CSD policy simply to speedy delete the page if I deemed it fell within my explanation of acceptable CSD criteria, given above. But a far better approach would be to follow WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and do a little research. Assuming no clear notability for this particular school can be found, I would WP:REDIRECT the page to the relevant district school authority page (assuming that is easily findable). Either way, I would then WP:REVDEL the copyrighted content (per WP:CRD) and warn the page creator with a single-use ((uw-copyright)) notice. I might also look through their other page creations and recent contributions to check for similar infringements of our policies and take and necessary action.
Additional question from Nosebagbear
7. Thanks for your answer to Q4. As a Teahouse pro, is there anything you'd like to see change there, or do you think it's ticking overly smoothly as-is? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A:The short answer is that I think the Teahouse is actually ticking over pretty smoothly, right now. The key thing is that we remain friendly and helpful, and directly welcome every single new user individually. And we’ve been getting some brilliant new hosts joining recently, too.
TL;DR: I was invited to contribute at the Teahouse by Cullen328 back in 2017, and I really am so grateful for that as I have learned so much there. But I also felt a number of things needed sorting out; it had got a bit clunky. Most obviously, there were large numbers of ‘Hosts’ listed who hadn’t edited in years or not contributed there for ages. We had a 'Guest profile' page which must have caused confusion whenever we told people “we don’t have profiles on Wikipedia”, and we had some unclear templates, a faulty 'Ask a question' script, and a link to an archive that ceased archiving in 2015! Aware of the Teahouse's history and development, I was a little trepidacious about barging in and changing stuff unilaterally (I still am!), so I listed some proposals for change on the Teahouse talk page, and over the next 12 months or so I or others implemented many of the key ones.
What would I like to see change? Well, I think the sequential numbering system we use for our archives is unhelpful for new users. I would prefer a Month+Year-based archive, as used at the HelpDesk. I feel new users would be able to find their old threads more easily (we archive after c. 3 days of thread inactivity). But I suspect changing over now would neither be easy nor practical, nor necessarily gain consensus, and that’s fine. I’ve long wanted to rewrite the target of the big “Learn more about the Teahouse” button on that page’s header. It currently goes here, whereas it needs a much friendlier page for new users to read, with that page just being one one link from it. (I have a few other suggestions which I would like to put forward but, as my free time is limited, I've not yet had a chance to discuss them with fellow hosts, so would prefer not to expand upon them here first, if that's OK? However, I'd be happy to ping you should I ever decide to post them at WT:TH.)
Additional question from Interstellarity
8. Do you think having the administrative tools will help you help others at the Teahouse? If so, how?
A: Yes, I do think it would be helpful at times. But it’s clearly not essential in order to be a good Teahouse Host. The Teahouse gets quite a few new users seeking an explanation as to why one page or another has been deleted. Whilst we can always repeat the deleting admin's rationale, I think there may well be times when it could be helpful to view contents of a deleted page in order to give a more nuanced explanation.
In addition, there are times when direct action has been taken by hosts who are also administrators. Such reasons include
  • Someone reporting threats by another editor (thread)
  • Blocking reported vandals/semi-protecting a page (diff)
  • Blocking users with a promotional username. (diff1 2)
  • Dealing with block evasion (diff)
  • Helping to protecting editors (especially youngsters) by removing and revdeling personal details and contact details added to their pages. (No diffs, but I have had cause to directly email a number of sysops, as indicated in my response at Q1, para 1.)
Additional question from Andrew D.
9. You're especially interested in plants. What are your views on the naming of plant articles, please? For example, horse chestnut redirects to Aesculus. WP:FLORA was disputed around 2008, I believe, so you may have missed that debate.
A: Yes, I am a botanist (though I do not edit many Wikipedia plant articles, having got a little burned out from 20 years of researching and publishing a Flora myself! I joined Wikipedia in 2010).
English Wikipedia is universally accessible, so the scientific binomial naming system, developed by Carl Linneaus in the 1750s, is also universally recognised, understood and used around the world. It is used even in places where non-Latin script is normal (e.g. 1 2). In contrast, however, 'common names', such as 'horse-chestnut', are really just popular local names, often referring to more than one species. Different parts of the English-speaking world may well use a multitude of different names for exactly the same taxon (i.e. species). We even use different names in the same country![1]
Having articles directing to titles using plant vernacular names is generally very unwise in my view, and also somewhat discriminatory towards a western-centric view of plant names. When I co-wrote my Flora, we took great care to index the text with multiple common names, pointing the reader to the same Latin-name entry. Likewise, Wikipedia users need to be able to find the content they are looking for via suitable WP:REDIRECTs, no matter which 'common name' they use locally for that species. Whilst certain genera like Aesculus or Quercus are pretty much known worldwide as 'horse-chestnuts' and 'oaks', most others definitely are not (e.g. the different use of 'bluebell' between England and Scotland is a classic example we use this side of the pond). Directing articles to the one universal scientific name seems highly logical for a universally available encyclopaedia. And having a few articles on genera using common names, and others inevitably using the genus name would be a nightmare, especially when the next level down - the species - is titled by its scientific name. We need uniformity and accessibility, and I believe Wikipedia has got it mostly right.
I intentionally gave you my view, as you asked. But having now re-visited WP:FLORA, and skimmed all too briefly through the huge 2008/2009 discussion I still support where we are now. It makes sense to have DAB pages using common names, and certain articles on key species like apple to have the popular name as the main title. The vast majority should definitely direct to their current scientific name.

References

  1. ^ Grigson, Geoffrey (1974). A Dictionary of English Plant Names. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-0442-0.
Additional question from John from Idegon
10 First, thank you Nick for stepping up, and thank you very much for rebooting the inactive WP:ADOPTION program. Along that line, please discuss what we are doing and what we can do better as far as introducing newcomers to Wikipedia. Thanks.
A:Thank you for your question, John. This is a holding reply, as I confess to being a little unsure whether you are asking me to address my thoughts purely towards the Adoption programme on English Wikipedia, and how I think we can work better in that particular area (and I can certainly do that), or whether you’d like me to expand on my answer to Q4 above and talk more broadly about what 'we' (as English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation) as a whole are doing to attract new editors. I will start to draft a reply focusing on the Adopt-A-User and related mentoring schemes, including Edit-a-thons, but could you clarify a little further what you seek? I will then do my best to answer as best as I can, but a broader answer will take some research, as my own personal experience of some areas of outreach is inevitably limited.
Nick Moyes, I am looking for your insight as to what you think works best to help us retain new editors. Personally, I think adoption is the best thing we've ever had, but I am biased, as I was adopted. You've certainly seen some reply I've made to a new editor that starts, "We all had misconceptions when we started, so don't feel bad, but...". Can you think of anything that would help address that? John from Idegon (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies for the delay in replying, John.
My short answer to your question is that I believe the Teahouse is now the most effective means of ensuring we encourage and retain brand new editors. The expectations of the Teahouse (see here) of being welcoming and supportive still make it stand out from all the other more routine contacts that most new editors may encounter, and it has been doing that successfully since 2012. Adoption still has a role to play in editor retention and development, but is very time-intensive, and the scheme desperately needs a rethink as to the type of editors it should aim at, and how it goes about it.
TL;DR answer: In the real world, most of us identify what we think works best, whether or not we are actually right in that belief. It's all we can do. Luckily there have been a number of academic studies which confirm that the Teahouse definitely makes a positive impact on editor retention (1; 2; 3). Having direct evidence to support and steer how we operate really is valuable, and research by WMF staff and others is still ongoing on how to enhance it further.
Because, every day, 300 out of c.2000 new editors receive an invitation to the Teahouse, the forum has considerable reach. Over the last 30 days, the Teahouse answered 470 requests for help, and each visitor is politely welcomed and usually get their questions answered quite swiftly. They’re also liable to get a Teahouse Talkback message to say they’ve had a reply. It’s rare to have more than one question at a time being asked, and hosts often go well beyond what’s expected, perhaps encouraging some editors on their own userpages, or even suggesting or offering adoption. Sometimes unusual requests for help ring alarm bells, and may lead to an investigation. Issues such as promotional usernames, WP:COI, undeclared WP:PAID editing, WP:COPYVIO and sock-puppetry are commonly exposed (example).
Anyone can respond to questions there – and quite a few relatively new users do, which is great to see. Any editor with over 500 mainspace edits is also welcome to add their name as a ‘Teahouse host’; we simply ask them to sign up to follow our principles. Hat collectors or non-active editors do get removed from that informal listing. There are always improvements that could be made to any successful scheme, and I’m sure the Teahouse is no exception. I think we should ask ourselves whether the wording of our invitations could be bettered. Some while back I designed this welcome template for Teahouse questioners who express an interest in editing articles about women, and I would love to see a better Teahouse welcome containing useful links in the same vein. One day when I have time, perhaps....
Like you, I feel that direct contact between a brand new editor and someone with a welcoming supportive manner, and who is prepared to spend time to support and guide them, is absolutely critical to bringing them onboard and setting them on their way. I think Adoption is also the best way to put a metaphorical 'arm’ around a new editor and to guide them, but it is incredibly time-demanding and, in recent years, it has somewhat lost its purpose because of the development of the Help Desk, Teahouse and IRC help channels, with the near-instant responses.
Although you kindly credited me with kickstarting the Adoption scheme, I don’t really feel that credit is deserved. There is a lot more I wanted to do there, but real world stuff has intervened over the last 18 months, so my ideas went on hold. My hope is to see it aiming solely at those genuinely committed new editors who have already shown evidence of sticking around and editing across multiple areas. Adoption has been prone to abuse by WP:SPA editors who simply want assistance to quickly create one article, before disappearing forever, and that’s a real waste of adopter effort. I feel AAU needs re-purposing and targeting, not at the cohort of brand new users that the Teahouse currently caters for so well, but at that next level up who have already been persuaded to stay and to contribute, but who could now be assisted to improve and contribute more effectively. I would cite my own two recent adoptees as perfect examples of that type of editor to whom I believe adoption is best-suited, one of whom has the makings of a good future administrator, should they be so inclined.
For that reason I very rarely advocate Adoption at the Teahouse – in fact I actively urge my fellow hosts not to recommend it without very good reason. I would actually like to deprecate the ((adopt me)) template which I feel only raises false hopes, and I want to put the onus on those committed new users to take the initiative and to approach adopters directly. There’s more that I want to flesh out (see work in progress, but I feel WP:AAU ought to be in the back of every WP:TH or WP:HD respondent's mind when they engage with new editors who are clearly committed and we should encourage only those types of editors towards the Adoption scheme. It’s not for ‘total newbies’, in my view. That's what the Teahouse is there for.
Finally, mention should be made of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention and Wikipedia:Welcoming committee and the opportunities to engage and encourage new users in the real world by means of Editathons, but I feel I've already produced a mini-essay in this reply.

Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]
  1. Support - per noms, by people I know and trust. I'm not intimately familiar with the candidate, but I've seen them around the place and never known any issues. And what's described in the noms sounds great to me, assuming there are no skeletons in the cupboard...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support Will Make for an excellent admin. With so much concern over biting new editors, having someone so experienced with the Teahouse and welcoming new users would be a great benefit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. As nominator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support No issues that I can see. Deb (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Another hat for the stand! :p ——SN54129 22:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support, as co-nom. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Strong support see this user an awful lot making valued contributions to the Teahouse! Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 22:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support An experienced user. Will make a good sysop. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support about 18 months overdue. I really appreciate candidate's answer to #3. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support This editor does good work at AfD and I appreciate their bend-over-backwards honesty in their acceptacne and responses above. That they do well at the Teahouse seals it for me. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support, no particular reason not to, and. A Teahouse-trained admin is definitely not going to become bitey Nosebagbear (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I realise that my !vote was grossly insufficient. Nick Moyes is one of our most positive editors, whose answers to users show knowledge, tact, generosity and wisdom. I believe that were he to use the mop bucket purely for viewing deleted pages, that alone would let him add a significant contribution to Wikipedia. But his experience expands beyond that, and I see no reason his warm judgement will not be seen in any admin work he participates in elsewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Nick Moyes has my strongest possible support. When I was a new editor, he was the first to welcome me, and he answered at least one of my questions at the Teahouse:[1][2]. In Febuary 2019, he became my adopter in WP:AAU. I graduated from his informal adoption program in December. If anyone is interested, this is the adoption page: [3] the page is more than 130,000 bytes, so it might take some time to load. I've come a long way since then. Nick goes above and beyond when it comes to helping others, and I don't think I would've been the same Wikipedia editor that I am today without his help. Nick has clue, is trustworthy, and is definitely a net positive. Clovermoss (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support because he was very helpful to me in the Teahouse, and I see no reason for him not to be an admin...The Evil Sith Kitten 23:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support. I imagine this sailing through without a hiccup, so allow me to say thank you for volunteering to help out with administrative tasks. -- Tavix (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support per noms, has a clue. signed, Rosguill talk 23:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support Thought he had the mop already, and I love the answer to Q3. Miniapolis 23:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support enthusiastically. Vexations (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support. Looks solid. No concerns. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Strong support I have only ever been impressed by Nick, and our interactions have always been pleasant. His work with newbies is close to legendary. To be honest, I thought he already was an admin, so he clearly demonstrates the caliber of behavior and skills necessary. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support I thought he was already one. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 00:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Sounds lame, but I really was sure Nick was already an admin, and thought the RfA was some kind of fat-finger error. Britishfinance (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support. This is the first time I have ever voted in any RFA election, ever. and Nick Moyes 110% worthy of being the first person to receive one's vote. he is absolutely needed. he will be a voice of moderation, insight, and sagacity. I have dealt with other admins, and some of them approach the role more neutrally than others. I heartily endorse Nick for this role. well done!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Nick Moyes constantly impresses me with his patience and empathy. I have nothing but admiration for him. I believe he'll be an outstanding admin. Schazjmd (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support Trusted and experienced. - FitIndia Talk Commons 01:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Thought they were one already. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support Why not? -FASTILY 01:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Nick and I are both quite active Teahouse hosts and he is consistently friendly, helpful and accurate there. He is an outstanding candidate. Although I am a trifle embarrassed to be mentioned in Ritchie's nomination, he is correct that I trust and respect Nick. Joking, and on a personal note, Nick and I are both elderly senior citizen mountaineers, and we are therefore among the most trustworthy people imaginable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support Per nominator. Per meets my standards. Net positive, to say the least. We can use more admins who are "consistently friendly, helpful and accurate". Unlikely to BITE new users. Sounds like someone we need more of.-(Almost fogot-- seen him around.)- Deepfriedokra 02:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support - Like Clovermoss, Nick Moyes has helped me become a productive editor and my interactions with him have always been positive. I have high hopes and confidence he will make an outstanding admin. Interstellarity (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support I don't usually recognize a person's username when I look at one of these nominations, but I recognized Nick Moyes! I don't remember details, so I should mention that by "recognize" I mean I have a visceral/affective (body/feeling) memory associated with his name that is warm and positive. Yep, I'm supporting Nick's nomination to become an Administrator based on a warm and fuzzy feeling. If you think that's bunk, let me know, and I shall deluge your talk page with references to gobs of scientific references. ;^] (And I actually do remember some details, and they ain't just from the Teahouse.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support against my own interests. I had finally got it into my head that Nick wasn't already a sysop and now I'm going to have to unlearn all that. But it's worth it given his knowledge and disposition. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support A productive, collegial editor who will use the mop well. SportingFlyer T·C 03:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support - Unhesitatingly. Solid editor with loads of helpful and productive edits. Loopy30 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support - collegial and has exhibited very good judgment. Would make an excellent admin. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support I have run across Nick's good work. He has gained useful experience in admin areas, content creation and helping new editors. I am especially impressed with his help at the Teahouse and more generally with help and encouragement new users. I view his demeanor and helpful, collegial interactions with others as an important attribute for an administrator. I always consider this to be a very important trait. He has definitely established competence, and most importantly, trustworthiness. I am glad to support this RfA. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support. Yes please. As someone who has been at the Teahouse since the beginning, I can say without hesitation Nick is one of the (if not the) best hosts we've ever have. I consider great work at Teahouse to be one of the best indicators of future success as an admin. Admin is, after all, primarily a "people skills" job. Also, it's very easy to show one's competency on policy issues when you spend a good part of every day answering people's questions about policy interpretation. John from Idegon (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support Clueful and levelheaded candidate. Always willing to explain things in detail for both long-term and new users alike. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support Always nice to see another Teahouse regular run for adminship, and everything I’ve seen of Nick suggests he’ll do a great job. Hugsyrup 08:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support - Has clue, good answers. Sound candidate. - FlightTime (open channel) 08:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support precious helping new users --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support. Wikipedia's most valuable resource is our editors. Nick Moyes is currently the top Teahouse editor (within the last 50,000 edits), and their compassionate approach to communicating with new editors has undoubtedly improved editor retention. — Newslinger talk 10:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support Happy days, LindsayHello 11:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support Unlikely to be a disaster. What else is there to worry about? Nigej (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support Good number of edits over time, and probably as much or more qualified than most who try for adminship. There's always a need for more admins, and Nick Moyes seems like they would be a fine administrator. Certainly can't hurt. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support as co-nom Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am particularly impressed with Nick's recent conduct at User talk:Elenabesley. This is a textbook example of how to deal with new users, and should set an example for us all to follow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support - All I see is stellar work and a great accumulation of experience. Orphan Wiki 12:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support - I've seen nothing worrying from this candidate, and good answers to the questions. Reyk YO! 12:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support A mature and thoughtful individual who will make a good sysop. I particularly like his answer to question 4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Oppose Sorry, we already have a good admin named Nick, we're not gonna have room for TWO good admins named Nick. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 12:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support - great answers that demonstrate the kind of conduct we look for in our admins. I hope it's something that will not be lost because of complacency, impatience or bias. We need more admins who realize differences of opinion are a positive for the project, not a negative. Atsme Talk 📧 12:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support I very rarely comment at RFAs but I am making an exception here. This is one of the best nominations I've seen in years. An excellent contributor, who understands that the future of Wikipedia requires the nurturing of new editors and has a strong reason for needing the tools to serve the project better. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support - Has clue, net positive. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support Active at the TEAHOUSE, has clue, unfailingly polite and helpful. Lectonar (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. A million times yes per his excellent work as Teahouse host. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support Clearly a net-positive to this project. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support. Clue has been demonstrated and noms are trustworthy and convincing. While I generally agree with Chess that AFD stats are pointless, a quick review of his !votes shows that he is not a drive-by !voter who always votes with the majority but takes the time to justify each one carefully. Regards SoWhy 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support I seem to come across this editor's work quite a lot, for some reason. Seems level-headed, has a clue and I've not seen them get involved in drama. A good candidate for the tools. Neiltonks (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support I don't know nick personally, but I've seen him at teahouse and such, I think he is a wonderful editor who fully deserves the position Flalf (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support will be a net positive to the project. Also, appreciate the comment from the nominee on the 2nd oppose. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support He probably won't remember this, but I briefly interacted with this editor back in November of last year (when I first started on Wikipedia) he was very friendly and provided me with useful advice that I still use on Wikipedia today. I think he would make a great administrator. Omanlured (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support Has done well at AfD, no issues. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support, provided he is prepared to swear on a stack of PAG:s not to leave the Teahouse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support, good content creation, very helpful at the Teahouse and good AFD participation, not seeing any reason to oppose, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Yep. — 🦊 16:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Should be fine despite the warning sign of a 90%+ "correct" percentage at AFD. —Kusma (t·c) 16:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support -- An excellent communicator who is knowledgeable of both content creation and WP policy. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support. — sparklism hey! 17:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support Clear need for the tools and I don't see any concerns.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support - Trusted and experienced editor, I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 18:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support, interacted with the candidate--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support. What an excellent choice for an admin! BD2412 T 21:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support Has earned my respect in our interactions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support. Sound and solid editor. Is great with newbies and at adhering to the site's rules (with common sense, of course). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support. Not someone I interact with much. As far as I can determine, passes all of my semi-nitpicky RfA standards, and the disposition and noob-helping focus are a refreshing change from the usual candidates' patrolling and geeking and FA obsessing. :-) The two opposes I see are weak in my view. (I respect the right to have "1 FA or 2 GAs" personal standards, but I don't agree with the standard, even if I do agree with the "we need content-worker, encyclopedia-focused admins not drama-mongering wiki-cops" motivation for it. I also agree that XfD stats are not a good indicator of anything, but I cannot blame the candidate for a nominator's choice to dwell on them.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support When an editor is invariably civil, ready to ask for advice, and willing to apologize for mistakes, I'm not concerned about content creation. And it's hardly this editor's fault they've got such good AfD stats their noms all remark on it. --valereee (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support Looks like a solid editor with no red or yellow flags. Likely to be a net positive with the tools. The two opposes are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support While I agree that conformity at AfD is not necessarily a good thing, Nick Moyes's contributions otherwise seem to be excellent. I think that he'll be a net positive. aboideautalk 02:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support Of course, per above. Puddleglum 2.0 02:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Trusted and competent contributor, no reason to believe they're a risk for abusing or severely misusing the tools. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. HECK YES! Nick Moyes should have already been admin. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support Overdue to be honest. Gizza (t)(c) 04:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support; the opposers in RfAs are just getting worse and worse. J947 (c), at 04:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support Strong candidate based on what I've seen, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support. Per above. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support A fine editor and a fine person. --Hecato (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Wait, what - Nick's not an admin already? Must be a mistake, better fix that. GirthSummit (blether) 10:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support - (yoda voice) net positive he will be! hmm! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support - Nick will be a great admin. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 13:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support. I've been offline for a couple of days, and when I come back I see three RfAs in progress. And each one is an obvious support just through seeing who the candidate is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support. Long-term editor, decent content contributions, good with newcomers. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support for meeting my minimums and the oppose !votes seems to feel like, "I won't support someone who agrees with most of the people." Not very convincing, to me. Ifnord (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support – I'm another user who was under the impression that Nick was already an admin, and don't have any concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support. Good editor and supportive to WP:NEWBIES. userdude 21:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support. No-brainer. Highly-qualified, experienced, and good at explaining things. Blythwood (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support – it felt like a really obvious support since I have seen a lot of Nick Moyes and know him to be civil, clueful, and experienced. Even so I took some time to look through some of his contributions, and found no reason to change my mind. A good addition to the mop wielders. --bonadea contributions talk 22:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support - No concerns whatsoever. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support No concerns. -- ferret (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support - this is an "I thought Nick already was an admin" situation. A long time asset to the 'pedia and the mop and pail will only increase that. MarnetteD|Talk 00:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support gladly. – bradv🍁 00:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support - not a jerk, has a clue. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support per my criteria. Nick comes across as a balanced editor and content creator. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support thought Nick was already an admin Zingarese talk · contribs 04:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support - Triaging through the current RfA's I've checked some of candidates answers and found a couple of things I like, spot check of a couple of AfD's seem reasonable, is being supported by people I somewhat trust too and nothing in the current opposes concern me ... so while I've not given full scrutiny I'm most happy to support.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support - good candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support excellent candidate, great contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 09:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support. I've seen the candidate's work at the Teahouse, and I see no real issues raised to oppose for. I mean... how is an "implicit endorsement" a reason to cast an oppose vote? Even if the good faith we're willing to assume is fall, the business of getting a high AfD percentage by observing how discussions look like just before closure is educational of and by itself. Airbornemihir (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support - Will be responsible with the tools. S0091 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support Have seen him around and got the impression of a very articulate, detail orientated, person who understands why we are here. Also we need more administrators, and although a straight happily married male, especially of the ruggedly handsome type! Ceoil (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support. Great work at the Teahouse. Would make good use of the tools. the wub "?!" 14:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support I've never seen any problems with their edits when I've come across them, and looking now, particularly at the nominators and other supports cast, I see a very large number of people I trust supporting him. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support - I was planning to support, and then looked at the Opposes. I am puzzled, because I don't see where agreeing with other editors is the main reason for support, only a minor reason, and agreeing with other editors on AFD is not a reason to support or oppose. So support anyway. It looks like the Oppose voters are grabbing at straws or something. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. A welcome addition. El_C 18:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support, nothing to worry about it seems. >>BEANS X2t 19:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support Mcampany (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support. Nick will be an asset. SarahSV (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support: seeing no reason to oppose. Trustworthy candidate with use for the tools. Loving the Teahouse work in particular! — Bilorv (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support – Kurtis (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support Seems to have a significant amount of clue, great with newbies, a bit light on with content creation, but several of his B-Class articles could be run for GAN, so just meets my content creation criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Capable and trusted. AGK ■ 07:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support. Dekimasuよ! 08:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Support Trustworthy user who will help in needed areas. SpencerT•C 14:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support Experienced user, can be trusted. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support with no concerns at all, based on observing his work at the Teahouse over a long period. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support experienced enough. AfD and CSD logs look good to me. DBigXrayᗙ 21:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support I don't think I've had any direct dealings with Nick, but I have seen his name from time to time and he is one of those people who you think is already an admin. Mattg82 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support No reason to think this user will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support per noms Chetsford (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. While I am uncomfortable with the nom's "a killer AfD percentage" phrasing, and the implications behind the wording, I find Nick Moyes' answer to "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?" very impressive, and a rummage in Nick Moyes' contributions to be very encouraging - particularly the firm but friendly advice they have given others on occasion, such that concerns that Nick Moyes has merely been following consensus in AfDs in order to impress RfA voters can be put aside. Nick Moyes demonstrates a firm grasp of what Wikipedia is all about both in terms of policies and ethos, displays confidence tempered with empathy, and clearly has enthusiasm for the project. SilkTork (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support - I've had the pleasure of working with Nick in the Tea House and have been consistently impressed with his helpfulness and knowledge. He's supportive of editors new and old, and seems level-headed, and perfectly suited to become an admin. Orvilletalk 04:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support - Seems like an asset, and I don't see any compelling reason not to support. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support. No red flags. Cabayi (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support - I ran into Nick while dealing with a BLP article subject. Was rather pleased with how they handled their explanations to the person, and I feel they will be a good addition to the admin corp. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support. Why not. Conlinp (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support with the disclaimer that we worked a little together on Coropuna. I did look through the history and I see no particular concerns. I see the points raised by the opposes but from some mainspace edits it looks like Moyes is not really totally clueless on article maintenance/creation so that doesn't concern me that much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support per nom. No concern here. Lulusword (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support. No issues here. Meets my criteria. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support. Passes my incredibly difficult, incredibly stringent admin criteria (or is that criterion?), which quite simply, is "don't do anything outrageously stupid". Feel free to badger this vote.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support. Overall I'm really seeing a smart and sensible user who has done some excellent work particularly in helping other users. I must admit I share something of Chess's significant distaste for ever using AfD percentage as a useful statistic, and that fact made me actually look harder at Nick Moyes than I otherwise would have because a nomination mentioning that seemed inherently flawed. Ultimately, though, this is assessing the user, not the nomination - not to say the nomination wasn't otherwise stellar. Nick Moyes's AfD participation is in fact excellent, and I have otherwise found no concerns at all, and very much foresee a great admin. ~ mazca talk 15:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support: Nick is stable, reasonable and dedicated to Wikipedia. He will be a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support --DannyS712 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support I don't see any reason why not. Nick seems perfectly qualified and civil. TheSavageNorwegian 19:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support - Good AfD stats, lots of mainspace editing and article creation, and Teahouse work. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support - No concerns. Nihlus 21:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support with pleasure. Unlikely to harm the project, very likely to help it. — kashmīrī TALK 22:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support. Solid candidate. Cbl62 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Strike multiple votes. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support No concerns, very convincing supports, good answers to questions. Demetrius Tremens (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support - No Concerns here. -- Dane talk 00:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support - As per everyone who came before me. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support - has demonstrated an understanding of policies and more importantly explaining them to new users in a polite and welcoming way, admits mistakes, sufficient content creation. Not persuaded by the opposes. Find bruce (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support - I'm suprised he isn't an admin already. I found him quite helpful in the teahouse when I first started. Desertborn (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support - This is an easy one. Have been impressed with this user's contributions and demeanor for some time. CThomas3 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support - I have some dealings with Nick Moyes - a smart, polite, editor who explains and guides new editors in a polite manner - a solid candidate for an Admin role. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support won't break everything. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support clue + content + respectful attitude = tools. Also "per noms." The fact that the editor knows how to put information in a box, and understands that it has value is a plus. — Ched (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support: WP:TTWOA. SITH (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support enthusiastically. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Easy support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Support, what a great allrounder! Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support – will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  167. Support lots of main space edits 61% and a good amount of article creation. Good experience in BLP editing. Helps in the Tea House. Decent AfD !vote dispersal. Meets my criteria as an administrator who will protect content and content creators. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support, good user no issues. And just to offset GregJackP's cancerous return to RfA trolling. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support, per above, excellent candidate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support –CaroleHenson (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 11:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Support Tolly4bolly 11:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. Support -- I'd seen him at work at the teahouse everyday for a long time, all the while thinking he was already an admin. Took a script to tell me he wasn't. He has my trust and confidence. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support - no concerns, will be an asset. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. Support without hesitation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Support - I’m coming late to this snow vote but wanted to put in a good word for Nick. I’m a fellow teahouse volunteer and have always been impressed with Nick‘s thoroughness and patience. It’s been a while since I was active at AFD, so I don’t remember seeing Nick there, but if the first oppose is based on that not being enough, I would simply point voters to his history at the teahouse. His demeanor and patience are what we should all strive for, and he is quite adept at navigating Wikipedia and its challenges. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Suppport per nom.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  179. Support -- Looks like a qualified candidate. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  180. Support - AFD "stats" are not a reason to support as suggested by the nomination, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. I cannot in good faith support a nomination where the number one reason the nominee will be a good admin is that they have a record of agreeing with others at AfD. The reason why we call it a "!vote" is because AfD is not a vote because we're supposed to base closes on consensus formed from the actual content of the discussion, not a simple numerical up/down tally. Yet the nomination here is based significantly on counting votes and whether or not Nick Moyes conforms to others. Is this really what RfA has come to? Where disagreement with others can be a liability because it'll ruin your AfD percentage? Where the nominee's disagreement with the norm doesn't matter not because they provided well thought out opinions but because there was no norm to conform to?

    Having a "killer AfD percentage" is not a character value. The implicit endorsement that it should be is a disqualifying mark in my book. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion moved to the talk page. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose, per criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 05:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Discussion moved to Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose per Chess. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Iazyges Howdy hello! I think you might have misread that, as the first oppose vote was by Chess, my note was simply in a clerking capacity noting that further discussion had been moved. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    CaptainEek You are very much correct. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral. Sitting here per my stance after reading the "Oppose" vote from Chess, as well as the subsequent reply from Juliancolton. I'm in agreement with Juliancolton's stance: I'm not a fan of using AfD statistics of agreeing with consensus as a metric to determine if a candidate is suitable for the mop. However, then after reading the rest of the RFA page thus far, something about this nomination doesn't sit right with me, but I don't have time to invest at the present to locate any possible "skeletons in the closet". This candidate might be perfectly fine and there might be no issues (I'm more or less surprised that I don't recall ever running across the nominee anywhere on Wikipedia and I'm aware of the existence of most active editors who end up becoming administrator nominees [but maybe in this instance, that's probably because AfD is the XfD forum I view the least]), but ... I dunno, something just seems off to me where even though I tend to now side with the antiquated concept of WP:NOBIGDEAL, at the present time, I cannot feel confident enough to put myself in the "Support" column. I think I'll just park it here. Steel1943 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Steel1943: Thank you for taking the time to leave your observations. I think you are quite right: you and I don't appear to have directly interacted with one another. We have certainly both edited a number of the same adminstrative pages at different times. Perhaps I should think about creating a colourful signature that shows up more. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nick Moyes: Ha, looks like the majority of the pages that we've both edited were adminship requests and WP:RFPP with the occasional WP:RFD page. Yeah, shocking that we've edited some pages around the same time, but we've never interacted. (And even more shocking is the fact that the external tool that you used existed; I had no idea until now.) Either way though, looks like this nomination is in the bag. :) Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral - I was close to supporting, but I have to agree with Chess. If the nominator needs to use "killer AfD percentage" as a reason to support, it shows the user may not have much to their name. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral I think I am in agreement with the other !votes in the Neutral section. I find no serious red flags with the candidate but the premise of the nomination statement isn't why they receive my support. It's clear this RfA will pass, but I'm avoiding "Support" on this principle. Rcsprinter123 (tell) 00:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
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