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

NinjaRobotPirate[edit]

Final (185/3/1); Closed as successful by — xaosflux Talk at 16:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]


Nomination[edit]

NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) – Come one, come all, and take some time out of your busy Wikipedia editing schedule to consider NinjaRobotPirate for access to the administrator toolset. Since becoming an active editor almost four years ago, he has become a valuable contributor to the project, and could do even more great work if handed a mop.

With over 18,000 edits to article space - 60% of his total 30,000 - including more than 250 article creations and three Good Articles (Cult film, Leprechaun (film), Keyser Söze), NinjaRobotPirate has an excellent track record of content creation; a quick glance at any of his articles will find it well written and well referenced. He also has a solid history at AfD, with a great mix of well reasoned votes and a very high match percentage, and lots of participation at SPI (e.g. 1, 2, 3), alongside experience in a variety of other relevant areas.

Perhaps most importantly, NinjaRobotPirate is a civil and friendly editor, happy to both help new editors (I was especially impressed by the responses here and in the sections below) as well as engage in productive discussions with experienced ones. Overall, I am confident that NinjaRobotPirate will make an excellent administrator. Sam Walton (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2016 (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 use for the tools would be blocking long-term abuse vandals and obvious socks. I have experience with reporting these to ANI and SPI, and I would keep an eye on these noticeboards. The less sensational discussions at ANI sometimes scroll off without any admin attention as everyone rushes to comment in more exciting threads. I have little interest in speedy deletion, but I enjoy participating at AfD. I prefer to contribute to deletion discussions, but I would be willing to work on the AfD backlog. I contribute occasionally to the help desk and tea house, and without being able to see deleted pages, one is sometimes limited to giving generic advice.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Cult film was a complete mess when I found it. It took me months of work, locating sources and completely rewriting the article section-by-section, to finally bring it to GA. My experience with finding sources and working on poorly-written articles led me to AfD. Although usually called a deletionist, I'm proud of the articles that I've saved, many of which I subsequently expanded or rewrote. Compassion in World Farming is an example of an article that I worked on to remove promotion and add third-party sources after it was nominated for deletion (before, after).
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: There will always be content disputes. Recently, I was involved in one over whether "in popular culture" items needed to be sourced. I contended they did, and another editor disagreed. During a centralized discussion on the topic, consensus was they do need secondary sourcing, and an uninvolved editor provided the citations. Discussion provided both consensus for future disputes and citations for the content. When I disagree with the direction consensus has taken in an article, I move on to another one. Sometimes I find I don't care so much about the dispute after some time has passed.

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 GeneralizationsAreBad
4. You've expressed interest in blocking socks. How do you conduct behavioral analysis to determine whether an account is, indeed, a sock? What sort of factors do you consider?
A: In my mind, there two kinds of socks. The first type has a clear mission. Identifying the mission makes identifying the socks a lot easier. For example, Rafa Figueiredo wants to promote his favorite actress, Elisha Cuthbert. Like many other socks with a mission, his edits are ritualistic. He changes the headers, adds poorly-sourced puffery in broken English, and sprinkles copyvio images throughout the article. If he edited articles on Brazilian football stars, I'd never find his latest sock, but he's never going to do that. He's got a very specific mission, and he's going to keep socking to continue his edit wars. Anyone who adds Elisha Cuthbert to their watchlist could probably pick up on who the latest Rafa sock is. Then there's the variety who sock because they can. These are trickier because you can't necessarily rely on one sock to continue the previous one's edit war. For someone like Diamese, you have to look at the bigger picture. Diamese leaves nonsense messages on admins' talk pages, like "hi i want to be admin please" or "i will be bureaucrat one day". He'll pick a random endangered animal and vandalize the article, then add some kind of bizarre hoax to a children's cartoon. He sometimes taunts me and McGeddon in edit summaries, like "ninja is not allowed to revert this edit". Once you know who Diamese is, it's easy enough to spot him. But you'll struggle to connect the accounts if you don't know his history. I suppose you could say that Diamese's mission is mayhem. In both kinds of socks, comparing the accounts often involves scrutinizing grammar quirks, word choice, English proficiency, idiom usage, political biases, and temperament. Nezi1111 obsessively used the phrase "refers to" in several different leads across several sock accounts. Most sockmasters know exactly how I identify them, but they continue making those behaviors and choosing those words. It's why they're here.
Additional question from The Quixotic Potato
5. Your oldest edits indicate to me that you already had some experience editing Wikipedia, and your userpage contains the sentence: "After initially being quite unimpressed with Wikipedia, I finally joined in 2007". If I am correct, which IP's/usernames have you used other than NinjaRobotPirate?
A: Really? You looked at my oldest edits and thought I had experience? I look at them and shudder. No, I never had any prior accounts. That's kind of the point of the statement: prior to 2007, I was uninterested in editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia was not as focused on verifiability in the early days, and I thought it was a serious issue.
Additional question from The Quixotic Potato
6. I am scratching my head looking at some old diffs like this one. It was reverted by 24.210.207.42 after more than 24 hours (I assume that that IP is a different person (maybe I am incorrect)). It doesn't seem to have been an isolated incident, see this diff where you did something similar several months later, but this time it stayed in the article for about a month. Can you please explain the circumstances surrounding those diffs and your reasons for making those edits? I don't get it. Many of the best contributors to Wikipedia are on the autism spectrum. I also noticed the bipolar type 2 userbox added here and deleted here (together with an expert mathematician userbox) so I assume you have experience with people on the spectrum/with mental health issues.
A: Yes, I'm sensitive to issues of neurodiversity. I thought, perhaps unwisely, that the autism spectrum was a related topic to issues of geek pride and science fiction fandom. It seemed like a reasonably logical jump at the time, drawn mostly from my experiences with people who were pretty outspoken about their autism. There isn't anything to it beyond that. There's no connotation, insinuation, or commentary – just someone with not a whole lot of experience in editing Wikipedia.
Additional question from Tlhslobus
7. At first glance, you seem like an excellent candidate with lots of support. My one concern is your choice of name - NinjaRobotPirate. Ninjas and Pirates are criminals; many find Robots sinister. Your chosen name rightly or wrongly suggests to the user who first encounters you that you tend to identify with such groups. Admins are in many ways our cops, and as a citizen, I would not feel comfortable being questioned by a cop sporting a skull and crossbones (the traditional symbol of pirates, and also a symbol of the Nazi SS). Wikipedia already has major difficulties with retaining editors. Given your seemingly unfortunate choice of name (at least for an admin), might your appointment as an admin not just make those difficulties worse, how might you try to prevent or at least mitigate this, and would you consider taking a second less contentious name (linked to your original name on what would then be your two userpages, as per WP:VALIDALT) when laying down the law to actual or alleged miscreants?
A: Ninja and pirates can also be good guys. Doctor McNinja, Dread Pirate Roberts, and Captain Jack Sparrow are perhaps a bit more roguish than someone like Luke Skywalker, but didn't everyone prefer Han Solo anyway? Robots, well, who can hate robots? I think I'd be more worried that people wouldn't take me seriously with such a silly username. On the plus side, I think having a silly username has kept me from taking myself deadly seriously. If there are users who are legitimately intimidated by my username, I would hope they'd lose that once they talked to me. As far as an alt, the drama that constantly surrounded DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves left me thinking it was too confusing for admins to use multiple accounts like that.
Additional question from SNUGGUMS
8. Given your intentions to watch SPI noticeboards as an admin, do you perhaps plan on also applying for CheckUser?
A: I'm sure there are much more qualified people than me.
Additional questions from BU Rob13
9. There's nothing like real experience. Take a look at these three current SPIs. For each one, would you request CheckUser? Why or why not? If no, what action would you take as an admin patroller? If yes, assume the result comes back as inconclusive. Now what action would you take as an admin patroller?
A: For Rossmolney, no CU would act on the request to connect an IP with a user account, so I would not request it. Rossmonlney said he was going to add sources to the article, and one of the IP editors followed up on this. I don't see anything wrong with this. Neither IP editor has done anything disruptive. Lots of editors, especially new ones, accidentally make logged-out edits. There's no policy that says people are required under penalty of a block to stay logged in at all times. The only action I would take is to request diffs of disruption – because I don't see any.
The next one, SamanthaTeeninPA, is a bit messy. Katmakrofan (KMF) tagged DrexelHillVHSBoy's page as a potential sock of TeenBoyonVHS, which looks likely. However, in the SPI, KMF says DrexelHillVHSBoy is a duck of SamanthaTeeninPA, which also seems likely. Another editor mentions DrexelHillVHSBoy is older than SamanthaTeeninPA. I'm not especially familiar with the Dog and Rapper vandal, which was also mentioned. The whole thing is a headache and is 1) a fair explanation for why some LTA cases are so convoluted and difficult to follow, and 2) an explanation for why so few admins patrol SPI. I would block DrexelHillVHSBoy as a sock of TeenBoyonVHS. It would be nice for my own peace of mind after seeing this chain of confusing tags/reports to have a CU settle it conclusively, but, no, I don't think it's necessary. I would not risk annoying Bbb23.
For HipHopVisionary, the evidence looks good, and HHV seems to have multiple socks active at once in previous investigations. I would recommend a CU for this.
10. Which of the following actions can you do as an administrator in the SPI topic area? Just a list of the numbers you can/can't do is fine. No need for lengthy explanations.
  1. Conduct a CheckUser investigation
  2. Request CheckUser results on an investigation
  3. Endorse a request for CheckUser on an investigation
  4. Block an editor as per WP:DUCK
  5. Block an editor based on CheckUser results
  6. Unblock an editor who was blocked as a DUCK
  7. Unblock an editor who was blocked with a CheckUser block
  8. Unblock an editor who was blocked based on a Likely CheckUser result who is questioning the validity of the CheckUser findings
  9. Close a case
  10. Archive a case
  11. History merge two cases at the request of a regular editor
  12. History merge two cases at the request of a clerk
A: Can't: 1 (impossible), 3 (done by SPI clerks), 7 and 8 (get desysoped), 10 (done by SPI clerks). Can: 2 (anyone can), 4, 5, 6, 9. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure of 11 and 12; when I looked it up, there's no prohibition against it, but I don't recall seeing it done before. I believe it is allowable, but I would ask a CU for advice before I jumped in on something I wasn't 100% sure of.
Additional question from Espresso Addict
11. You write that you have been described as a deletionist; could you expand on your thoughts on deletionism and inclusionism?
A: I think "deletionist" and "inclusionist" are frequently reductive. One example is fictional characters at AfD, many of which I've voted to delete. It's not that I think fictional characters don't belong on Wikipedia; rather, I think they need to clearly demonstrate notability, and many of them don't. Maybe on some subconscious level I brought Keyser Söze to GA to offset my reputation as an anti-fictional character crusader. I don't think anyone would call me an inclusionist, but there are times when I've argued at length to keep an article that was still deleted. It doesn't happen often, but it's frustrating when it does. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Whalen was one of those cases where I thought I dug up enough sources to keep the article. Although I've never had an article deleted (the tool lies!), I've had two pages I created prodded. These experiences were also frustrating, as I thought I had established notability quite clearly. So, I have some sympathy for the inclusionist side of a debate, even though I may disagree with them. Though we may skew in one direction, I think most of us are somewhere in the middle: willing to keep what can be properly sourced, willing to delete what can not.
Additional question from MartinZ02
12. Let's say you are going close a hypothetical AfD. Ninety‐nine editors wants to have the article deleted, but they only provide poor arguments for their !votes—one editor wants to keep the article, and provides much better arguments by citing policies and guidelines. How would you close the Afd? —MartinZ02 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Well, if I thought there was something I could add to the debate, I would vote instead. Perhaps the delete voters completely missed a relevant policy, or perhaps the keep voter was not persuasive enough. In my experience, debates like this are frequently the result of sock puppetry and off-site canvassing. DGG once closed a deletion discussion I started as "no consensus" because it had spiraled out of control, and I think that was a legitimate close for what happened. But if we assume there was no obvious disruption and someone desperately needs to close this debate, one would have to weight the votes according to policy. A large number of votes that have absolutely no basis in policy at all can not overrule a strong argument that is grounded in policy – AfD is not a vote, after all. If I couldn't find a single policy-compliant rationale to counter the keep vote, I would likely close as keep. If, on the other hand, we're talking about a situation where I personally disagree with the delete rationales, it would be a supervote to ignore them.
Additional question from User:Unscintillating
13.  An exchange between us led to creation of the essay WP:Don't cite WP42 at AfD. 

Please comment on a 2nd essay that that exchange spawned, Wikipedia:Cite WP42 at AfD.  What is an applicable guideline for deletion of essays?  What are arguments for and against deletion at MfD of this essay?  What is an applicable document for an administrator to use in closing an MfD on this essay?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A: I'm going to go off on a little bit of a tangent here. Obviously, I disagree with WP:NOT42. I think there's certainly an element of truth behind it – WP:42 is a flawed and simplistic guide that was meant to be used only to instruct new editors on the most basic principles of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. However, I don't think editors should refrain from linking essays when they are helpful in context. I wouldn't link WP:42 when discussing a professor or secondary school. Regardless of my feelings, I have reduced the amount of times I've cited it, and if you counted, it's probably down to half a dozen times in the years since WP:NOT42 was posted. I don't want to get into meta-debates about my vote and what essays I've cited. Since you ask, I think WP:YES42 was kind of a bad idea, as the whole situation was causing enough drama already. If any of the three essays came up at MfD, I would ignore the debate, as I did last time WP:42 was nominated at MfD. I'm uninterested in further drama. As far as essays at MfD, my view is that Wikipedia-space essays are fine as long as they do not grossly misrepresent policy or established consensus, per WP:POLICIES. For userpages, WP:UPNOT would be the relevant guideline.
Additional question from Ottawahitech
14. Who is allowed to have an alternate account on Wikipedia and who is not
A: Of course, there are rules on what one can do with an alternate account, but there are few people on Wikipedia who are explicitly forbidden from having alternate accounts of any kind. This is usually the result of an Arbcom case. If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of policy, there are a few cases that may complicate matters, such as a courtesy vanishing, where you're expected to stay retired and not return with a new account. Clean starts can also be abused, such as evading a topic ban or other editing restrictions. Like I said above, I think administrators should try not to confuse users if they have an alt. The only policy that I'm aware of on the matter, though, is that WMF staff and administrators should only have one non-bot account with administrative privileges.
Additional question from Deryck C.
15. Following on from Q4, SPIs occasionally rely on a "chain" of behavioral evidence linking one suspected sockpuppet to a previous sockpuppet and so on towards an editor that was blocked some time ago, occasionally several years. Do you see SPI based as a binary process or as a spectrum of likelihood with false positives and false negatives? To what extent would your behavioral criteria of tagging a likely sockpuppet become more stringent with the length of the behavioral "chain" or time since last block?
A: There have been a few cases where I had to string together a chain of evidence where there were no overlapping edits or interests between Editor A and B, but editor C made edits that bridged them. It made me feel less confident in my results, and I generally waited to file until I had enough evidence that it was reasonable to request CU. It's frustrating to sit there and observe as you see someone make disruptive edits, but I think you need a degree of patience when dealing with some cases.

I think it becomes likely that you get false positives as time goes on – maybe false negatives, too. There was one interesting case that came up at ANI a while ago, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#David Cossgrove. It was murky, and some of the drama took a bit of digging to uncover. Basically, an incompetent editor was getting into trouble with copyright, but I found a chain of confessions that admitted sock puppetry going back a few usernames. The main complaint, however, was that the initial account was blocked unfairly by a CU. So, you had one block of usernames who were admitted socks, and they indignantly professed their innocence of the second block of usernames, which a CU had connected. I more-or-less believed him, but that left the incompetence and subsequent socking (his claim was basically, "I was unfairly blocked by a CU, so my socking is justified"). In cases like that, I usually try to make contact with the user, and it looks like I did: User talk:115.188.63.11#Sockpuppet investigation. It didn't work out. I don't really know what I could have done beyond that, but I would have liked to have found a way to help this user rejoin the community.

In my experience, blocks have traditionally varied based on the severity and likelihood of socking, and I think this is reasonable. There are a couple wikignomes that I chase around Wikipedia. They're annoying, they honestly think they're improving the encyclopedia, and they'll probably continue to sock indefinitely. Some of them got harsher blocks than I would given them, but it's a constant stream of low-level disruption/incompetence from them. If the disruption stopped, I would stop reporting them to SPI.

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 as nominator. Sam Walton (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support- excellent candidate. Reyk YO! 16:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support - another great candidate with both content creation experience and a clear need for the tools! I'm always very excited to see editors who have a clear track record of helping our newer members -- samtar talk or stalk 16:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support WP:YAPITWAA (yet anoter person I thought was an administror). Many positive interactions and observations.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Good candidate. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support without hesitation. I've run into this editor many times, in particular in their work tracking LTA cases, and found them to be thoughtful, helpful, and resourceful. All the qualities one would want in an admin. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support. A great candidate with a great resume, will make a great admin. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support. I've seen this name around. Candidate has a clear understanding of policies and community. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support NinjaRobotPirate has a fantastic resume and I am persuaded that he would be a net-positive with the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Ninja was one of the editors who helped me in my first few articles. If I had known he was standing, would have rushed to nominate him. One of the absolutely committed editors here, and one whose assistance I will never forget. This is not a quid pro quo for that help you gave to me Ninja. This is a quid pro quo for all the assistance you give to editors all around Wikipedia. It's great to know you'll be the first administrator of the new year. Wishes for the new year and lots of love. Lourdes 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support per WP:NETPOSITIVE. As far as any "need" for adminship goes, no particular individual needs adminship, but Wikipedia needs admins. Linguist Moi? Moi. 17:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support – The objection based on lack of a "clear need" is unconvincing—it has been the view recently (not sure what the numbers are exactly) that more administrators are leaving the project than getting the tools, so it may be the case that Wikipedia needs more qualified candidates than the candidates themselves absolutely need the tools (and that's not to say the Ninja doesn't need the tools!). Ninja is a regular at AfD, and he has had an excellent, excellent track record there—I have always appreciated the insight he brings. AfD and the deletion process in general could definitely use more administrators to help with the chronic backlog. Ninja's temperament and friendly nature—especially when dealing with newcomers, whether it's on his talk page, the Teahouse, or anywhere else on Wikipedia—should serve as a model for all of our users to come. Overall, this is a fully qualified candidate and there is no evidence at this time to suggest that he will be anything but a net positive to the project with a little more buttons at his disposal. Mz7 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support One of those that I thought already had it, always been a positive editor when I've bumped into him. -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. The candidate's comments at AfD are invariably well-reasoned and supported by relevant policies and guidelines (see [1], [2]). I have every reason to believe he'll display that same level of diligence in his admin work. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support Digging into the candidate's contributions, I see high activity and participation, responsiveness on talk pages, civility with new and existing editors, and positive involvement in important administrative functions (e.g., AN/I, AIV, and RS/N). I am especially impressed by their initiative in tracking long-term vandals, like the animation and martial arts vandals. This is exactly the type of editor that could put the mop to good use. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support as a net positive for the encyclopedia. After digging into the contributions, participation levels and the user talk page, it is evident that this editor would be an asset to have as an admin. -- Dane talk 17:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Good attitude. Good knowledge of policy. Solid content creation. An excellent candidate. Cbl62 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support. Fully qualified candidate. (The complex username will raise issues of categorization for purposes of this page, but I'm sure a resolution can be found.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support -Great Candidate, no issues whatsoever. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 18:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support net positive candidate. Would make good use of the mop. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support I've had positive interactions with NRP before and think he has the right temperament for an admin. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support - hardworking, knows and applies policy, creates content. Will do fine. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support - No brainer! NRP is a superbly knowledgeable editor, is friendly, communicative, patient and helpful. Absolutely the kind of person we want in an admin. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support - Yup. While I don't always agree with NRP, I agree with the vast majority of opinions expressed above: from willingness and temperament, to article creation and knowledge. Overall net positive. Onel5969 TT me 19:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support (edit conflict) Experienced candidate, no outstanding issues. Joshualouie711talk 19:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Really liked answer to question 4. Full RuneSpeak, child of Guthix 19:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support -- A lot of focus on content creation; civility; no red flags or nonsense that I can see. Regarding the concerns about the need for the bit: a specific need has clearly been expressed. I don't see that a candidate should make a grand up front pronouncement that they'll participate in every facet of the admin role in all its "subtlety". That "final click" is pretty important. That's the difference between things getting done and not. Put from another perspective, that's the difference between a regular edit and one stuck in pending-changes, that final click that actually does something. Maybe he'll grow into other areas later on. Maybe he won't. And that will be just fine, either way. Overall, I've a good feeling about this one. Net positive and all that. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support - Should be fine. I just have one very important question: is NinjaRobotPirate half ninja and half robot-pirate, or half ninja-robot and half pirate? Kurtis (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was under the impression he is an equal mix of all three: a robotic piratical ninja. Mz7 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So he's half ninja, half robot, and half pirate? In that case, I support him 150%! Kurtis (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Absofuckinglutely. Yet another case of "thought he was already". —ATS 🖖 talk 20:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support – Looks like a perfectly qualified candidate to me. Users who become admins don't necessarily have to drop everything and take up janitorial duties full time. Rather, they can continue their editing habits and help out here and there or just with things pertaining to their certain area of editing. United States Man (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support In my dealings with NRP and in those I have observed with others I have found this editor to knowledgeable and cooperative. The mop and pail will increase NRP's usefulness to the project. tell us how you really feel ATS :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    —ATS 🖖 talk 21:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support. Easy decision - he has a good head on his shoulders and will make use of the tools. Daß Wölf 21:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support . I have never come across NRP which can also be as positive as as a user who is seen everywhere all the time. NRJ just gets on with the job of providing content and cleaning up the mess left by others, and would have had countless occasions to use the admin tools if he had them, particularly in the clearly described areas in his answer to Q1. With 355 votes at AfD at an extraordinary accuracy of 93.7%, NRJ demonstrates perfect confidence to be closing them as an admin, and these are not a hat collector's ‘go-with-the-flow’ votes. Polite and friendly discourse on their talk page which also demonstrates an in-depth knowledge of MoS, policies, and guidelines and enthusiasm to help others. We need more candidates like NRJ. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just a minor note that the AfD tool defaults to analysing a user's last 500 AfD edits, of which ~350 of NRP's could be discerned to be a vote. Per the "Vote totals" section of the tool, he's actually edited 2327 AfDs, meaning significantly more votes (probably more like ~1500!). This is something I only realised recently, and just thought I'd clarify. Sam Walton (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support: No reason not to support and he's ready for the admin tools. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 21:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support - Seems more than qualified. No concerns here.- MrX 21:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support - I wondered where I had seen NRP around as the name looked familiar, and it turns out it's because I've seen him banging a few heads together at ANI to make the atmosphere more civil and collegiate. Combine that with the article work and great AfD score, and I think this one's a no-brainer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support - good candidate, no skeletons in the closet. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 22:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support - I believe NRP and I have butted heads in the past, perhaps more than once, but there's nothing I can see in my examination that would prevent me from supporting their RfA. My sincere wish of good luck to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support, with the cliche'd "editor I thought was already an admin" thing. I've never seen a single case where NRP's contributions were not helpful (which is not to say that there aren't, I just haven't seen them if there are). ansh666 22:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support Maddeningly civil and thorough. I wish I could be that calm sometimes. Excellent candidate. :-) Katietalk 22:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support Excellent all-rounder, with a good skill-set ranging from a firm grasp of policies and guidelines to a friendly, approachable nature who displays emotional intelligence. All the requirements of a good admin. Good luck NRP Irondome (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support haven't interacted with NRP all that much, but I have seen them around and been impressed by their work. Also, Damn, Samwalton9. Back at it again with nominations. (sorry). Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support, another excellent "you mean he/she's not already?" candidate. --Drmargi (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support per Irondome. I have no issue with the candidate !voting delete on a single list. Joshualouie711talk 00:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You already got a support in. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 03:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My mistake; my apologies. Did not realize that I had already !voted. Joshualouie711talk 20:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Absolutely no qualms. — foxj 00:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support - Fantastic editor, a WP:NETPOSITIVE. J947 01:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support - Solid editor deserves a solid !support. Enjoy the mop! GABgab 01:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support another net positive admin candidate. Ostrichyearning (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support as an excellent candidate. Content creation and AfD look really good. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. support to nomination, good editor.Kayser Ahmad (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support, very strong candidate. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support - looks like a good candidate, with enough experience and a clear use for the bit. The Andrew D. oppose du jour is unconvincing as usual. People can have whatever opinion they want on deletion requests - it doesn't mean that they will go rampant deleting articles when they become an admin. Looking over the candidate's speedy deletion tagging, it doesn't look like there are an abnormal number of declined requests, so I'd say that they can be trusted to not delete the encyclopedia while nobody is looking. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support clueful and helpful, good content creation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support - unmoved by any issues. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 03:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support per nom and answers to questions. Seems like a great candidate for admin. ~Awilley (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support Qualified and experienced editor with no apparent red flags. The deletionism doesn't strike me as problematic (and I consider myself an inclusionist). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support Solid editor that cares about the project. --Frmorrison (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Absolutely. I've multiple interactions with this editor, and I believe they have the necessary experience in several important areas (such as dealing with sockers). We could also use more Admins with backgrounds in WP:FILM an WP:FILMBIO. So, definitely, yes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support Clueful, competent, good candidate. I assume question #7 and oppose #1 are in some kind of surrealism competition. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support unquestionably a net positive to Wikipedia. I've seen so much good from this user that it really surprises me he isn't already an admin. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support - Easily. Falls under "wait, you're not already...?". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support Nothing concerns me. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 06:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support - absolutely, trustworthy and experienced - 'about time'! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support - I've worked with the editor in the past, and those past interactions lead me to believe that he'd be an excellent Admin. Sergecross73 msg me 06:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support My questions have been answered. 5: Their first edit created their userpage and their second edit mentions NPOV in the editsummary; many new accounts discover our policies much later (usually because others (have to) point them out). 6: I work in IT, pretty much everyone who is better at my job than I am is on the spectrum. There is currently only one oppose vote, and (like others have pointed out) it is silly. I am satisfied with the answers, so I support but in case of an AI takeover I will demand a desysop!. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support candidate more than meets my RFA standards and I am wholly unmoved by the rationales provided in the oppose section. Mkdwtalk 07:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support - Yet another exceptionally clueful editor with whom I've never interacted. Digging a bit, I find nary a red flag, only even temperament and patience. And then there are the obscure horror movies—a thankless topic area if ever there was one. RivertorchFIREWATER 07:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support - I have seeen NinjaRobotPirate (I wonder how he came up with this username) numerous times (mostly at AfD) and I trust his judgment. Yash! 08:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support. Trustworthy, clueful editor with a good attitude. Will make a great admin. -- Ϫ 09:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support Good content creator (Cult film is a lovely bit of work); avid mop-swinger; clearly knows where his towel is. Best of luck! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support -- No cause for concern. -- Shudde talk 10:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support Looks good and the perfect response to Andrew D's oppose only strengthens the case. --regentspark (comment) 14:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support I cant find any reason not to. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support: Does tend to be a bit of a deletionist but is overall a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support - Great work, Orphan Wiki 15:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support. I don't see any reason not to. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support No issues. Jianhui67 T★C 16:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support - great record and no concerns. 250 articles created is outstanding! YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 16:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 17:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support. After reading his user page I say he has done some good. User:AWMSSilent 10:59 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  85. Support No issues suggesting I should vote otherwise. Rcsprinter123 (spout) 17:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support Trusted, dedicated, clueful. I've always liked what I've seen, and I find no issues of any significance that would cause me to oppose. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support No reason to not trust with the tools.--MONGO 17:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support. Very easy one, in accordance with all the good things already covered above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support Very good content, pleasant to newbies and expert at spotting hoaxes that are far from obvious Atlantic306 (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support Looks like a solid contributor whose record checks all the boxes on my what I look for list. No evidence of any red flags. The sole oppose is unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support I would have done so anyway but the answers above are exceptionally thoughtful. Nicely done. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support Seems like a very good candidate. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support tip-top candidate DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support From everything I've seen both on this page and from my numerous interactions with him (mostly on article talk pages), he seems trustworthy & experienced enough for the mop. Everymorning (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support Upon review of the editor and his past behavior I conclude that it is very unlikely he will do any harm with the additional tools and rights. I therefore support him simply per WP:NETPOSITIVE. Dead Mary (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Absolutely - I honestly thought they were already an admin!, Excellent candidate, I see no issues nor do I see any valid reasons to oppose, Easy support. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support to negate Colonel Warden's continuation of opposing good candidates who will be a net positive to the project, and because there's no reason to think this editor won't be anything other than helpful to the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support would make a fine admin. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support per answers to my questions and generally good record. Knows what he's doing in the SPI topic area and we badly need admin patrollers there. "I don't know" for 11 and 12 of my second question is perfectly fine. We don't know everything, and it's good to recognize that and seek help when necessary. That's perhaps the most important quality in an admin, actually, so I'm happy to see it. NinjaRobotPirate The "correct" answer to 11 and 12 is that merging cases is an SPI clerk action. Sometimes, non-admin SPI clerks will mark those requests as admin attention requested, but you should leave it to an admin clerk. It's listed as a clerk action at WP:SPI/C buried in one of the bullet points on their responsibilities. ~ Rob13Talk 23:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support: no concerns. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 23:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support No concerns, seen his work a lot over the years at AfD. --joe deckertalk 01:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support Babymissfortune 02:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Long time, handful of mainspace edits, thoughtful, AfD and LTA work efficient, and direct--to name a few. --JustBerry (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support—good communication skills as shown by answers to questions here, talk pages, and other discussions. Willing to take on tedious tasks. Shows evidence of a sense of humor. Give this candidate a roomba! — Neonorange (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support A strong candidate with experience in several different areas. Kosack (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support A bit too deletionist for my taste but there is nothing in the contributions I reviewed that makes me think they will let this interfere with their work as an admin. I do counsel restraint when it comes to deletions though, especially CSD where I didn't see too much work and some incorrect taggings imho (even if they were deleted). Regards SoWhy 15:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support - excellent work on articles, especially games and films. A tad "deletionist" at AfD for my tastes, but not a big issue. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support excellent candidate. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support. Even the oppose section just seems to be generating examples of contributions I find well-researched, faithful to policy and congenial to boot. I suppose the possibility of bot/Robot confusion is not completely implausible, but mostly that issue gives me a fresh appreciation for the concept of WP:NETPOSITIVE. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support, I was impressed by the quality of the answers and by the examples of both the nominator and the candidate. I'm sure this user will be an admin we can all be proud of. Icebob99 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support. Having seen NPR around for a bit, and having chanced upon a few of their contributions to community discussions just recently, my impression is that they generally have an astute reading of policy and community consensus. Having now done a little extra research for the purpose of this RfA, I also get the impression of an even-keeled editorial philosophy that puts an emphasis on neutrality, the consensus process, and pragmatic strategies for keeping oneself uninvolved in the content they are commenting upon. On the balance, I feel I can easily support this candidate. Snow let's rap 00:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support. Has demonstrated knowledge of policies. Experience in several administrative areas. Great content contributor. Good answers. Good communicator. Willing to acknowledge a mistake or the need to get help. Administrators who can work on the problem of socks are always needed and candidate is experienced there. Glad to support. Donner60 (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support. A great track record, no concerns. Fences&Windows 01:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support: All signs are that NinjaRobotPirate is a fine editor and will make a good administrator.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support excellent editor who will be an excellent admin. Gizza (t)(c) 04:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. I've observed NinjaRobotPirate editing Wikipedia more than enough to apportion my full support; without reservation.--John Cline (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support - no concerns. Best of luck! Patient Zerotalk 11:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support as candidate appears sufficiently experienced in the areas he wishes to do administrator work in. The fact that he has saved articles from deletion through improvement in my opinion suggests that he is not a deletionist to the extent where this would be a problem. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support. Can't find even the slightest reason to oppose, everything's looking good to me. Fine editor, go for it. One minor remark about the username, though. It does sound a bit, dare I say it, childish. Wouldn't be surprised if some editors will find it difficult to take an admin with that name seriously. Yintan (aka UberCyberMasterHero2017)   13:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support. Based on the responses he's given above, he should be a welcome addition to the admin corps. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 17:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support. NinjaRobotPirate has added significantly to Wikipedia through their high-quality edits and their thoughtful and well-mannered contributions to discussions. I have no doubt that they will use the admin tools sensibly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support. Looks good overall. VegaDark (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support - meets all reasonable expectations. Risker (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support No concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support per noms - no red flags for me. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Support. Seems highly qualified, and his answers to questions are fine. The qualms about his user name are silly. Coretheapple (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support well deserving. st170e 21:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support I see no issues with this one Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've already !voted (#65). So I've struck this one as a duplicate. --Majora (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support no concerns on my end. Bradv 23:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support If the worst things that can be said about this candidate are what the two oppose comments say, then this is clearly a very good future administrator. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support—good knowledge of policies and guidelines, and good answers to the questions. —MartinZ02 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support No issues. Vanamonde (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support - clueful, insightful and civil, a very good mix for a mop-wielder. As I recall, my first interaction with NinjaRobotPirate was in a 2013 POV dispute at ANI that I inadvertently waded into and accused NRP of acting in bad faith against another editor. I was quite wrong, probably sanctionably so (he wasn't even involved before I called him out) but NRP's reply was both polite and to the point: he made sure I knew I was incorrect but didn't try to make me feel unnecessarily bad about it (although I still feel bad about it three years later). I was impressed, and I've continued to be impressed every time I've come across him on the project. Can honestly say I have no concerns at all, except that I wonder what took you so long. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support - I liked his answers. He's knowledgeable and confident but cautious. Atsme📞📧 17:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support. Has always struck me as sensible. I recognise the name from AIV, where he has a good track record as far as I've seen. Take things cautiously and you'll be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support because Wikipedia needs more administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 20:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support. Per similar comments by other editors, I think that NRP is a very reasonable, experienced and clueful editor. Dr. K. 20:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support, looks great. Nsk92 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support - No concerns.--Catlemur (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. The more admins around, the less of a 'special status' it'll seem.--v/r - TP 23:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Per everything above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support. I'm late to the party, and at this point I can't really add anything that hasn't already been said, but this is someone who should be an excellent administrator, and for me it's an easy support. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support of a fine candidate; I'm happy to pile on. Miniapolis 00:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support — MusikAnimal talk 01:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Wizardman 02:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support It's been said already, but NRP would make for an outstanding admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support Can be trusted with advanced features. — Music1201 talk 02:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support, good candidate. SarahSV (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support Always very helpful, great candidate. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 04:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support great candidate DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indenting as DarjeelingTea has already voted support #93 above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    MSGJ - thanks, I thought this RfA looked familiar! Sorry, everyone (struck vote) - DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support In answer to Q13 User:NRP states, "I'm uninterested in further drama." My hope is he will be true to his word. Buster Seven Talk 05:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support EvergreenFir (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support - no good reason to oppose. Even if someone mistakes NinjaRobotPirate as a bot (unlikely in my opinion), a visit to his or her talk page will quickly clear that up. Banedon (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support. - TheMagnificentist 10:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support. Good candidate - good luck! :) — sparklism hey! 11:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support. I appreciate the way NinjaRobotPirate explains his well-considered views on policy in a clear, jargon-free style. Mduvekot (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support as my default stance since I see no reason to oppose. Steel1943 (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support; no concerns. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
    to reply to me     15:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support - great candidate. The username-might-be-mistaken-for-a-bot argument seems pretty silly to me. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Support Seen around, has clue. Widr (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Support - Well rounded, experienced, good attitude. No complaints here. TimothyJosephWood 18:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support - not worried about the bot name. content creation is a big help in swaying me here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Support as a net positive. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support I liked what I read in the nomination and the answers to the questions. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support Good answers, good contributions. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support - NRP is a damn good editor and one that will wield the tools wisely. He can most certainly be trusted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support No issues to note here, and this user is clearly a WP:NETPOSITIVE. Nothing convincing in the oppose section either. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support. I love the clear exposition, obvious good judgment, and the reserve. SPI is often murky; it is not just rounding up the usual suspects. Glrx (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. At this point, I'm piling on, but Ninja seems to be a good editor from my observations of him. epicgenius (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. Support. No obvious problems, very good answer to my question. Deryck C. 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support. Great candidate, no problems to be seen here. Beep boop yarr. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. Support Has been active in AFD, where we sometimes disagreed, but his arguments were well reasoned and never left a bitter aftertaste. I note that in one aFD he was for deleting, but still researched and listed the articles he found which mentioned the subject, but found they were inadequate. The candidate's contributions in improving the encyclopedia are impressive. Well rounded, and experienced, with temperament to disagree without being disagreeable. Edison (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Support. Solid candidate, no issues. Honestly I'm only piling onto this one in the hopes that we break 200. agtx 18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Support. No problems here! An excellent candidate for adminship. JayJayWhat did I do? 18:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  179. Support Solid editor, no red flags for me. The Interior (Talk) 20:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  180. Support - Adequate tenure, clean block log, no indications of assholery, no concerns. Carrite (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  181. Support Excellent candidate, Clear net positive, no concerns. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  182. Support. Seems like a net positive. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  183. Support I finally read through all the questions and answers, and I'm convinced that NRP is worthy of the mop. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  184. Support. Appears to be well respected user with no problems. A net positive. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  185. Support Looks fine to me.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Too deletionist. As a topical example, consider List of films relating to Christmas which the candidate helped to delete. This was a spinoff from List of theatrical Christmas films and the consequence is that we don't now have a Christmas list with It's a Wonderful Life in. That's the damage that such casual deletionism does. Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. Linguist Moi? Moi. 18:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose. If the nomination were approved, the presence of "Robot" in the user's name will confuse those affected by the new administrator's actions. I am not familiar with the user and have no opinion on his/her suitability, beyond the name issue. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Boldly striking this vote. Candidate's username cannot be an issue; if that was the case, they would have probably been blocked in their early time. Linguist Moi? Moi. 23:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unstruck - see below. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Presumably this refers to WP:MISLEADNAME: Usernames which could be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" (which is used to identify bot accounts) or a "script" (which alludes to automated editing processes), unless the account is of that type. I can't say I would be confused by this... "robot" is not the same as "bot". And more to the point, I don't think it's a good reason to oppose. If the username is not permitted and is misleading then it should be changed regardless of whether the user gains the bit or not. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict) I am sure this is a good-faith concern but I don't think it's realistically a worry. The convention is that usernames ending in "-bot" signify bot accounts and are reserved for those accounts, to prevent confusion. The full word "Robot" is not used on Wikipedia to refer to bots and certainly not when followed by "Pirate," so that I would estimate the likelihood of the feared confusion as somewhere between minimal and non-existent. More flippantly, I think the odds of NinjaRobotPirate's being mistaken for a bot are about the same as those of, say, TigerShark's being feared as a doubly dangerous predator, or NuclearWarfare as a threat to annihilate the wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I remember getting oppose votes during my RfA for potentially intimidating new users with my old signature. NW (Talk) 21:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the consensus is to not strike votes simply because they are nonsensical. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_244#Striking_.21votes. A Bureaucrat can strike it if it's truly necessary. —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment - I don't think it's appropriate to strike out their vote because you dislike their opinion. Regardless whether their opinion is wrong or right, striking it out is a sign of disrespect. Also, Linguist111 said usernames can never be an issue. I disagree completely. Admins are humans and humans make mistakes so that totally contradicts Linguist111's statement. - TheMagnificentist 09:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, admins are human and do make mistakes. I'm struggling to see how that totally contradicts Linguist111's statement. Lepricavark (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Linguist111 said usernames can never be an issue, implying that the admins are perfect and would never make mistakes such as to ignore faulty usernames. - TheMagnificentist 19:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've unstruck the !vote in the spirit of the "R" in BRD - I share the general disagreement with the premise of the oppose, but it appears to have been made in good faith and the bureaucrats will give it appropriate weight at the close. I do acknowledge the general concern that spurious "oppose" votes are what makes RfA's unpleasant, but contend that this would apply to obvious trolling and not to what may be a genuine (if not widely held) opinion from a long-term editor. There is also a solid consensus in the discussion linked by MartinZ02 to leave !votes like this unstruck. In passing, the revert is no reflection on the original good-faith striking either. Happy to discuss. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think it's appropriate to strike out their vote because you dislike their opinion. - That wasn't the reason I struck it. I struck it because the reason was completely invalid. No offence to the voter, but if the username was an issue, NinjaRobotPirate would have been blocked in their early days or asked to change their username. When you oppose in an RfA, it's important that you cite a concern you have about the candidate's conduct or contributions, such as a history of vandalism or socking, a recent long-term break, a seeming lack of understanding of policies etc. Linguist Moi? Moi. 12:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Striking wasn't indicated here. Without specific comment on the candidate or their username, usernames of administrators and other advanced right holders (including, ironically, bots, cf. Smackbot → Helpful Pixie Bot) are often subject to more scrutiny than those without advanced rights. For a previous discussion on established users with the string 'bot' in their name, see Special:Permalink/440621913#I Jethrobot. For an RFA with a similar concern, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xenocidic.–xenotalk 15:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "That wasn't the reason I struck it. I struck it because the reason was completely invalid." – Linguist111. The reason you struck it was because, in your opinion, the reason was completely invalid. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This !vote did not warrant being stricken, but the editor who cast it might be interested in reviewing the feedback it has received, which might help address his concern. Therefore, pinging Jc3s5h so he can take another look if he cares to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm inclined to think that users who are the subject of administrative actions are often new users, who have not had time to pick up on the distinction between "bot" and "Robot". Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I asked question 13, which showed some past contention with this candidate.  I've been sitting on the fence here, partly because I've found the candidate's AfD work is above average.  Today I began working through the candidate's AfD noms starting in 2015, and found those in 2015 all reported evidence of checking Google; with one major exception, WP:Articles_for_deletion/PNGOUT.  None of the possible reasons for this nomination are acceptable: an attempt to delete this article as retaliation for being reverted, a newbie knowledge of the role of AfD, or a stealth-IAR use of AfD outside of WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT.  I felt that the quality of AfD noms dropped off some starting a couple of months into 2016, so perhaps the candidate will be encouraged to return to the normal level of 2015.

    The question I asked in this RfA was not meant to hide some contention between myself and the candidate, but it was also not worded to suggest a need for discussion of what was behind the question.  Sometimes, people ask questions to get answers...I had hoped to see the candidate showing the ability to view a situation, one in which the candidate had personal knowledge, from multiple viewpoints: keep, delete, and admin.  This ability to see multiple viewpoints simultaneously seems to be an area in which the candidate needs work. 

    As for the contention, I'm seeing something I respect in the candidate, which is support for community standards.  I hope that this support will grow for WP:N itself. 

    All-in-all, I'd say that this is too soon.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I find the answer to Q1 rather weak; as it stands right now, too weak in fact. This is the question which presents the opportunity to grandly lay out a stall, and present a clear need for the tools. This answer does not (yet) do this. Atm, it is some (if I may say, rather vague) promises to continue doing what they already do- and what most editors do- and, short of that final mouse-click, what most editors would do instinctively. I am not completely convinced of a clear need for the tools as yet, and, concomitantly, I see nothing in this reply that indicates an understanding of the greater nuances of the administrator role. Still, on a lighter note, I am willing to be convinced. Cheers, and good luck NinjaRobotPirate. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hey FIM, hope you're doing well. I feel somewhat obliged to reply here as I mentioned the candidate had a clear need in my support rationale. I believe NRP has shown this need through their mention of SPI and `sock blocking` - they are rather active at SPI and hopefully their answer to question four will bolster my statement. I admit more could have been mentioned in that answer, but for me it's enough to say "yup, they know what they want to do and it's something which needs doing" -- samtar talk or stalk 17:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fortuna, NRP does not need to demonstrate a need for the tools. Anyone who has an edit history like theirs will already have come across countless occasions where the admin tool set would have been useful. Basing a vague neutral vote (tht clearly leans towards 'oppose') simply on what is in fact a detailed and perfectly innocuous answer to one of the set questions without doing any in depth research neither bodes well for the candidate nor for RfA as a process which requires a pragmatic approach. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Kudpung: You've been around a while; I thank you for your input. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 21:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
I am no expert, but as far as I know we are allowed to ask, and they are allowed to ignore questions. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By digging up 10 year old diffs, The Quixotic Potato's participation in this RfA gives me pause. Candidates are not under any obligation to answer any user questions and IMO these are of the kind that could safely be ignored. As part of an extensive study into analysing the negative environment at RfA, a detailed, in-depth research was made into the questions feature of RfA at Question profiles and the discussion on the associated talk page. The comprehensive data may now be considered by some to be old but it is certainly not outdated - since then, there have been many more examples of silly, inappropriate, and/or disingenuous questions of the type in the long list linked to by the research. The entire 'optional' user question system is a feature of RfA that should come under serious review if we expect to attract more candidates of the right calibre. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once people realize that they would like to become an admin they change their behaviour, because the stakes become higher. They act more socially acceptable. If you really want to learn what someone is like you have to look at how they treat more vulnerable people in situations where they feel they can do what they want without consequences. I have looked at the earliest contributions of every single candidate I voted on. This is actually a well-known lifehack, see for example here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense in some other contexts, but do you think this candidate has really been planning his RfA, and tailoring his behavior accordingly, for eight or ten years? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I do not, that is why this technique is effective. Google: "how you treat servers reveals your personality" for many more pages that describe this lifehack. Of course servers in restaurants depend on tips in many cases, and they aren't always able to express their true feelings about a customer for fear of losing their job/tip. Many people treat them quite badly. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure unearthing the "true feelings" and inner turmoils of RfA candidates falls within the purview of the process. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "true feelings" quote is about the servers, they usually aren't able to deal with a rude customer the way they would if they were unemployed or multimillionaires. In some places the servers have to rely on tips to pay their bills, and the job market for servers in restaurants isn't very fun (if what people tell me is true, I have no experience being a server in a restaurant but I know a handful). There are many similar lifehacks, for example this quote: "Before you marry a person you should first make them use a computer with slow internet to see who they really are". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that you use the word "lifehack" in a serious, non-ironic sense tells me all I need to know - this entire mess can be safely ignored. ansh666 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not a native speaker. On the internet, where I live, people call those things lifehacks. I agree that the word lifehack is silly, but I am not sure what the alternatives are. If you have an alternative term that conveys the same meaning then I would like to hear it. There are words that are far worse than lifehack, like "pro-life" (which means "anti-abortion"). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are starting to get rather far afield from the topic. Please don't drag polarizing political issues into this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Quixotic Potato: I think you're bringing this discussion rather off-topic. The original comment dealt with probing into the candidate's previous possible IP or alternate account editing history, not the abortion controversy and the meaning of "lifehack". There is no need to forumize this RfA. Joshualouie711talk 00:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please re-read the above. Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My fault, sorry. ansh666 03:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Rfa question stalker) I think I should point out that none of the diffs here are younger than 3 years old, with most being over 5, also I'm personally puzzled how on earth any answer to this is going to help me decide which way to vote. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved your comment here to the appropriate section, the question has been answered above. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Quixotic Potato, As many people run successfully for adminship after only 12 or 15 months (quite recently too), any history much older than that, unless totally full of egregious incidents and sanctions, is (for me at any rate) of little consequence. Not for the first time does your participation at RfA give me pause. BTW, can you also explain why you needed to make 41 edits to this RfA (36.94% of the total edits made to the page) ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quote from the vote counter: This user's vote matched the end result of the RfA 14 times, or 100.0% of the time. I hope that some day I will learn to post a comment in a single edit. I often spend a lot of time trying to improve my own comments, and usually I find that there are many ways to improve what I initially wrote. English isn't my native language, and for example the word order is different in some cases. I strongly dislike typos, and I have fixed thousands of them, but sometimes I am clumsy and make them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? The discussion is honestly just too long and was clogging the page. Anyone willing to reply can just click on the link. Linguist Moi? Moi. 14:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most people don't read things on the talk page, meaning that people will look at that !vote and take it at 100% face value. Look at the difference in page views between the main page and the talk page. 4,442 views vs. 181 views. That's significant. The talk page template was created boldly a while back, and its contents don't reflect any consensus as far as I'm aware. At first, it was just the occasional off-topic discussion being moved there, and no-one complained. Then people gradually over the past six months or so began moving everything there, and that's getting a little nuts. ~ Rob13Talk 15:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding my two cents that I also felt the move off the main page made community discussion less rather than more convenient (e.g. as I edited the main page to add my support ivote, I found I couldn't see the part of the oppose discussion I'd wanted to reply to because it'd been removed to talk page). I'd additionally add that when there are so few oppose votes, I think it's not great practice to remove the comments of those elaborating the minority view if that can possibly be avoided. Anyway it's clearly a matter of discretion (plus possibly template instructions needing revision) but I'd just underscore Rob's point of hoping folks take note some editors find it more helpful to keep discussion together when possible--if no one's moved a discussion yet, it might not be for lack of initiative but rather be because people are finding it useful to be able to see the entirety in one place. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BU Rob13: Why would people not read the discussion simply because its been moved to the talk page when they can just click on the link to get there? And why would they "[take] that !vote... at 100% face value" if they have chosen to not read the discussion surrounding that !vote? —MartinZ02 (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kudpung and MartinZ02: I can't answer the "why" for you on the subject of whether people click through to a second page, Martin, other than with a vague gesture towards our increasingly "now, now, now" culture. I don't think it's particularly controversial to claim that refuting a point tends to lessen the weight attached to that point by others. That's the whole reason we have discussions rather than pure votes. As for evidence of the "what", I provided the page views as my evidence. As of this posting, the number of views on the main RfA page is 5,133, compared to only 263 views on the talk page. There are about 20 times more views on the RfA page compared to the talk page. That's a huge difference. ~ Rob13Talk 13:36, 2 January 2017 (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