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

Nyttend[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 04:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC) at (39/1/0); Scheduled to end 03:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend (talk · contribs) - Nyttend is a user who has certainly been an asset to wikipedia in his time here. I ran into him originally as we tried to make the List of counties in Ohio an FL. Although the FLC failed, I noticed a strong dedication and effort from him, and from that would think he'd be good as an admin. He's got plenty of edits (28k+), has been very active in article writing, and is a self-proclaimed WikiElf, making him a very well-rounded user. I'd imagine a behind-the-scenes person would make a very competent admin, and my discussions with this user have been very constructive. I don't really see any reason why he would not make a great admin. Wizardman 18:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. Nyttend 20:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an editor focused on place articles, I'm always finding vandalism — both on my watchlist and already there beforehand — and am acutely aware of the problem of vandalism to the project as a whole, and have reported many incidents to AIV and nominated many junk articles on AFD. Aside from vandalism: because everyone lives in some place or another, place articles are always being edited with policy violations of all types; as a result, I've had to familiarise myself with policy in order to assess new edits properly. If I become an admin, I'll be willing to help others, giving advice on policy questions wherever possible. In 14+ months at the project, I've run into many different odd situations, so I've needed to ask many questions of this type and go looking for policy pages many times. From reading other RFAs, I see that some people see editing of policy pages as important, and therefore may look unhappily on my low numbers of edits to such pages (except for AIV and AFV). I acknowledge that I've not been significant in formulating policy; instead, I read what policies have been decided by others and seek to implement them in articles — why do I need to edit a policy if it's already working fine? I'm happy to let others decide matters, and I'll use whatever tools (whether admin tools or simple average editing tools) to make the encyclopedia what those others agree that it should be. Overall, in line with this, I see that there are backlogs on some administrative matters, such as merging articles (as of this writing, well over 100 articles tagged for merger in December 2006), and I expect that my administrative work would include behind-the-scenes matters such as difficult mergers as well as the ever-necessary blocks for vandalism and deletions of worthless pages.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe that my best contributions are (1) pictures, (2) Ohio townships, and (3) county templates. I believe that if something is notable enough to have an article, it could have a picture, and it's quite easy to take pictures of places when I'm there — especially important because there are so few free pictures. Nearly a year ago, I created articles on every township in Ohio (minus perhaps 10% of them, which had already been created), and worked until completing the project in early summer to expand the articles significantly, from a simple "___ Township is one of the [number] townships in ___ County, Ohio, United States" to an informative page of a few thousand kilobytes. I've worked with counties nationwide to place navigational templates for all communities in Hawaii, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, Kansas, Iowa, Ohio, and (most recently) Vermont — since I work primarily with geography, I know that it's quite convenient to be able easily to go from one place article to another nearby place. Of these three types of contributions, the pictures are significant because it's so hard to get such pictures, but the townships I consider most significant because they took the most work.
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: Aside from two long and annoying problems with several sockpuppets some months ago, I've had several problems in recent months, most involving appropriate formatting for articles or appropriate content. Examples that I can think of include Linwood, Kansas in early August, Geneva College in late August, Harrisburg, Ohio in early October, and Tombstone, Arizona just a few days ago. With some of these, I called for a third opinion; others, in which I believed one other party clearly to be in the wrong, I simply waited and reverted over a period of several days. Tombstone is different: two different editors agreed against me, and you can see that I simply gave up — two people aren't a very big consensus, but they're more than one person is :-) I expect to continue this in the future, since I well know that an administrator is obligated to follow consensus and other principles as any other editor is.
4. Optional Question: What do you want Wikipedia to be in the future? Marlith T/C 04:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: As a college student, I so often hear people (including many fellow students, not just professors) criticising Wikipedia for unreliability, despite what's been demonstrated in several studies. As a wiki, it's always going to have some vulnerability to error and vandalism, but I hope to see Wikipedia becoming a site that deserves even better trust than it does today. A big part of this hard process is unreferenced material: I want to see Wikipedia being tougher on unreferenced material than it is currently, either referencing it or removing it. Additionally, I'd like to see improved coverage of some material, especially politicians and other obviously notable people: for example, Kansas has 165 current state legislators, but there are only 36 articles in the legislators categories, whether past or present legislators — not to mention other countries' legislatures, which I'm sure are far worse represented. In short: I hope to see Wikipedia becoming more extensive in its coverage of what's notable and cleaner from what doesn't belong. Nyttend 05:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?
A: There are plenty of things in Wikipedia that I disagree with but don't attempt do anything about, because I don't see it as important enough to do anything about it. If I find it important enough to do something about it (assuming that the block won't expire rather quickly), the proper policy is to consult the first administrator. As with all other policies, I certainly expect to obey it: On my honor I will do my best...to help other editors at all times. I am well aware that wheel warring is a very bad idea :-) Nyttend 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nyttend before commenting.

Note to anyone who wants to ask me a question: On Monday, I've got a college test at 1300 UTC, and there are several small written assignments due before this nomination closes on Wednesday early morning UTC. I'll do my best to answer any more questions, but (1) I don't know how much time I'll have over the weekend, and (2) I'll be in one class or another for a good while on Monday. As I said, I'll do my best to answer all questions, but I won't necessarily be able to reply as soon as preferred. If you want to ensure that I can answer your question thoroughly, please ask it as soon as possible. Nyttend 00:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Test complete, went well. I should have plenty of time to answer questions, so ask away! Nyttend 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom. Wizardman 04:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support no reason not to. Marlith T/C 04:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Excellent, trustworthy and civil user with a good knowledge of policy. --Oxymoron83 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, though I have my apprehensions relating to the shallowness of the editor's contributions. After almost 30,000 contributions, there seems to me to be only a small amount of major contributions and most seem to be small problem fixes rather than large mainspace contributions. I still support as we should be catering to all types and your contributions are consistent and quality, but I still have my reservations about the breadth of input you've given. --lincalinca 05:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support Uhm, the usual "I thought you were one already" deal. Jmlk17 05:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support An excellent user who is an asset to this project. The added tools given to him will only benefit this project further. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - All looks good to me, give 'em the mop! Tiptoety 06:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Unlikely to go nuts :) SQLQuery me! 09:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, yep. Neil ☎ 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Looks all in order. 24,000 edits is very impressive. GlassCobra 12:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support - Although it would be wrong of me to base my support on edit count, 24,000 is impressive. Excellent candidate. Rudget Contributions 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I am always impressed by those into geography (personal bias), but will likely be a good addition to the mop brigade. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Wow. Strong support for this most qualified canddidate I've seen in the months trolling RfA. Over 28,000 edits, 24,000 in mainspace, significant new articles, creation of templates, vandal-fighting scars, you name it. Bearian 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - less than 25,000 article edits, but otherwise ok. Addhoc 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Seems like a very qualified candidate, but does not have enough mainspace edits. Please consider reapplying in a couple of months when you've gotten some encyclopedia-building experience. Sorry! east.718 at 22:04, 11/1/2007
    That is actually a support, evidently ironic humor goes above some people's heads. east.718 at 22:16, 11/1/2007
  17. There is nothing that leads me to believe this user will be abusive, and there have been no major concerns brought up. For that reason I will support. Good luck!--SJP 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Great nom. Phgao 02:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support good 'pedia builder, Ohio and otherwise. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - looks really well qualified to me. Jauerback 14:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Satisfied with answers to questions and I see no evidence tools will be misused.--MONGO 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. OK. - Darwinek 21:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support John254 23:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Great track with over 28000 edits.See no concernsPharaoh of the Wizards 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose for not doing this ages ago :P . This is long overdue- and not only do you have a large edit count- huge edit count- but it's spread across the namespaces, which is great. You're a strong editor- good luck. CattleGirl talk 02:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, she likes guys with big edit counts...Nyttend, you're in! ;) GlassCobra 02:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    bahahahaha! Love the self-admitted inappropriateness, GlassCobra >.< CattleGirl talk 07:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cue "It's not the size of the edit count, but how you use those edits" jokes. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the page for discussing adminship for the Nyttend user. This is not a forum for general discussion about the user. Nyttend 12:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - seems fine to me. I wish you luck and look forward to working with you. - Philippe | Talk 02:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. support Lots of mainspace edits and article work, a good editor. --Hdt83 Chat 05:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per East's clever use of irony. K. Scott Bailey 13:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support impressive record & no concerns. Johnbod 19:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Seems to be doing a good job. Húsönd 02:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I'm not a big fan of edit count, but I really have to go with everyone's opinion. Why didn't Wizardman nominate you earlier?! OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Very hard-working editor; my interactions with him have been entirely positive. Alai 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support An important qualification for an editor is the willingness to do thankless tasks well, which description suits Nyttend to a tee. I watch a lot of obscure place pages and more often than not he will revert vandalism or cruft before I even know it is there. Give him a mop already, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, seems sensible and trustworthy. Tim Vickers 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. El_C 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, too many good reasons too support. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Oppose reasons are inadequate.--Bedivere 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. On review of Nyttend's contrib history, all looks good. WjBscribe 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. I would prefer someone who is somehat more flexible, broadminded, tolerant, and respectful of the opinions of others (particularly my own!  :). On the other hand, if administrator duties would free him up from articles in which I have been interested, that would come as a profound relief!Student7 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In case anyone wonders, my primary interaction with Student7 can be seen on Talk:St. Johnsbury, Vermont. Nyttend 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And a secondary one on Talk:List of sexually active popes#Requst for consensus on re-naming or removing all together. Incredibly we appear to agree on a third totally unrelated to the other two. Student7 01:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is this secondary one that bothers me the most, the first was mainly pedantic. And bureaucrats are supposed to be pedantic. The youth of Wikipedia editors almost guarantees an anti-religious bias among admins elected from that group. I have to live with it, but I don't have to vote for it. Student7 01:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's standing for admin, not bureaucrat.--Bedivere 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[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