en.m.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nihiltres
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Nihiltres
Final (34/0/1); Ended 21.04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Nihiltres (talk · contribs) - Nihiltres is an experienced Wikipedian, having joined the project in April 2005, and has been very active since October 2006. He is a prolific vandal-fighter and also works extensively with templates. As such, he is an active participant in TfDs, giving him a detailed awareness of the deletion policy. He regularly tags articles for speedy deletion, so he is demonstrably aware of the speedy criteria and would be able to help ease the backlog at CAT:CSD. He also participates actively in RfAs and other community discussions, and understands fully what is expected of an administrator. WaltonNeed some help? 10:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are a number of admin tools which I think I could use. The number one thing I intend to use is the ability to delete articles for speedy deletions. There are constantly files and articles being added to Wikipedia which are inappropriate, obviously non-notable, or even copyrighted. As an administrator, my primary use of "the mop" would be to help scrub out CAT:CSD, if you'll pardon my metaphor - non-admins are able to populate it as I do, but the clearance from there requires an admin. On the other hand, there are a lot of vandal-only accounts, and many of them repeatedly vandalize pages or create inappropriate ones. Indefinitely blocking obvious vandal-only accounts instead of having to report them on WP:AIV would reduce a step from the process I usually have to go through. I might also patrol WP:AIV sometimes instead of merely posting there, although I don't plan to spend the majority of my time there. If neither of these tasks were applicable, there is always some administrative backlog, and I intend to use that. I'm wary of XfD, but I'm confident that the task won't be a problem with careful, case-by-case examination of what, if any, consensus exists and if certain !votes have been placed for inappropriate reasons.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My favourite contribution would have to be the rewriting of the Shade's Children article. Although the article is far from perfect, it's definitely my favourite contribution given that I raised it from a misleading stub to its present state as a B-class article, and that the book ranks among my favourites. Aside from that, I do cleanup here and there across some articles, having lately fixed up the Yellow (disambiguation) page to meet dab page standards, for example. I find those to be my best contributions. In terms of my greatest contributions, however, I think of one main thing: shoveling through tagging CSDs, and warning the users who posted them appropriately. My favourite times among those are the times when a user insists that he can and will improve the article momentarily to reveal its notability: although some are deleted regardless, it is cheering that those users put in the effort, and I try to not bite by removing the speedy templates to give them a chance.
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: Unfortunately, yes, I have had such encounters. Aside from vandals, trolls, and the like, who usually simply vandalize my userpage a few times and are blocked, there are two incidents which stand out to me, and explaining how I dealt with them should give a reasonably clear picture of how I have dealt with conflicts before:
  1. A while ago, I attempted to standardize the spelling variations of two articles, Blue and Black, to a single spelling. Since this is such a contentious issue, users immediately criticized my change. I think some of them may have reverted my changes. This was unfortunately exacerbated in two ways. First by an ambiguous edit summary of mine: I noted that I changed the spellings to the "more common" version, while what I had meant was "the version more prevalent in the article." Secondly, by the fact that both times, I had standardized the article to the British or Commonwealth spelling. After having users question my judgement and assume (reasonably, I'd say, though wrongly) that I was pushing a variety, I explained my actions, and the articles were soon standardized as per guidelines on the matter, which I learned about in the process. I abstained from making such edits for a while, as well, to avoid backlash. It wasn't much of a problem, but it was quite stressful to have my good faith edits questioned as problematic.
  2. Later on, I had a problem with an editor who kept reverting an article to a redirect: the editor was 216.165.158.7​/​DreamGuy​, and the article, for those who are curious, was Photoshop tennis and later also Photoshopping. Although DreamGuy's actions were, in some ways, what eventually was done according to consensus, he repeatedly replaced the articles with redirects [1] [2] against consensus to do so, and was making personal attacks [3] [4][5]. I implored him to discuss his actions [6] and reach a consensus to do something, a suggestion he initially discounted [7] [8]. After a point, I treated the replacements as vandalism, having warned him earlier [9] that his edits against a consensus could be construed that way as per policy definition of vandalism (replacing pages with one's own version against consensus, in this case.) Eventually, and if I remember correctly, for other reasons, the IP was temporarily blocked. This allowed another editor and I to set up a poll for consensus on what to do with the article(s), which eventually reached a consensus to merge things in certain ways. DreamGuy's IP has since been indefinitely blocked, I imagine as the result of an AN/I discussion I saw, because of the disruptive ways in which it was used. I'm not sure about DreamGuy himself.
In the future, I plan to follow the same approach as I have with these: if my actions are questioned, I explain my reasoning and listen for suggestions. If a user is problematic, asking them to be civil is the first approach, after which other, gradually more forceful warnings and then measures are used if the user continues acting inappropriately. All in all, it is, in general, reasonably simple: m:Don't be a dick. If you think that there's something else I should do that's not mentioned here, please tell me - improvement is always good.
Optional question from daveh4h
4. What is your opinion of ignore all rules as a policy? Can you think of a circumstance where it may be appropriate to ignore all rules?
A: The "Ignore all rules" policy is, in my opinion, one that encourages users to solve problems, and not necessarily to break rules. The policy does qualify it: "If the rules prevent you from improving [...]". It's a matter of encouraging users to think outside the box, or for that matter, outside processes which have already been established, in order to solve a problem. For example, although in general disambiguation pages should not have images, WP:MOSDAB says that there are a few cases where having an image or several is helpful, like the example given there: Mississippi Delta (disambiguation). I prefer to follow policies and guidelines whenever possible, since they're built on a great deal of thought that has been given to how things shoud be done appropriately and in a coordinated way. I might ignore a rule to help someone do something unusual, to make sure that the formatting looks good even if it doesn't quite fit with the style guide's idea, to make light of an overly tense discussion to ease the atmosphere (see also {{shrubbery}}, I haven't used it yet but it seems appropriate to mention), or some other situation where, technically, one is breaking the rules, but, practically, is doing a good job. The only time I can think of that I have actually used IAR is on a style issue, where the usual ideal looked awful [10], so I reverted myself [11]. (By the way, I've made a lot of references to disambiguation page procedure. This isn't all I do, if you're wondering - these just happen to make good examples, I find.)
Optional question from DGG
5. As an admin you will have the ability to delete a page in a single step, and not just tag it for confirmation by another admin. When will you use this power, and when will you tag and wait for confirmation? DGG 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
A: On clear cases of nonsense, vandalism, and/or attack pages, or, to a lesser extent, spam and obviously non-notable people, I would delete as a single step. It's sometimes clear just from the title of a page that it qualifies for deletion. One I dealt with recently, where the creator repeatedly removed the speedy tag, was called something along the lines of "Insights gained while under the influence of nitrous oxide". In cases where the subject matter may be notable but I do not know of him, her, or it, I often prefer, even as a non-admin, to tag the page with {{notability}} instead of {{db-bio}}. There are a lot of clear cases where the article just outlines a person, often born in the 1990s, who is still in high school, and who either hasn't done anything notable or only *will*, according to the article, do something notable in the future - a violation of the fact that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. On the other hand, I've seen others where it hasn't been entirely clear, and I have, under those circumstances, given more leeway - especially if the author insists that they are expanding the article and will source it. In a nutshell: I'll delete the obvious cruft immediately - who wouldn't? For others, however, I watch that my deletion/tagging reason isn't just that I don't know about that topic.
General comments
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nihiltres before commenting.
Discussion
Support
  1. Support as nominator. Walton Need some help? 20:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. A quick review of his last couple talk archives showed that he seems to have a grasp on discussing conflicts civilly (there were a few 'hey, why did you tag my article for deletion?' inquiries that he seemed to handle well.) I don't have any recollection of seeing this user flip out and kill people like a ninja (who are mammals, btw) so sure, why not? Looks like a good match. - CHAIRBOY () 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support The user is very experienced and is sane. Therefore, the user can be trusted to not make insane decisions. Teke 20:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. SupportI forsee no problems from this user using the tools. JodyB talk 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Rettetast 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Trust him to remain calm under pressure. the_undertow talk 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. I see lots of patient interaction with other editors, which goes miles in my book. --Spike Wilbury 21:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔTФC) 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - nothing in the quick review of contribs that worries me. Philippe 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - Looks good. VegaDark (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support always civil, shows a clear understanding of policies, and overall a great user. V60 干什么? · VDemolitions 01:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Good candidate with a good nominator. Acalamari 01:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Good Candidate, good nominator and even great answers..Good luck...----Cometstyles 05:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Supadupa support great candidate. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong support - a very good user, seen them around and will do well with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support definitely qualified for adminship. Answers to questions are excellent and user is civil and level-headed. —Anas talk? 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support A great candidate for the mop, your policy knowledge seems excellent and your work with speedy deletions is to excellent, you'd make a great admin, best of luck to you. Regards — The Sunshine Man 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support, Good attitude as far as I've seen. --Quiddity 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support, per all of the above. BoricuaeddieTalkContribsSpread the love! 19:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support: User has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is excellent. Should make a fine administrator. Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Alright. Seems like a nice guy ^_^ Majorly (talk | meet) 00:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support: Nihiltres always wins arguments, unfortunately (for me, that is :-) ). ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Seems like he will make a great admin. daveh4h 01:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support, and I see nothing wrong with the dialogue cited below - seems to be a fairly standard response to me. – Riana 09:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support A nice admin this user will make I think. Captain panda 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support--MONGO 08:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - A good editor who seems to have an excellent grasp of policies, how to apply them, and how to work well with others. Doc Tropics 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - A civil and conscientious user who will I feel use the mop well, given past performance. Orderinchaos 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. No reasons not to. GoodnightmushTalk 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. PeaceNT 16:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Joe I 05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. $upport Dfrg.msc 08:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support per Walton. Sarah 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Neutral for the time being. Could you explain this dialogue? You've been generally civil overall, but the tone of your comments here gave me some pause. The child's claim seemed plausible. I'm not objecting to your deleting the article, and I appreciate your giving a personal rather than a template reply. That said, I do believe it's important to make some allowances in tone when dealing with a child, particularly one who isn't being a vandal and who seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place. It wouldn't have hurt to express just a bit of sympathy for the predicament. This isn't enough to keep you from being an admin, but I would ask you to keep this in mind and do better if this kind of situation should ever come up again. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a fair comment - my tone was somewhat chilly in that dialogue. For all that I can make excuses (Late-night edit for me, tired, had just been fixing vandalism, and other such pitiful defenses), you've got a point. This is something I'll try to address regardless of the outcome of this RfA - compassion is important in all contexts of life. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, User:Phaedriel deleted the article. User:Nihiltres, not at that time being an admin, could not have done so. Though he did tag it.--Anthony.bradbury 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
Last edited on 20 July 2018, at 15:13
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
Desktop
HomeRandomNearbyLog inSettingsDonateAbout WikipediaDisclaimers
WatchEdit