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

Nev1[edit]

Final (148/20/4); Closed as successful by Avi (talk) at 16:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC) ; Ended Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:37:10 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Nev1 (talk · contribs) – I've been a member of Wikipedia since October 2006, have made around 30,000 edits, and contributed to several Good and Featured Articles. I'm also an active member of several Wikiprojects. I passed an RfA in 2008 and stood down from the tools in January 2010. The reason for standing again is essentially the same as it was first time round: while I don't intend to be massively active in administrative areas (and still intend to focus on articles) I think an extra pair of hands doing the odd task here and there can be of help. To answer the obvious and inevitable question "why did I relinquish the tools", it was because I wanted some time without the responsibility. As I have been an admin before, there is the uncommon opportunity to review my administrative actions: blocks, protections, and deletions (admins only I'm afraid). I'm not perfect, I wrongly blocked Endrick Shellycoat early on as an admin under the mistaken belief that the account was a sock puppet. Fortunately this was quickly righted. While I was usually cautious with the block button (this was a one off occurrence) the situation taught me that one must be conscientious at all times and not take blocking lightly.

Finally, as an admin who resigned in good standing I have the option to ask a bureaucrat to give me the tools without having to go through another RfA. However, when I was given the tools 2 years ago I had made a little over 6,000 edits; by now, I have made around 30,000. As nearly 80% of my activity has been since I first passed an RfA it would not be honest to claim an extant mandate from two years ago. So have at it. Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[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: Most of my time on Wikipedia is spend dealing with content: adding information and expanding articles. I expect that as before most of my administrative actions would be blocking vandalism only accounts and disruptive IPs, with the occasional deletion or page protection as problems crop up on my watchlist; that's how it was before and it seemed to work fine. For example while I have occasionally participated in AfDs I have no intention of closing one, and I haven't done so before.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm still proud of the work I've done as part of the Greater Manchester Wikiproject. It's somewhat less active than it used to be, but the project's members have helped many editors become familiar with the way Wikipedia works and produces some excellent articles. I've worked on a variety of articles on a range of subjects. Different subjects require different skills, for example settlement articles require a collection of sources and different styles of writing as you have to integrate sections on history and economy into a single article. I'm not sure I could objectively say which contribution is my best as I've enjoyed working on many articles (it's easier to put the effort into something you enjoy), but I suppose it would have to be something like Maiden Castle, Dorset, which was rated as one of the better FAs around by an expert in the field (although I hasten to add the sample size was only 22 out of nearly 3,000 FAs); to have confirmation that something I've worked on is of a good standard is great (although I need to go back and spruce up the prose). This comment was also a reminder that what we're writing has the potential to generate interest in a subject. If someone is more interested in something because of an article I helped write, I'd be very happy. If you want to know more about the articles I contribute to, just check out my user page.
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: If you've edited Wikipedia for nearly four years and not felt even mildly stressed at one time or another you're either very lucky (do yourself a favour and go and buy a lottery ticket) or a saint. At such moments, it's important to remember that we're all here to build the encyclopaedia. With new users, I try to bear in mind that I was pretty clueless when I started and to help people get used to Wikipedia. Here's a recent example where I was explaining to an experienced editor why it can be useful to retain dead links. No one is expected to know everything, so it's important to be patient. Sometimes it's best to walk away from a situation and come back later.
Question from Suomi Finland 2009
4. On DYK, there's a proposed hook about the Seal of the FBI along with a picture of the seal. The FBI wrote to Wikipedia asking them to take it down. Wikipedia refused. Now there is a proposed hook, which is on the main page. Some say that WP has the right to post the picture and will assert that right to the maximum, including putting it on the main page. Some say that WP should not be that assertive and put the seal on the main page. Still others probably think the seal should be removed from WP entirely. What would you decide for the DYK hook? Ask that the hook not be on the main page or something else? Jimbo Wales' talk page has some discussion.
A. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way the hook is phrased (... that the Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation represents the courage, valour, strength, cleanliness, truth, high moral standards and high level of motivation expected of FBI agents?), but the timing of the nomination is awful. Including the image as part of the hook would be out of the question. Wikipedia and its editors should not respond to reasonable requests by what is tantamount to taunting. Until Mike Godwin resolves this situation, it's probably not a good idea to stick the visual equivalent of "fuck you FBI" on the front page. Leaving the hook off altogether might not be a bad idea. While the hook reads ok, I doubt the FBI would be happy about the Wikipedia article, complete with the seal, having increased publicity. The FBI article gets thousands of views everyday, so I'm guessing featuring the seal article on DYK wouldn't cause more than a 20% increase in traffic for the month. It's not a huge amount, but the psychological side of it (what could appear to some as deliberate provocation) cannot be avoided. I think it's a good idea to play it safe and not feature the hook at all. I don't think it compromises rights, it would be a mature approach and demonstrate that Wikipedia is mindful of its responsibilities.
5. What should admins do, if anything, for problematic users that seem to regularly fight with others but at a somewhat low intensity. I came across such user recently but please do not drag out this specific user as I do not want to embarrass anyone. Instead, answer in the hypothetical. Would you just keep a shit list and block them for some other reason? Or counsel them? Or do nothing? Or something else? One admin told me (paraphrasing) not to feel bad because they had problems with that user being abrasive.
A. It's a tricky question, and there's no easy answer. With two otherwise constructive editors clashing swords, it's preferable to counsel each so that neither is lost. It partly depends on the basis of the dispute. If it's content based, it can get messy. You can appeal for the two to avoid each other, but if their areas of interest overlap any agreement reached that way is probably not going to last. If the dispute is a conflict of personalities with disruption solely on talk pages it's a slightly easier issue to resolve and asking them to steer clear of each other might have some success (or an interaction ban in persistent cases). If the behaviour continues, I'd recommend taking the issue to RfC/U, although I don't have a lot of experience in that area. I don't like the concept of having a black mark against your name each time you disagree with someone, but if there's a long-term pattern it needs to be dealt with. RfCs are time consuming and generally undesirable as they can lead to one side feeling persecuted. If one party adopts a siege mentality, the RfC is not going to be useful so tone and approach is important. After that... well that's as far as my experience takes me. I'm reluctant to use the block button except on vandalism and obviously disruptive accounts, so it would be last resort.
Question from Beetstra
6. What are the Local spam blacklist and the Meta spam blacklist, what are they for, and which are the general policies and guidelines that they relate to. How should this functionality be used (also in conjunction with the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and/or XLinkBot)? What do you do when your edit is blocked by a blacklist entry?
A. While I am vaguely aware of spam-blacklists, it is in the same way that most drivers are vaguely aware that their car runs on internal combustion. I don't understand the mechanics of the spam-list and so have no business messing about with them. I believe that if an edit is blocked as a result of a website being on the blacklist you can ask for an exemption for that article. If that happened to me, I'd first try to find an alternative link, something which contains the same information but isn't blocked. If that's unsuccessful, I'd find out which list is causing the problem and the ask one of the people who've edited it for help, assuming I thought the link was worth including. Equally, if I came across a website that was being spammed and thought it imperative to put a stop to it, I'd probably pester the same people.
I am happy with the care you express when you would encounter a situation in this area (everyone has their own specialisms), although I think it is a pity that you're not considering to take the black and whitelists as part of the admin tasks you plan to participate in (as far as I can see, you've never edited there, but I agree, it is a choice, there are also areas where I hardly help). However, you say 'I am vaguely aware ...' .. the admin bit comes with the ability to edit the MediaWiki namespace (where, amongst others, the black and whitelists are located), just as blocking, protecting pages and deleting. To make the question a bit broader, do you think that admins should have knowledge of the full scope of their capabilities, even if they do not plan to use all of it (after all, some of the capabilities located in that namespace enable you to help keeping up our core policies)?
Just as important as being aware of the abilities that come with the tools is knowing your own limitations. An exhaustive knowledge is desirable, but not essential. Having knowledge of how to use some rather than all of the tools is not a problem as long as you're sensible and don't mess around with those you don't understand.

Additional (optional) questions from Toddst1:

7. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?
A: I'll start by saying that I think such incidents should be reported. I've notice this crop up at ANI from time to time, and there doesn't appear to be a policy with how to deal with these situations (Wikipedia:Threats of violence failed to gain consensus and Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is an essay). Some of the objections I've seen are that it wastes police time as the person is probably not serious, but the other side is the police would rather know about it in case it turned out to be serious. Deciding what is and is not an empty threat is not easy. Both threats of self-harm and harming others are serious, and it would be best to err on the side of caution.
8. What question did were you not asked that you would like to answer?
A: As John's asking about WP:CIVIL, the obvious one is gone, so I trawled through some previous RfAs to see if there was an optional question I thought was relevant or interesting. I felt that a lot of them were candidate-specific, asking about a particular situation, but one that I found interesting was asked by DarkFalls. It was based on specific situation, but I think the underlying question was interesting in how we deal with banned users. Paring down the question, it was along the lines of "should all edits by banned editors be reverted"? My own view on this is to take each edit on its merits; if it improves an article then it should be a straightforward decision to let it stand IMO. There's no point in cutting off your nose to spite you face.

Additional (optional) questions from John:

9. What is your opinion of our policy WP:CIVIL? How about WP:NPA? If successful in your reconfirmation (and it's looking good as I write!), would you plan to issue or threaten blocks in support of these policies?
A: I've seen discussions which get heated until one party accuses another of breaching WP:CIVIL or making a personal attack where there is none. It's Wikipedia's own version of Godwin's law. Whether a deliberate tactic to "win" an argument or a genuine belief that the other person was uncivil, it demonstrates a flaw in the policy. It's subjective. All policies are subject to interpretation, but WP:CIVIL seems the most malleable. I think it's one of the most misused around and it would be better redirected to WP:EQ (interesting to see that the parent concept is only a guideline, while WP:CIVIL is policy). It can be quite condescending to ask someone to be civil if done without care, and rather than soothing a situation serves to annoy. Another problem is it's possible to be impeccably polite and still be disruptive, which WP:CIV does not address. As you have noted, I have blocked people for making personal attacks. WP:NPA is a more serious policy and less open to interpretation. Comments such as [1] [2] [3] are egregious and unjustifiable. If I came across such comments as presented in the above diffs again I would not hesitate to block. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have commented on the talk page. --John (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Groomtech
10. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A: I assume by issuing orders you mean asking people to uphold policy. In this regard, admins have the same responsibility as other editors as everyone has to edit within policy and ensure others do so. As far as bans are concerned, where sock-puppeting and obviously disruptive behaviour is demonstrable I don't think there's a problem with an admin handing out a ban, however less clear cut cases should involve more opinions. That's part of the role of ANI: to gain more input from both admins and non-admins. Actions such as banning should not be taken lightly and it's best to search for a range of opinions. One of the benefits might be that other options are suggested by others that might otherwise have been overlooked. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. I meant such things as telling an editor not to edit a certain page further. Groomtech (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Novel concept, I know - but, re. the opposes... as I understand things;

If that is the 'worst' that can be found, I'm inclined to support...whilst I agree that the specific diff is not ideal, I respect the candidates apology and clarification. But I welcome discussion and input, from the candidate, and other parties.

Note, if I have made errors in my reporting of this, please feel free to correct them.  Chzz  ►  01:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we're not getting picture perfect candidates here. We all make mistakes. The candidate recognized the mistake and apologized - we don't need to opposed based on one recognized fault and demand perfection - we're just not perfect. Connormahtalk 01:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely agree; and I only posted that 'coz this is a discussion.  Chzz  ►  02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the links to the archived discussion, I agree that in the end Nev resolved the situation satisfactorily. Unfortunately that was far from being the worst behavior I have seen from him. Thanks, Chzz, for going to the trouble of digging out the resolution. --John (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the worst behaviour that you've seen from him? Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appended it to my !vote above. Basically he accused me of something, another editor asked him to substantiate it, and he waffled rather than do so or withdraw. Which makes his answer to Q3 look less than comprehensive, at least to me. This, be clear, isn't about civility per se, but about effectiveness and honesty. --John (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Effectiveness and honesty aren't things that you know a great deal about though, are they John. Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you said yourself, this isn't about me or you, it is about the candidate and about whether we can trust him. I have said I can't and explained why. On that basis I think we're done here, wouldn't you say? --John (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for balance, John leaves puerile and useless threats when it suits him. He's clearly an editor who, when he loses an argument, stores things away ready for the day he can use them as "revenge". Well, two can play at that game. Parrot of Doom 08:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the process
  1. It's the first time I've been involved with this process (despite having written over 500 new articles, over 150 DYKs, and a bit of featured stuff). What's it all about? We have a former admin, who has volunteered to go through the process, who is an expert editor, who has over 100 supports, and a few silly opposes. Who is in charge? Why has it not been sorted before a few more silly people make silly comments. I used to think that Malleus Fatuorum was sometimes a bit OTT. No longer. Get on with it whoever runs this process and re-appoint Nev1!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was Nev1's choice to go through with this. We should respect that decision. Aiken ♫ 19:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I sure respect it. Isn't it about time for closure?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He started an RFA. RFA's run 7 days. If he'd wanted a different process he could have chosen a different process.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's for a reason; it's to ensure those editors who only check in once a week have the chance to say their piece in case they're aware of any significant problem. Some Wikipedia policy is "we've always done it this way" inertia, but that particular one's fairly sensible. – iridescent 19:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More importantly, why does it take a high-interest former administrator's RFA for people to question the process? There's so many silly reasons given when opposing RFAs, that (from a recent Signpost article) are resulting in a lack of new administrators, and experienced editors unwilling to go through the "lynching" involved. From edit counters being disabled, to not being part of Wikiprojects, to not have enough Portal space edits, there's far more pressing issues than an 100+ supported RFA with the odd oppose here and there - So why is it that nobody bats an eyelid the rest of the time? Esteffect (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Support[edit]
  1. Strong support Nev1 is a fantastic editor, and imo should never have resigned. Though I think he ought to have gone the painless way, so be it. Welcome back! Aiken ♫ 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Good candidate. I do not see any reason not to trust Nev1. --Leyo 16:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support Have seen nothing but positives from you, you should have never resigned.JDONT (talk) 11:45 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)
  3. NW (Talk) 16:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Aiken drum, with the caveat that I regard this RfA as unnecessary, and a testament to Nev1's good faith. TFOWR 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – B.hotep •talk• 16:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Jmlk17 16:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Very Strong Support A superb editor who upholds the highest standards of Wikipedia. Always helpful, gives wise advice, and despite all tribulations always seems to maintain a calm temperament. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support. New RfA wasn't needed, but going for it shows the candidate's humility and strong ethics. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support. We need more admins, this user already was and left with good standing, this RfA is totally useless and someone needs to just give him the tools already (although in terms of acts of good faith this is pretty up there). ResMar 17:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Echoing everything said above. Connormahtalk 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Easy call, let's hand the mop back. Jusdafax 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I see no reasons not to. And, for what it's worth, I commend you for choosing to run for adminship again to get the tools back! Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - I applaud the integrity of running again given the substantial change in situation, but in this case my opinion has only improved further since the initial RfA. Nev1 is very much welcome to his admin tools back, he was a good candidate the first time and is an excellent one now. ~ mazca talk 17:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support – Given that this user could have just requested his adminship tools, but instead runs for adminship, this user shows that he is (still) trustworthy with the tools. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support -- a user with the integrity to choose this route has my respect. Give 'em the tools. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Theleftorium (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I don't see any concerns with this editor's previous handling of admin tools, so I don't see any reason to oppose giving them back. MastCell Talk 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support User stepped down in good standing previously, and edits since last RfA don't seem problematic at all. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Trustworthy editor. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. support --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support former administrator who passed the first time with flying colors (90/4/6); absolutely no reason to oppose handing back the mop--Hokeman (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - looks good. Airplaneman ✈ 18:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - one of the most level-headed editors around here, and one of the few whose RFA I'd ever support. Parrot of Doom 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Great editor, can't see any problems, checked deletion log from when was admin previously and those I checked looked fine. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - No reason to oppose. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  – iridescent 18:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Very Strong Support - Of course - and welcome back.--Kudpung (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Nev1 has already demonstrated his trustworthiness and suitability for the role. Rje (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Tempted to oppose because this process is unnecessary, but going to support because it's a no-brainer that Nev1 should have the tools back. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. A productive content editor, who I've always found to be calm & helpful. Will be even more of an asset to the project with the tools again. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per his own nom. I don't think you needed another RfA; you're sensible enough to figure out the new stuff yourself :) —fetch·comms 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Given all the discussion about admin numbers falling, glad to see one returning. Codf1977 (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - ownership and acceptance of errors is always good to see. Also a very experienced editor. Congrats and welcome back to adminship......oh dear...WP:CRYSTAL. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - I don't see why you need to go through a RFA, you could just ask a bureaucrat to give you back adminship. You did resign in good standing, and you are still in good standing today. Techman224Talk 19:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Appreciate the "reconfirmation". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. +1 --Dweller (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support- yeah, this renomination is probably unnecessary. Definitely should have the tools back. Reyk YO! 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Courcelles 19:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support early closure since this RFA isn't really necessary. It's obvious the community wants Nev1 to regain the tools. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 19:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Modernist (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Obviously, as well. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Hooray Fainites barleyscribs 20:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support already proven trustworthy. Triona (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added: even considering comments above, I maintain my strong support. Mistakes happen. They shouldn't be a big deal. The fact that reconfirmation was sought voluntarily when under established precedent, Nev could have just asked for the mop and gotten it, makes this one a no brainer to me. Triona (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I don't know why he wants to do it the hard way, but I see no reason to oppose.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per NerdyScienceDude. ••Pepper•• 20:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Secret account 21:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support About bloody time :) Graham Colm (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Oldelpaso (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per all of the above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. It's refreshing for an admin to treat the bit with respect, rather than as an entitlement after a poll once upon a time. And as said above, from what I've seen you were an excellent admin anyway. --WFC-- 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Do we even need to have an RfA? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I have a lot of respect for the fact that you chose the RfA route rather than just asking a 'crat for the bit back, as would have been your right. You should be given the bit right now! (puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support ...... wiooiw (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Tiderolls 23:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. This fellow has done nothing the least bit deplorable as an administrator, and is one of those contributors who serve as a reminder that there are still very decent and caring people out there on Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - The tools were relinquished in good standing, and used responsibly when they were held. Nothing has occurred between now and the time the tools were given up that give me concern in returning them. I gladly support. -- Atama頭 00:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - No brainer. Maybe reelection is the system we need, more than recall or other bureaucratic methods. Shadowjams (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support --Tenmei (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I simply cannot oppose. I've had a few bad run-ins with Nev1 in the past but I have to say that Nev (I can call you that, right?) is just an "ideal editor" so to speak. I'd have to say that he's here for the right reasons and really cannot think of anyone who is not an admin right now that should get the tools more than him.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, but ask that Nev1 either promise us or promise himself not to act in a fashion unbecoming of an admin like mentioned in John's oppose (oppose #1). Such diff is a bit less than 4 months ago. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I think redemption is in order here. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Looks fantastic. 2 says you, says two 00:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a sad day when dedicated volunteers are admonished for employing additional care and honesty. 69.121.245.182 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented !vote of IP address. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 02:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And unindented. I feel I've had quite enough experience at RfA to know when I'm allowed to vote (hint). 69.121.245.182 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-indenting. Your feelings are irrelevant - read WP:RFA rules, which are clear on this point: you need to be logged-in in order to !vote in an RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW (if you haven't noticed on the talk page of the IP), the IP is used by User:Juliancolton... Connormahtalk 03:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I've had one run-in with Nev1 on a piece. But overall I'm impressed with his presentation here. So support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support absolutely no reason not to. Don't get me wrong though, the link John posted was really not cool. SwarmTalk 03:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - Per the honest and respectable self-nom statement. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Net benefit, and responsible for suggesting this rfa in the first place. Ottawa4ever (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Weak Support I'm a bit concerned about the civility issue, but you meet all my other criteria for stability and content work. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Nev1. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Almost no issues at all. The RfA is hardly needed in this case. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. —SpacemanSpiff 11:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - with my respect for putting yourself through an RFA to ensure you still have the community's confidence.  Begoontalk 11:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - a fantastic editor, might have some flaws, but we all do; all that matters is that the work is done and done well. Harrias talk 12:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support No reason to not give the mop back. No serious question of abuse of the tools. He can be uncivil from time to time with or without the mop. I would need to see signs of him being abusive to newbies or generally aggressive rather than an odd heated swear word to oppose this RfA. Polargeo (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support candidate has my admiration and respect as an editor. Will make an excellent admin, as demonstrated already. Daicaregos (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong support, mainly per the opposes. Someone remind me; when did we decide that actually expressing opinions was a negative thing? Or did I miss the memo which added to the adminship requirements "must have a stick rammed so far up his jacksie that, with the application of some caramelised sugar, the candidate could be used as a toffee apple". Ironholds (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support SilkTork *YES! 15:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - If this man isn't suitable for adminship, I'm certainly not. I was talking to Ironholds the other day - and a few prominent WFM officials - and we all agreed that there's a lack of admins here. Enough candidates of good quality, just too many opposes based on shitty reasoning. And yes, I said shitty. It is shitty. One of my opposes in my RFA was based on my username being sexually offensive. And that's a good oppose compared to some of the reasoning I've seen recently. In conclusion: most of the oppose votes I've read are rubbish, and I'm not going to argue with them in every RFA because it'd just get messy. Instead, I stamp a strong 'support' on this wonderful candidate, who shows all the love, dignity, experience and foul-mouthed rants required to become an admin. Complaints about my foul-mouthed rant should, as always, go to my talk page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support No problems here. Access Denied talk contribs editor review 16:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support – per the opposes as Ironholds says above. One can but regret that the opposers have been exposed to such dreadful incivilities. Occuli (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - of course. Has been a very great contributor and an active user. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support --Harthacnut (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Passed first time and I see no reason to change the decision reached then. I agree with the sentiment expressed by user:Ironholds above.  Francium12  00:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Good contributor, learned from a mistake. No big deal.King Pickle (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support An excellent contributor and I have no objections to this user to regain adminship again. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. (edit conflict) Opposes, to me, are not a strong or convincing argument. If being in a pissy mood at times is enough to not have the bit, I think we'd have to fire a good deal of current admins. The larger question is, have any of this "pissy mood" moments affected the editors use (or misuse) of the tools? I think not. Lacking evidence otherwise, this is an easy choice for me. Avicennasis @ 01:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Stephen 03:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Looks good to me, and the language doesn't bother me, as I've seen admins use the words you can't say on television before. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 03:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support without any reservations. I'm certain User:Nev1 with (once again) make a fine administrator. –Grondemar 03:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - admins don't have to be perfect. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Definite Support - Excellent contributor and a plus to the Admin corps if he gets the mop and bucket. Although I must say, I think my enjoyment of toffee apples has been forever ruined... Skinny87 (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. I am yet to see any problems with any actions they took as an admin. That alone should speak for itself. Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Bejinhan talks 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Ucucha 13:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Derild4921☼ 13:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. --Moni3 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Please do not spam[reply]
  103. Support -- Эlcobbola talk 15:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - Barret (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Doesn't concern me, as he/she was an administrator before. More importantly, this user realises and learns from his/her mistakes. Minimac (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - Per above, great work on Wikipedia. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - looks good for a return. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support, largely per this. One mistake does not a bad admin make. --Deskana (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support, per the above discussion, it's a no-brainer the mop should be handed back. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Strong support a good editor who has been a great asset to WP - and the fact that he has put himself up for Rfa again shows integrity, not "suspect judgement". Richerman (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support proven track record as a good admin. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support He hasn't had the admin tools for a while, So I think subjecting himself to the hell that is en.wikipedia's RFA to see if he still has the communities trust is a responsible thing to do.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - Even if I didn't think this was an excellent candidate, with a strong background in content creation and no history of abusing the tools, I would be tempted to support based almost solely on the "holier-than-thou" opposes below. The odd strong word is much less damaging to this project than the default passive-aggressive bullshit that WP:CIVIL tends to encourage. I am not saying use of strong language is a good thing, but it is more forgiveable than most of the sins that we stone people for here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well said, really. I was considering those opposes a lot, but you're completely right. SwarmTalk 11:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support per all of the above. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Pleased to support Nev1 for adminsip again. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Strong Support Anyone with the balls to tell it like it is instead of prancing around the issue in strict line with our policy and guideline pages is bound to be a good admin. As the say, the best defense is a good offense, and if you will not take BS from anyone then you've got what it takes to make the hard calls on site. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. I support this candidate because they were willing to undergo a full RfA when they did not have to. (Would have been a stronger support but for the valid civility concerns given in the “oppose” votes.) Bwrs (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  119. 'Support per all of the above. An engaging and constructive editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. I am here very confident that Nev1 knows what they are doing (even while I did not get the answer that I wanted, at least I did not get the answer of someone regurgitating the policies and guidelines). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support – Among other things, I checked some of his deletions from last year, and didn't see anything concerning. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support I'd be surprised if anyone who has 30,000 edits over four years hasn't had the odd tiff. Opposes rationales simply don't persuade me that Nev would not be a clear net benefit when the tools are returned. We have the unusual benefit of being able to review his past admin actions, and there is no evidence that he has used them other than appropriately. --RexxS (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - excellent content creation across a broad spectrum of articles, huge quantity of experience. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - calm, circumspect, his own man. Support on the condition that he does not neglect his editorial work on medieval castles! Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support, this one is fine. bd2412 T 00:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. We need our admins back! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Although I would suggest that Nev1 address the concerns expressed on the RfA, nobody's perfect. —Dark 08:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Strong support An excellent record and a great attitude. Anthony (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Strong Support. I have always been impressed by Nev1's wonderful content contributions, and so I support without reservation. ceranthor 17:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. I don't recall interacting with you, but I take note of your substantial experience, clean block record, and obvious support here from so many other users—and I want to go on record as being happy that you came back to the community instead of simply asking a crat. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support - no problems here. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Get in and keep that shit coming. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support John's diff isn't too concerning. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. Was a good admin before and I'm sure will be again. I'm unconvinced by the opposes, basically per Fainites' comment here. Also, I completely disagree that this RFA is disruptive since nobody is compelled to participate.--BelovedFreak 09:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  135. I had to read the opposition section twice to check if I was missing a note of sarcasm. I grant that there are vast cultural differences in civility norms, but to consider use of the word "bullshit" prima facie uncivil fails any reasonable test of credulity. I find Nev an admirable administrator, and commend him for re-submitting for community mandate. Skomorokh 14:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support - civility is in the eye of the beholder, and Nev's been quite civil and constructive in the vast majority of cases. No concerns at all about his handling of the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. Good contributor, lots of experience, see no reason to think candidate would abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Some of the below concerns me, but it seems they could be trusted and their very opening of this rfa says a lot about them. ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 04:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support - agree completely with many of the above comments. Candidate is a strong content creator and was previously a competent admin. While this RfA is by the current "rules" and standards of Wikipedia unnecessary, its existence to my mind proves the candidate's character and responsibility to the Wikipedia community (not to mention, given the sometimes combative nature of RfA, his(?) courage ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Strong Support. No concerns whatsoever! Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Strong Support' Excellent choice for Administrator. Nev1 is keenly intelligent, does great research for his articles, is polite even under unfair criticism, and always willing to help people. I cannot think of a better person for the job. Mugginsx (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Well you have never been rude to me, but I trust you will take to heart the opposes, even if you believe your indiscretions to have been minor. It is interesting how much damage can be done by a little "incivility", however defined - and anyone who thinks differently is a nincompoop! :) Ben MacDui 20:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Occasional incivility doesn't bother me. AniMate 00:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support While I hope you'll make note of some of the civility complaints raised in the opposes below, in my reckoning they are not severe or frequent enough for me to question your trustworthiness with the tools. That said: I have to question your judgment for volunteering to be an admin again, even after having experienced the "benefits" of the position before. But we are not above taking advantage of your masochism! Abecedare (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support if he was good enough then, he's good enough now. MtD (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support, and glad to see this brought to the community, even though not required. Kablammo (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Yeah, he's fine. No need to oppose over colorful language. Tex (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Not happy (on several levels) with edits like this. Sorry to spoil the party. --John (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Without wishing to badger, it seems that you are demanding perfection here. No candidate is picture perfect (I'm sure he regrets that), and I don't why you oppose a candidate that would be a net benefit with the tools back because of one fault. Connormahtalk 23:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be a travesty if returning administrators are opposed for having used the word "shit", when sitting administrators are routinely allowed to call other editors "twats" with not an eyebrow being raised.[6] A travesty but not a surprise. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Admins aren't perfect. I've even seen them use "fuck". ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 02:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't dream of opposing for one bad edit. Unfortunately there seems to be a patter of incivility and (far worse) lack of clue. Not admin material I am afraid. In the incident I remembered where I was involved, Nev1 made an unsubstantiated complaint about me here, in accusing me of "puerile heckling", then when called on it by Kww, rather than substantiate or withdraw, he said this, which I thought was weak. Here are a selection of Nev's other incidences of incivility; it almost seems to be his default mode. I'm sure there will be other incidents out there if people looked for them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=355400861
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=349474356
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nev1&diff=prev&oldid=349492589
    It surprises me that so many well-respected editors would support a candidate like this; not because incivility is "bad" in some abstract sense, but because of the lack of judgment and collegiality that this shows in the candidate. It certainly puts his answer to Q3 into an interesting light. --John (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is well known MF doesn't have a problem with naughty words on his talk page (or indeed elsewhere). On the other hand, admins who manage to be unpleasant without using naughty words are possibly more of a problem.Fainites barleyscribs 09:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, but this oppose is not about incivility per se, although I do think that is a problem for this user. It is about whether we can trust the user. Given the gross mismatch between the candidate's vague answer to Q3 and the long list of recent conflicts the candidate has been involved in (not always involving MF, who isn't standing), can we trust him to do a good job? --John (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I trust him implicitly. Look at the big picture rather than the odd blip. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd take Nev any day over a fake-polite politician who is only there to exploit others and ladder climb YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose This RFA is process for the sake of process, where none was necessary. The existence of this RFA indicates suspect judgment. Townlake (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As does, arguably, the existence of this oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you enjoy process for the sake of process? I wouldn't have guessed that, but more power to you. Townlake (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This RfA isn't about me, and neither is it about your pet prejudices. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's about you, and me, and so much more. The great thing about this RFA is we both get to cast votes, and so does everyone else. Townlake (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Townlake, you have a fan. Haha. --A3RO (mailbox) 02:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Town, and the fact you have too many "cheerleaders" on your team. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheerleaders? Hey, this isn't one of those RfAs from a 15 year old who has canvassed all his classmates! --Kudpung (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so we're now opposing for the fact that lots support Nev? How is that even relevant? Connormahtalk 02:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Has civility issues, and defends/encourages his friends' incivility. Epbr123 (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. He has a tendency to ignore when his friends are being uncivil, only admonishing editors who oppose his and his friends views when they are being uncivil. [7] I was repremanded by him for trolling that User, but Gun Powder Ma has already had four blocks, for incivility and edit warring [8]. It seems that he should have learned his lesson and not get offended by my alleged trolling. Nev1 seemed rather quick to jump to Gun Powder Ma's defence. I have a feeling that im going to and Evil eye from him after he gets adminship, for me making this comment, but who cares. Дунгане (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - I agree with the above. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to provide any kind of rationale?  Francium12  00:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per civility issues raised by User:John above. Hot-headed editors need not apply for adminship. SnottyWong spill the beans 16:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per civility issues raised by User:John, pigheadedness is not a quality that I desire in an administrator, having an administrator with civility problems could pose a significant risk.JDONT (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Personalities rarely change, so it's safe to say that this pigheadedness and incivility was present before. Have my administrative actions been affected by incivility? Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody can be in the world's pissiest mood and click "delete", "protect" and "block" without those functions being affected in anyway. The question is of your effect on other people, which isn't measurable. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hammersoft, I see where you're coming from but it's a big generalisation. I'm noted for being a surly old git on Wikipedia, rude, uncivil and not writing any articles. However I've never come close to abusing the buttons - and with 10,000 odd admin actions without a moan it's hardly through want of trying. Just because people are in a pissy mood does not mean they'll suddenly abuse the bits. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose: Pedro old boy, surly old gits . . . rude, uncivil and who do not write any articles or who are generally negative, are too common on Wikipedia. That is NOT a good thing. Therefore I cannot support such a candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of FAs actually YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the suggestion that Nev1 is rude and uncivil (diffs above give credence to that) but claiming that Nev1 "doesn't write any articles" suggests you didn't take much time at all looking over this candidate before giving your !vote. Look on their user page, under "Mea Culpa". I don't suggest you change your mind, but you might want to modify your reasons for your decision. -- Atama頭 05:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - I'm at a loss to reconcile this with the temperament required of an admin. This was only 4 months ago. I've been an admin too, and sometimes it is like running a kindergarten, but you have to be above that kind of thing. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Civility issues per John and Richardcavell. Past precedent may show that admins are able to get away with treating others like crap, but I'd prefer not to add another one to the party. The point is moot, as you're well on your way to getting promoted again anyway. I will not support a candidate that has exhibited temper problems multiple times. Vodello (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per John. Administrators need to show deference towards our civility policy. I don't have a problem with saying "shit", but when when I read the entire conversation I saw Nev1's comments as demonstrating a rejection of our civility policy and the idea of constructive criticism. ThemFromSpace 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose For ignoring/ defending his friend's incivility while only admonishing editors of opposing viewpoints. He repremanded me, but not his friend Gun Powder Ma, because he was supporting Gun Powder Ma in a dispute against User:Teeninvestor. [9] I was repremanded by him for trolling that User, but Gun Powder Ma has already had four blocks, for incivility and edit warring [10]. It seems that he should have learned his lesson and not get offended by my alleged trolling. Nev1 seemed rather quick to jump to Gun Powder Ma's defence. As an admin he might be quick to block the incivility of opposing editors, but turning a blind eye to incivility of friends. Дунгане (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really need to write the same comment twice? Would it be reasonable to ask you to remove one of them? --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No offence to Gun Powder Ma, but I don't consider him a friend as we don't know each other. If you set out to provoke someone, don't be surprised if it works. There was a discussion about the article going on and your comments added nothing to it, they simply antagonised and distracted from the issue at hand. Contrary to your assertions, I have asked Gun Powder Ma to tone it down before. Nev1 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can testify that Nev1 is very much his own man, with his own view of things, like it should be for every editor and especially admin. And we aren't friends for exactly the reason Nev1 has given. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose due to incivility concerns.  –Joshua Scott [who?] 15:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose If you want your tools, ask a crat (arbcom?); I don't know why you're here. Tommy! [message] 16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Thought about this and just disagree with the method, abstain !vote[reply]
    Eh? It has nothing to do with arbcom. Aiken ♫ 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is, if an admin voluntarily resigns, all s/he needs to do is request the tools back from them. Tommy! [message] 16:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your understanding is flawed. It's bureaucrats who deal with voluntarily-resigned admins. :-) Aiken ♫ 16:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    modified. Tommy! [message] 17:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't know why Nev1 is here, please read his introductory statement; he explains it quite clearly. Ucucha 17:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Once a user is an admin, they're an admin, unless recalled or involuntarily desysopped. I get his point, but I don't see why it's necessary he's here. I just don't get it. Tommy! [message]
    As far as policy is concerned, this RfA is not necessary. From my point of view, it would be dishonest not to offer the community the opportunity to have a say in whether I should be an admin considering that last time I stood there was a fraction of the evidence now available regarding my contributions. Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Honesty is always a good thing, but if you believe/feel you can be an admin again, trust yourself and ask a bureaucrat. To me, this feels like "well I might have screwed up but I just want to make sure.." .. yes, it's a great spirit, but to me if you're confirmed by the community, you're an admin unless desysopped. In short, if the process isn't necessary, don't create more stress for yourself. Thanks for the reply & good luck. Tommy! [message] 17:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you feel this is unnecessary and think he's already an admin. As such, you feel the best action to take to convince him he's an admin is to try and make him fail his RfA, after which no bureaucrat will touch him. Hands up who thinks that's logical? Ironholds (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Love the badgering attempts, but if it's any consolation prize, John's oppose also pushed me to oppose. Tommy! [message] 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I'm amazed that so many people are in support, having seen the attitude issue demonstrated [11]. I also don't see the point in this RFA, in that it is wholly unnecessary. Esteffect (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The attitude is no different to someone saying "I'm not interested". One person's version of civility is not universal. Parrot of Doom 19:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, per Esteffect. Unfortunately, I am opposing due to recent and on repeat occasions, the use of swear/cuss words aggressively towards other editors. I myself have been incivil before during content disputes although I did not use swear words, I do understand how stressful wikipedia can be. If the editor was to rerun in 6 months or more time, and shows no repeated incivility from now until then, I would most likely support.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I think it is important for admins to maintain decorum as representatives of the site; I would not support a candidate who uses vulgar language in a dispute. ErikHaugen (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Incivility is unacceptable in administrators. Wouldn't mind supporting after an extended period of editing in which no such concerns appear, though.  Sandstein  08:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, incivility clearly is acceptable in administrators, as you well know, else Rodhullandemu's recent "you patroniziing twat" would have been unacceptable. Either you're suffering from a surfeit of childish optimism or what you actually meant to say was that "What [I consider to be] incivility in an admin candidate is unacceptable", because nothing else fits the known facts. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, rudeness and incivility are not what I want to see in admins. I could forgive an occasional lapse of judgement, but there have been enough incidents that I think a pattern is evident. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  20. What Lankiveil said. Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I am not in favor of duplicating RfAs, and would prefer ex-admins in good standing to just ask for the tools back rather than create another non-content page that will be archived and (rightly) never looked at again. However, if you're using this venue to encourage comments on your behavior as an editor, then so be it: Nice content, shame about the language. I appreciate that my standard for civil conduct may be different from yours, however, I still do not completely understand why you and your many friends, who are obviously intelligent and educated people, feel the need to resort to potentially offensive language. You (all of you) should be clever enough to realise that it weakens rather than strengthens any reasoned argument. DrKiernan (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Withholding my support since RFAs by former admins in good standing who can request the bit back "just like that" are inherently disruptive. Spartaz Humbug! 16:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest to everyone who has made this point (in any column) that this process does less harm than admins exercising their "right" to ask for the bit back, when they may or may not have universal support. Nev will surely have known that any uncivil outbursts were going to come out in this RfA. To voluntarily go through a community process in spite of that shows that Nev understands that admins should be accountable to the community. Opinions may differ on how this core concept should work in practise, but to hold this fairly strict interpretation against someone seems strange. --WFC-- 22:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Spartaz is necessarily holding this against Nev1, hence the neutral !vote and not an oppose. Airplaneman ✈ 03:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral: This editor has been a previous admin, and can be generally trusted with the tools. But, although I don't mind admins getting pissed and using some harsher language, it seems to happen too often with this editor in the past few months. Enough to cause me to raise a brow. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 18:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Former admin who resigned the tools uncontroversially. I actually think it's a good thing to see former admins going through RfA since today's RfA standards are much different to those of several years ago, as is the admin package and the community's expectations of admins. That alone is enough to make me seriously consider supporting but, while it looks as if this RfA will likely pass, your username is distinctly familiar. I've a feeling we came across each other in less-than-ideal circumstances, but I've neither the time nor the energy to work out where, so I won't oppose. I'd also advise you to tone down the language- I don't have a problem with "bad language", but admins need to be able to calmly and carefully explain their actions when queried, even by people who don't show the same courtesy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[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