Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/N419BH


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

N419BH
Final (15/22/6); ended 04:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)  - —  G FOLEY   F OUR  — 04:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)  Withdrawn

Nomination
– Ladies and gentlemnen, for what I hope will be the latest in a string of successful RfAs (at the time of writing, there are curretly three other nominations, all running above 80%), I would like to present to you N419BH (that's November four one niner bravo hotel). He would like to help out in areas like RfPP, which is chronically backlogged, and AIV, which, for obvious reasons, can always benefit from more admin eyes as well as lending a hand at UAA and CSD when necessary. It is my opinion that N419BH is a very clueful, dedicated and sensible editor. He has broad experience of the more administrative areas of the project from vandal-fighting and new-page patrolling, as well as work at AfC and in other areas. However, he has also proven himself to be a valuable writer, bringing his writing skills and his knowledge as a pilot to aviation accident articles. He so far has one Good Article, United Airlines Flight 232 and another article, American Airlines Flight 191 undergoing its GA review. He can also take credit for several nominations and updates of aviation articles for In the news as well as ovehauls and improvements of many other articles that are not necessarily of GA standard. I've known N419BH for some time and got to know him better as one of my talk-page stalkers who help out when I'm not around. I had a feeling early on that he'd make an excellent admin one day and I think today is that day. I sicnerely hope the community agrees. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I thank HJ for his kind words, and accept this nomination. It is my intention to perform the role of administrator to the best of my ability and to the highest standards.  N419 BH  20:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Withdraw this request I thank everyone for their kind words, encouragement, and constructive criticism. Obviously I need to demonstrate a full understanding of the CSD criteria for a period of time before a nomination will be successful. I'll see all of you back here in a few months with an improved CSD track record and more detailed responses to questions. Failing RFA is a bit disappointing but I'll be back. Thanks again for everyone's advice and input; it is greatly appreciated. See you all in August or September!  N419 BH  04:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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: WP:AIV and WP:RPP will be my most frequent admin intervention areas. I plan to work at WP:CSD and WP:UAA as well. There’s copyright concern work to be accomplished in both the file and article spaces. I’ll be participating in other admin-bit required backup areas as well. I tend to seek out backups, learn how to do the task required, and then get to work.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I helped bring United Airlines Flight 232 to good article status. American Airlines Flight 191 is currently a good article nominee and is being reviewed. I just did a major rewrite of EgyptAir Flight 990 after an editor expressed concern regarding that article’s neutrality; I will be nominating that one for GA in the future. There are several other notable aviation accidents I plan to work on starting with Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, which is a GA article once the final authoritative source is published (more on that below). I’d like to get United 232 to featured article once I have several good articles under my belt.


 * Despite the GA status of one of the articles I’ve contributed to in earnest, 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash is my best contribution by far. I started editing the project regularly soon after that accident took place, and it’s my most edited article. My contributions on the talk page account for over 100 of my total talk page contributions. It’s my best work because writing it requires immense collaboration. It’s a Polish jet that crashed in Russia, and hence most sources are in Russian and Polish. Collaboration with native speakers is required in order to locate these sources and understand them, as machine translation only goes so far. Also, there is a portion of the Polish population that distrusts Russia, and as such criticism of the Russian investigation is abundant. Lots of talk page and article space work is required to give due weight to these points, which are generally made in Polish-language sources and must be located by native speakers. Many of those inserting these points have a less than native understanding of English, and hence it is necessary to work together to edit their contributions into fluent English and also exercise patience on the talk page as points are explained. The article will be GA status once the Polish investigation is concluded and we note the differences between the Russian and Polish accident reports. Once that’s done and the inevitable conspiracy theorist edits subside it will be good to go after a good polishing.


 * Among my more administrator-type work, I do a lot of backup reduction when I see those. Hence I’m active at WP:AFC and WP:NPP. I’m not as active at WP:CVU as I was in my early days on the project but I still have all my tools installed and I will fire them up when I’m not doing anything else or the vandalism level is high. I still revert vandalism on sight and will warn/report/RPP as appropriate but I no longer actively seek it out.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I spent a couple months in my early days here doing serious anti-vandalism work, and I’m a regular contributor to 2010 Polish Air Force TU-154 crash. I dealt with all sorts of stuff as a result of the anti-vandalism work and I’ve had conspiracy theorists and distrusters of Russia directly attack my work at the Polish TU-154 article. As for stress, I fly airplanes for a living, a task with an extremely low margin for error. Stress is part of the job, and as such I’m not much bothered by it. As for conflicts, my modus operandi is to explain my reasoning and then listen. One’s eyes are the most important tool available to admins and editors alike. Read first and type later is the way to go. I’m not afraid to be WP:BOLD but at the same time I’m not afraid to admit mistakes. When I make one I am not afraid to self-revert and apologize.


 * Additional questions fromn ArcAngel
 * 4. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?
 * A: Without diff hunting for specific cases, the most important aspect for AIV blocking is that, like any block, it must prevent damage to the encyclopedia. The user must have a final warning, and must continue to be disruptive after that final warning.


 * 5. What is the most important aspect of WP:CSD?
 * A: The oppose !votes have exposed a shortcoming on my part with regard to CSD A7 tagging, in that I misread part of the criterion. CSD A7 requires that the article make a claim of importance, even if this claim is unsupported. The second point is where I have erred in the diffs presented, and it is constructive criticism well-taken and heeded. The other thing about CSD tagging by non-admins is that two sets of eyes must see the article, and I believe this is a valuable check on other people's work. You can be sure as a person who hates making mistakes I will be taking considerable care with CSD and particularly criterion A7 and A1 in light of the criticism given here. CSD work is an area where I have comparatively less experience than the other administrative areas I intend to work in, and hence it's one where I will be much slower. In line with my AfC work if I'm not sure whether an article should be accepted or not I defer to other more experienced reviewers. As an admin I will defer cases were I am not sure as well. The standard is much higher, and the consequences of a mistake are much greater, when one is actually deleting vs. nominating for deletion, and it is a distinction I already make at AFC and will continue to make with access to the delete button.


 * Additional question from Keepscases
 * 6. Does it bother you when people don't know the phonetic alphabet and say, "S as in Sam, F as in Frank..." etc.?
 * A: Not at all. So long as the meaning is clear, the exact word does not matter.


 * Additional questions from Σ
 * 7. Is the username "Kjq32i9u fiwefjpwiofsef2skg" able to be reported to UAA?
 * A: Well, technically, any username can be reported to WP:UAA, but as the instructions clearly state the username must be "clearly inappropriate and a blatant violation" of the username policy, I fail to see how this seemingly random compilation of characters meets that criterion. If this were accompanied by an explanation of exactly what it meant in some foreign language or computer code then it might be actionable.
 * 8. When (if ever) should you block someone who has only made 1 contribution?
 * A: Extremely rarely, basically the only criterion would be if it was a blatantly obvious sock of a banned user or if it's an open proxy.


 * Additional question from Minimac
 * 9. You've stated in Q1 that you also intend to work in the copyright area of files and articles. Have you worked in any copyright projects in the past, or have you used the backlog to search for copyright problems? I'm asking this because it is unclear as to what areas of the copyright department you want to use the tools with.
 * A: I'm not particularly active in the copyright concerns department apart from running every NPP and AFC page I review through Google and ensuring images I work with and come across are appropriately licensed. For example I had the infobox image from UAL 232 deleted from commons and then uploaded it here under fair use unique historic image. So the copyright concern comment is more of something I do every day in the normal course of editing rather than a wikiproject I am active within.

General comments

 * Links for N419BH:
 * Edit summary usage for N419BH can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats on talk. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 20:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As nom. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Almost-beat-the-nom support Excellent candidate, no worries. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 20:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support moving to oppose Candidate looks like he would be a great administrator.  He hasn't been in any conflicts from what I can tell, he's involved in pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, and he has a clean block log - perfect. Logan Talk Contributions 20:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Per nomination and personal interactions. My76Strat (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support has an extensive record of quality contributions to articles, sometimes contentious or rapidly changing current events, and to administrative work. Talk page discussions show maturity. Of course, some mistakes have been made from time to time, but the candidate seems to respond well to criticism and quickly to acknowledge corrections. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, great user, just make sure that you read up on the speedy deletion guidelines. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support The only thing I'm worried about is your A7 tagging. -- Σ ☭ ★  00:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support- every time I've seen this person around Wikipedia they've always been talking large amounts of sense. Reyk  YO!  02:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support The CSD tagging worries me, but I've been there before and I know what it's like and I trust this user, he's helpful, nice and a fantastic content contributor. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:31pm • 04:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Per the answers to the questions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - have seen this editor in action at the 2010 Polish Air Force TU-154 crash article. As stated by N419BH, there have been many obstacles to overcome due to language difficulties nationalistic differences which make keeping to NPOV harder. I've every confidence that we have admin material here. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - some balls-ups brought to light below indicate that you should just take a quick step back to study the deletion policies better. All it would've taken to avoid the mistakes highlighted, is a little more time taken over the decision. You can't rush things when you're an admin, especially with deletion and blocking. However, you are a very capable user and you've been of immense use to the project. I'm willing to support this because I feel that a few mistakes shouldn't be landed down so harshly, providing that a person can learn from them and improve. You must do that. Orphan Wiki 12:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Looking through the contribs I really can't find anything to oppose over. The two CSD examples provided are borderline; there doesn't even seem to be anything wrong with the first one.  Swarm  X 19:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Support: Worked with N419BH on numerous occasions and seen him around the Wiki, both times doing really good work. User knows their way around the Wiki, knows the "lay of the land" and the policies and is friendly (which, when trying to calm drama down is a good thing).  Give this guy a mop and a free T-Shirt. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Reasonably good candidate. Diego Grez (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I think that if approved, the candidate would move slowly with the tools and wind up doing a fine job with them, so this is a true support rather than a "moral support." That being said, the outcome of this RfA is already pretty clear, and the candidate would probably be well-advised to withdraw soon and to try again after a few months of editing taking the opposers' and neutral commenters' concerns into account. (Though not enough to cause me to oppose, I also disagree with the response to question 7.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Sorry but with A7 nominations like this and this only 5 days ago I simply do not trust the candidate with the delete button. Also, a bit older (but the user does not have many recent taggings): A1 with context, A7 with multiple strong claims of importance, A7 for a film. And even some of the deleted articles were deleted incorrectly (next links admins-only): A7 for an Internet port (A7 only covers web content and there is a suitable target for redirecting at List of TCP and UDP port numbers), A1 with clear context (deleted by an admin infamous for incorrectly applying CSD). As the candidate indicated that they want to work with speedy deletion candidates, I expect them not to make such really basic mistakes in tagging and I simply would not trust them to have the deletion button at this time. If this succeeds, I strongly recommend them to be very careful with speedy deletions and have an experienced admin check their deletions if they are unsure. Regards  So Why  21:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per SoWhy. SoWhy seems to be much better than finding CSD nominations than I, and I have contested too many A7 nominations already to support this user's adminship request.  As I said above, all other activity looks great - I was at first truly in support.  However, if N419BH studies the speedy deletion criteria and makes sure not to make any mistakes, I will have no problem supporting at the next RfA if this one doesn't make it through. Logan Talk Contributions 21:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I was hoping to support with the nomination statement, but I have been finding problematic speedy deletion nominations such as Romtoc Packet Protocol nommed for A7, where the topic is out of scope, SEW2871 a chemical with full chemical formula and already categorised for A1, and The great lusitania for A1 which had a clear explanation of what it was (should have let prod run it course). Annualized Rate of Occurrence (ARO) using "WP:NOTDICTIONARY" as a speedy delete criterion. It looks Like I will have to go through all these and restore lost assets to the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about The great lusitania - at that stage it was a hoax, and later became an attack. Deleted three times in five days. I agree that context wasn't the best tag - but there wasn't a lot of it and what there was was rubbish. Peridon (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Concerns with policy knowledge in the administrative areas candinate wishes to work. Sorry,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 22:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I would prefer admins to have understood and applied the main point of A7 for a few months, not just seven days. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, for number 8, you can also block a user who has only made one edit if they're making legal/violence/death threats, outing, etc. or if their username is blatantly inappropriate. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, but I just can't trust the candidate with the delete button at this time, based on the evidence. With a better understanding, and a few months of applying it, he should be fine for a return visit to RFA. Courcelles 00:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) As much as I'd hate to say "per SoWhy", I guess that'll have to do. AD 01:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't like to pile on, but the diffs that SoWhy and Graeme presented are just too much. Per above is generally not constructive, but I feel all the evidence needed has been displayed above. Come back in a couple months with an improved CSD track record. Regards, MacMedtalk stalk 02:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Good user, seen him around, but the diffs presented elsewhere in this section lead me to oppose at this time. --John (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per the links provided by SoWhy. Hopefully, he'll learn from his mistakes in the deletion department, and will practice some more in the NPP section. No blocks though. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">© (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 05:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, concerns about temperament, policy knowledge, and experience. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose as others have noted, deletion issues combined with issues around temperament arise with this candidate. I do not think he or she is to be trusted with the tools. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - Sorry. You are helpful to the project. But the CSD tags diffs shown by SoWhy is concerning. So you will have to improve your CSD tagging. -Porchcrop (talk 09:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose SoWhy makes a solid point that is very tough to ignore. Too many CSD problems too recently.--v/r - TP 09:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per SoWhy and A4.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 12:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per the highlighted CSD issues and the answer to question 4 is unsatisfactory. Examples were asked for and this is an area the candidate wants to work in, so a more in-depth and researched answer would have been nice. Alone that's not enough to oppose, but CSD issues are <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 12:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Your description said to me that you just want it so much. It is like that you just want power.  The other arguments are good too.   EBE123  talkContribs 16:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - SoWhy hits all the right notes. <font face="times new roman"> maucho eagle   (c) 17:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do people feel the need to pile on to clearly failing RfAs with biolerplate oppose rationales that must have taken all of ten seconds to write? The RfA is clearly serving no other purpose but to give the candidate constructive criticism, so if you're just trying to chalk up one more edit to the project space (and this applies to all opposers who are just piling on, but not in the slightest to those who have made constructive criticisms), then go and waste an edit on ANI. This is why it's so hard to convince good candidates to go through an RfA and this is why so amny candidates who aren't succesful are left feeling dejected. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually HJ, as this is an open RFA if the opposes don't come in it's possible enough supports will for it to pass. I would encourage all RFA participants, not just here but at every RFA to try to add something material to the discussion or, if they must agree with the primary oppose rationale at least point to something positive as well that can be used as encouragement toward a future RFA. If more people did that on their own perhaps we wouldn't need RFA reform. Nevertheless, I was expecting this should something come up, and now that it has I'm the type of guy to brush it off, learn from my mistakes, improve, and try again later. So far, what's coming up is of course the CSD issue. Another identified issues are that I may be CSD tagging too fast, and need to slow down. The answer to question 4 is being criticized because I did not provide diffs as requested. Question 8 is also being criticized because Cirt has mentioned additional criterion by which a first edit may result in a block, though I would think that in the vast majority of cases, with some exceptions for blatantly inappropriate usernames, most individuals making legal/violence/death threats are going to be socks anyway, though not necessarily of banned users. I would like to thank everyone for their criticism, it is well taken and heeded. I will thank everyone again when I withdraw this RFA sometime in the next few days. I will see all of you back at RFA this summer, with an improved CSD track record. I hope all of you will be able to support me then. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  18:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Textbook example of an unhelpful comment. Poor show, Maucho.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * HJ - you seem lately to be getting very upset over RfA opposes, accusing !voters of piling-on and berating their refusal to fall in with your personal definition of "constructive criticism." Your anguish would seem a lot more sincere, though, if it wasn't confined to opposes to candidates you've nominated. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose over the CSD problems quite well documented by SoWhy and the problematic answer to question 8. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Concern over deletion tagging and overall lack of experience. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 01:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose-Annoying comment. It was done, and making further comments was silly.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose – I cannot support in light of SoWhy's diffs above. — mc10 ( t / c ) 04:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) A7 issues aside, the candidate would otherwise seem a good fit, so I'm not opposing outright. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Apart from CSD issues would have supported so I feel I cannot oppose. Jamietw (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Not able to support at this time per CSD tagging illustrated in the opposes. Otherwise appears to be a good candidate. my apologies. <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 14:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with Mjroots that there are admin qualities here to work with. However, the degree of the A7 mistakes prevent me from supporting at this time. —WFC— 17:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Candidate has demonstrated trustworthiness and a great deal enthusiasm for the project; however, the CSD mistaggings and answers to the questions show it's a bit too early. A great candidate for four to six months of intensive mentoring and coaching.--Hokeman (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. I have a good general impression of the user, but the CSD issue suggests "not now, but next time". Rd232 talk 02:52, 16 May 2011 (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.