Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Navou


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

Navou
Final (0/4/4); Ended 17 February 2007 (UTC)

- I initially registered in May 2006, however, only became really active in DEC 2006. I have always been good with english. In high school, I took the advanced english and lit classes. So the written word has always been my passion. Wikipedia is really a place I can let my red pen go to work, as far as spelling, grammar, style, usage, and tone goes. I can really take an article and go to work. This is what initially hooked me. Then I began to see the larger picture... there is an actual community behind this. I can do more things, actually expand article when I run across material. I can participate in the decision making process for the inclusion of content. I can assist others by acting as a mediator. Perhaps... I can even mop. Navou banter  / contribs  03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. Navou banter  / contribs  04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: The tools, in the way I enjoy working with the project, I want to help the project the best way I can. There are some things I already do. I copy/edit, source and expand where I can, maintain where I can in the way of participating in deletion debates, RC, Patrol, csd tags, etc. That is writing the encyclopedia first, everything else second. I can do both. With the tools, not only can I write the encyclopedia, I can be helpful at 3RR, AIV, RFPP, CSD ANI and deletion debate closures.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: For the project, I think I would have to be proud of this as I was able to actually add information and sourcing. I have more information from the US Army, I will be able to actually expand this more.  My end goal is to nominate this for FA.  I was able to add this sourcing as well.  Another article I hope will reach FA status.  Of these two, I am particularly proud.  I have dabs of copy editing, examples are here, here (difficult as I am not familiar with the subject)and, spelling correction example here.  Primarly I copy edit spelling and grammar.  Style, usage, and tone will come as I become more comfortable.  Actually sourcing comes if I have the source in front of me, normally.


 * 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: Conflict here. I will admit, the entire conflict caused me stress, but the stress was near the end when I was unsure of how to proceed.  This is when I requested assistance from another, more experienced mediator.  As far as dealing with it in the future, the same I dealt with this, calmly.


 * General comments


 * See Navou's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion
 * Nomination withdrawn. Navou banter  / contribs  12:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)



Support

Oppose


 * 1) Oppose. Though I hate to say it, I have doubts about Navou's judgment. This mainly results from his support of CyberAnth's proposal to create BLP Admins, which he confirmed here, where he was the first user to comment on the proposal. To support a policy that would create a new class of admins who would act more as policemen than janitors (able to override concensus when they believed it was wrong) to me reflects a misunderstanding about the basis of the decision making process in Wikipedia. "BLP Admins" would also have been able to use their tools in dispute they were involved in, which should have been indentified by him as problematic. As a result, I'm not comfortable that Navou has sufficiently understanding of the workings of Wikipedia or the role of administrators within it. Sorry. WjBscribe 04:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry, you've been doing a good job, but I believe you require more experience. Your mainspace count is too low, and you could be more active on XFD. I see some vandalfight, but even in that area I'm not sure if you're experienced enough. Finally, I'm also not very impressed with your answers. Keep up the good work, gain some more experience and try again in a few months.-- Hús  ö  nd  04:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for a combination of not having been around long enough (although you're well and truly on the right track there) and answers which don't really seem to explain why you need to be an admin, although I may just have misread them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Need for adminship not asserted. Yuser31415 06:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Based on your self-nom statement and weird over-focus on how well you can write, speak English, etc., and no obvious need for the tools, I cannot support yet at this stage. Keep working on the encyclopedia and don't let your talent, as you yourself describe, be wasted on adminning. – Chacor 04:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Same opinion as above. I tend to doubt self-noms, but that is mainly because they tend to be inexperienced users. You are not inexperienced, but I am unconvinced of your knowledge and need for the tools. Nothing really bad and nothing really good about you. Neutral is my vote for now. Captain  panda   In   vino   veritas  04:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral nothing is compelling me to support. Low main-space contributions and no real need for the tools. Also, I'm not so comfortable supporting an editor who has been active for only three months. - Anas Talk? 09:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, no real need for the tools, only active for three months, but nothing overwhelmingly negative. Make a bunch more contributions to the mainspace and try again in a few months.  The Rambling Man 11:38, 17 February 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.