Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Navou 2


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

Navou
[ Voice your opinion] (10/9/4); Scheduled to end 04:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

- I initially registered in May 2006, however, only became active in DEC 2006. I have beem around a bit, I feel grounded in the site workings for the most part. Would like to request adminship. I do some work at WP:CN and a few other places. Some vandal fight, and I've interacted on WP:AN/I and AN. I have had a previous RFA and I have addressed the concerns there. I enjoy working with this project, and believe that I can be more helpful to the project as an administrator. If the community supports me, I will also place myself open to recall. That is, if I feel the community trusts me no more, I will step down. Thank you. Navou  banter  04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. Navou   banter  04:54, 14 April 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?
 * A: What interests me is the WP:RFPP area, this is where I will start. I anticipate helping with the speedy deletion candidates.  As I learn more, I will expand.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: As far as the contributions I am most happy with, it would have to be those I make to Combat lifesaver, Combat medic, and 68W. I am not done yet with those, however, it is my goal to see at least one of those as a featured article.


 * 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 think the most conflict I have experienced is with the Shawn Hornbeck article. An article I nominated for discussion at WP:AFD.  I also informally mediated a dispute over there after the article was kept.


 * Optional question from Pomte
 * 4. For Shawn Hornbeck you requested protection and unprotection multiple times. At what point in a content dispute should an article be full or semi-protected? What if the editors involved cannot reach a consensus, and it seems unlikely they will ever be able to do so? –Pomte 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A content dispute should be protected as soon as edit warring begins in whatever version it is found to be in. The discussion should then take place on the article talk page.  If the editors can not reach a consensus,  and a consensus is unlikely, then other dispute resolution steps should be suggested and explored.  Always, edit warring is harmful.  Navou   banter  19:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 I am happy to answer any questions if there are any. Navou  banter  04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate all comments. This RFA does not appear to reach consensus, and at this time, is unlikely to do so. Navou  banter  16:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support. I feel that concerns from the previous RFA have been addressed and now Navou is definitely ready. I would also like to commend Navou for his activity at WP:CN. Max S em 05:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support - This user perhaps could have gone into a bit more detail when answering the questions and have a little more experience in main-space. However, I can find no reason to think this user would abuse the admin tools, and I have noticed a lot of involvement with admin tasks such as Community Sanctions and with interacting with other users, both key skills of an admin. Camaron1 | Chris 11:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Definitely not the lowest editcount I've seen at RfA, and I personally think that projectspace edits are as important as mainspace edits for an admin candidate. Although the opposers make fair points, adminship is no big deal. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  16:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support It is good to see a candidate with a high project-space account instead of so many with low project-space. I will support. Captain   panda  16:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Now a nearly equal number of projectspace and mainspace edits doesn't satisfy people? Huh? -Amarkov moo! 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Automatic Support - if the only complaint is that he only has 1000 mainspace edits ... then ... well ... whatever. --BigDT 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Many arguments below are unsubstantiated and lack real support in their suggestions. Ready for adminship? - Definitely Brylcreem2  What?
 * 8) Weak Support Like some others, I would like to see more mainspace edits but I am not willing to oppose based soley on that. Such is especially true given your extensive work in those areas which bear directly on the administrator's duties.  Jody B   00:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I am not particularly impressed by the answers, but my overall sense is that Navou knows what he is doing and can use the tools effectively. I have seen his comments before. YechielMan 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Won't abuse the tools; experience level meets my expectations. -- P.B. Pilhet  03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support Navou is one of my most diligent and productive admin coaching trainees. Almost since the inception of the Community sanctions noticeboard, Navou has been closing discussions and performing general maintenance.  It is no exaggeration to say that he has been an essential factor in that board's smooth running.  Navou is also a mediator trainee at Community enforceable mediation and performed much more than his share of the drudge work in bringing that program from proposal stage to its present trial run.  Since I know how discussions at this board often go I had advised him to spend more time in article space and gain credit for a good article before trying this candidacy.  Having worked closely with this editor for some time, however, I have trust and confidence in him as someone who would use the tools wisely and who operates in areas where mops are in short supply.  So out of respect for both Navou and the community, I ask Navou to pledge to be open to recall for the first six months of administratorship and I ask the community to give him the chance to demonstrate his worth.  He has already demonstrated his worth to me.  Durova Charge! 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am open to recall. I will step down if I no longer feel the community trusts me. Also I will add myself to Category:Administrators open to recall  Navou   banter  03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Tony Sidaway 12:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Seems like a good chap. No major problems. --Tony Sidaway 12:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) User has too many contributions to the Wikipedia namespace. --bainer (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean too many compared to his mainspace contribs? -- Spawn Man 10:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Wheres the counter at the top? Anyway you have less than 1000 edits in the article mainspace, thats too little for administrators. Thanks -  Te ll y a ddi ct  09:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added the counter. Apologies. Navou   banter  11:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, bainer took the counter out per WT:RFA according to his/her edit summary. Navou   banter  11:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Too few mainspace edits for my liking & you only just marginally make it past other criterion I have. Thanks, but for now, it's an oppose... Spawn Man 10:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Fixed tally up there for you all...
 * 2) Oppose - As per Tellyaddict, Your Contribution to Wikipedia is Excellent but your mainspace needs a bit of improvement..-- Cometstyles 10:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - This user, I personally think, has not had enough exerience here on Wikipedia. User's contributitions are worthwhile and helpful, but I believe that five months is not long enough to become an administrator. Best of Luck in the future though. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 18:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per criteria 2 and 3 of my criteria. For "Administrative duties", you have much experience in the noticeboards and such, but looking at your vandalism reversions from April 13, you have 14 reversions, yet you only warned 6 users that day. If users aren't warned, there is little record of vandaliasm and they will go longer without blocks. For "Quality of Work", I am not extremely impressed with what you say you are most proud of (sorry if that sounds kind of mean, I don't intend that). I understand that they are works in progress but Combat lifesaver has had a tag on it since March 24. I would also suggest you read up on minor edits.  Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose too few mainspace edits. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose needs more editing experience. --Duke of Duchess Street 21:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Interaction with this editor at WP:CSN shows a disturbing tendency to ask questions without doing his homework. Specifically, he asked a question about a case I filed that was clearly answered by the RFC I linked to in the request, then asked another question that could have been answered had he examined the diffs in the RFC in detail.  --Ideogram 03:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose because I think applicant needs more time in mainspace. I know people get irked by this suggestion at times but to be empathetic as an admin you have to understand clearly what editors are going through and under a 1000 such edits just doesn't cut it for me (although you are not far off - I'd say 2 maybe 3 months of solid work).-- VS  talk 13:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Appears to be a suitable candidate, but I am withholding support pending a WikiProject endorsement per my endorsement policy for RfAs. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are looking for, but i think this may be it. I have been working with the LoCE for a while.   Navou   banter  18:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral- I would love to support you, as you are an established and experienced editor. However, as Tellyaddict has pointed out. You do not have enough edits in the section "mainspace". So I must stand neutral, sorry. Retiono Virginian 16:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral tending to Oppose I have seen the user around and they always seemed sensible to me but I get the impression that they are not taking the RFA a seriously as they might. Particularly for a self nom, very short answers to the questions provide very little information to assess the candiate against. While I do agree that the questions are in many ways proforma, its still a hurdle that the candidate should at least try and jump. May be prepared to reconsider later depending on how this goes. Spartaz Humbug! 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly did not intend for the answers to appear proforma. I am not just checking the block, those are my honest answers.  I welcome any optional questions any editor would like to pose in the above questions section, I will do my best to answer those.   Navou   banter  18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral basically for having a low mainspace count. I might have weakly supported you if your answers were better and longer. Also, reviewing your recent contributions, I noticed that you don't always warn users after reverting their vandalism. — An as  talk? 16:42, 14 April 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.