Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neranei


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

Neranei
Final (10/16/9); ended 12:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

- Hello everyone, I'm Neranei. I am requesting adminship for a couple of different reasons. First of all, I feel that I am competent and responsible enough to not abuse the tools. I am a WikiGnome, doing various menial chores that make Wikipedia more credible; I feel that credibility is one of the major issues for Wikipedia, for example, it is not allowed as a reference in schools and such. I have never vandalized the Encyclopedia, rather, have helped in the endless battle against vandals. Second, while using Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool, I have felt that the rollback tool granted to Administrators would be very helpful, as non-admin rollback and Twinkle do not work in my browser. Another reason I am requesting adminship is the Delete Article button. While patrolling New Pages, I have found that it can take a while for an admin to get around to deleting the article in question, or sometimes, no one finding the article until much later. The final reason that I am requesting adminship is a huge problem for the encyclopedia. Backlogs are growing all of the time, and there are not enough admins to wield the mop and bucket. Therefore, I am applying for Adminship. Sincerely, Nera nei 12:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Well, considering that this is a self-nom, I accept. Nera nei 13:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In advance, thank you for commenting and for taking the time to vote. Nera nei 13:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Well, as I was talking about in my very verbose introduction, there are several things I intend to help Wikipedia with as an administrator. First of all, I intend to continue helping cleanup projects such as Triddle's Stubsensor project. Second, I intend to use the extra tools to help the fight against vandals, both in AIV and with tools such as Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool, where the Admin rollback tool will come in handy. In the area of vandal-fighting, I have worked on patrolling New Pages, have reported several vandals to AIV for repeated vandalism, and patrolled Recent Changes. In the area of New Pages, I hope to help with speedy deletes, and possibly closing AfD debates. The last area in which I intend to take part in is the clearing of backlogs, with the help of the mop and bucket.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have done several things which I think should be mentioned here. Since I consider myself a WikiGnome, I mostly concern myself with small things, such as fixing spelling, sorting/fixing stubs, and adding geographical coordinates. I have written two articles, both about extinct languages, a subject that fascinates me. These articles are Andoa and Omurano. I intend to continue creating language articles, such as those mentioned on my user page, Iquito and Aushiri. Otherwise, I have been a recent changes and New Pages patroller, helped on Maintenance projects, and occasionally helped out over at AfC.


 * 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 have not been in any edit conflicts, and I hope to avoid conflicts with editors. I am generally pretty mellow, only getting mildly annoyed at very persistent vandals.
 * 4. Optional Question from User:Rocksanddirt How much time to you spend on WP now?  (either per day or per week), and how do you see that changing if you were to become an admin?
 * A: Right now, unless on vacation, I spend about an hour a day on weekdays, and about 2-3 hours on weekends. That varies of course, with what I have going on, and if on vacation, it is very difficul to get on. If I were promoted to adminship, I see my time on here increasing, obviously, because there is more to do and more responsibilty involved.

General comments

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


 * Links for Neranei:
 * Recommend delisted per WP:SNOW. Andre (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Neranei before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Moral Support - Good editor, but probably will not pass this time round. I advise you to withdraw this RfA for now and work on getting some more experience with community discussion and policy (Articles for deletion is a good place to start). Come back in 2-3 months and you will probably pass. Waltontalk 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support - You seem like a good editor indeed, but you need some more experience. Like Walton, I suggest that you try again after some time, in which case you would have more probabilities of passing. ♠  TomasBat  21:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support - I am going to echo what Walton and TomasBat have both said. I think you are a good editor who shows a lot of promise.  Please don't be discouraged by not passing on this first attempt, and come back in a few months, and I feel you would have an excellent chance of passing. old windy bear 02:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support the above reasonsings. Acalamari 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Moral Support I think that this RfA is going to WP:SNOW but a review of your contributions shows excellent work. Please see the comments made by those in oppose, and learn from them, in order to add value to your existing strengths. Best wishes, Happy Editing, and I look forward to offering my un-qualified support in a future RFA. Pedro | Chat  10:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Moral support for keeping his head up high during this.  Kwsn (Ni!) 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support (nothing moral about it). I haven't seen any reason to oppose.  I would advise you take note of the reasons for opposition, see what you can do about them, and in a few months try again.  Although please don't force yourself to do something you don't want to do just so you become an admin.  It's not that big a deal.  Neil   ╦  12:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Samething Neil said. RuneWiki      777 21:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support This RfA will probably WP:SNOW, but that's no reason not to support. Great editor. Bart133 (t) (c) 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support This editor seems to be confident about his/her abilities as an admin, shown by this users' userpage and the fact that this is a self-nomination. I would suggest you reapply for months later after you gained enough experiance because I doubt this is going to pass. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose A valuable editor that is not quite ready for adminship. I very much appreciate all the tedious and hard work that goes into being a "Gnome" but I feel this user lacks the expericance and pre-reqs for access to the tools. My two biggest concerns are he/she only being active for four months and a complete lack of community interaction. It is vital that an administrator not only have a broad depth of understanding of policy and the innner workings of wikipeida but that they are successful in their interactions with other users. I think this user will make an excellent canidate in six months time provided he branches out into policy/guidline discussion and can demostrate community interaction on the mainspace. Good luck Neranei. NeoFreak 14:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reasoning NeoFreak, and I'm not arguing with you, but I'd just like to make a comment that even though the user's only been here four months, some of our regulars have only been here for a very short amount of time, such as The Random Editor. Cool  Blue <font color="#800000">talk to me 14:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Hello Neranei, I feel that at this time, you don't yet have sufficient experience to be an administrator. In particular, you have very few edits to WP:AIV, WP:AFD and similar pages. I'm pointing these out because you mentioned that anti-vandalism and article deletion would be among your anticipated activities as an admin. As of this time, I don't see sufficient evidence to demonstrate that you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding vandalism and particularly deletion. I'm not saying that you would abuse the admin tools, but without more experience in these and other areas, there is a risk that you might make a mistake. Most admin mistakes can of course be remedied, but it's still better to avoid making such mistakes. On the plus side, you haven't been blocked, and you make the effort to be kind to other Wikipedians. Please don't be discouraged by my oppose or if this RfA should fail. You may lack experience, but fortunately that is easily fixed. I encourage you to read more about Wikipedia's guide to deletion and start participating more on pages like Articles for Deletion, Miscellany for Deletion, and Deletion Review. It's good that you also write, because Wikipedia is built on content. You said that you're more of a WikiGnome, but you might consider joining a WikiProject if you wanted to look for more things to do. The Community Portal has loads of ideas. I hope I haven't hurt your feelings by my oppose. You're doing a great job so far, you just need to do a bit more work before I am ready to support you. Keep up the good work, try to expand your horizons, and if this RfA should fail, please try to see it as a learning experience so that you have a better idea of what you're good at and what you can learn to do better. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Good luck, and happy editing! -- Kyok o  14:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose You have made sterling contributions to the project since you started several months ago but I don't think that you are ready to be an admin just yet. You lack contributions the policy space at this time, so I would suggest that you begin to contribute to the XfD discussions for starters.  You can then use these to display a knowledge of the policies and guidelines that guide admins in their actions, choosing to keep, delete or edit articles according to these.  Showing your knowledge of the backbone of Wikipedia in this manner will be an excellent starter for engaging with other editors on their  talk pages when you have cause to comment on their contributions.  Admins have to be prepared to make and stick to a point based upon policy and there are many editors who enjoy disagreeing with such points because they are passionate about their subjects beyond the point of rationality.  It is not an easy job and can at times become very demanding and all-consuming.  You have to keep both your head and your cool in all circumstances and avoid biting recalcitrant editors at all costs.  You say that you monitor both the new changes and recent changes lists?  That is another really good place for admins to start, so keep up your efforts in those areas too.  I will be prepared to switch my opinion to support when I can see that you display a knowledge of policy and the ability to communicate this to editors who do not know the finer points of Wikipedia in a supportive and co-operative manner.  Regards, (aeropagitica) 15:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Unfortunately not quite ready yet in my opinion - whilst your contributions have been very valuable, I feel that you are not familiar enough (yet) with policy and other processes in Wikipedia, as evidenced by your responses and contributions. Keep up the good work and familiarise yourself with policy, and you will have a better chance in a few months. In the short term, I suggest that you withdraw this nomination and work on some of the suggestions made by (aeropagitica) :). ck lostsword•T•C 16:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per the sentiments of the other editors above. Thank you for offering to help Wikipedia as an administrator, but you are not quite ready yet. Please do reapply in a few months when you have more experience. --Deskana (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I'm sorry, I just don't feel like you have enough experience, since you have only been here since April. Come back in a few mounths. I will be happy to support you when you have more experience. Politics rule 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I am really sorry, because I am sure that in the future, if you persist, you will be a great admin. For the present, all we have to go on in making these recommendations is the evidence, shown in your edits, of your competence and understanding of admin-related tasks. This means essentially that you need to edit in WP:NAMESPACE, which you have done only to a small extent. Spend some time in WP:AfD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, etc and next time you will be a shoo-in. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - Neranei has been with Wikipedia for a little over two months (since April 29, 2007). In that short time, Neranei has not gain enought wide-range experiences to deal with being an admin. Please try again in three months (e.g., October 2007 or later). -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 16:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Neranei. Since you desire to keep your RfA open, here are some more comments. Removing stub tags, posting welcoming messages, giving out cookies, and fixing spelling errors is not enough to give you the broad experience needed to be an admin. You do not have much detailed interactions with admins and experienced editors and have very little communication about Wikipedia. You need XfD experience. Take a look at WP:XFD. Participating at XfD (usually AfD and DRV) is a place where you can gain applied experience with Wikipedia policy, process, and discussion as well as interact with experienced editors. You also may want to do a little work at New pages patrol. Some RfAs have been unsuccessful because of seemingly small reasons: Aggressively seeking an admin position by having user page statements such as "I hope to be an administrator one day!", using way too many userboxes, having a userbox that someone else does not like, encouraging vandals to post on a user page contrary to Deny recognition, the wisdom of publicly posting your email address, a mischaracterization through a less than detailed edit summary such as thinking that your user page belongs to you rather than merely be associated with you. Also, you might want to tone down the green in your signature and be careful of removing article stub tags from articles that still are stubs or where it is not clear as to whether the stub tag is applicable. Take a look at Wp:stub. Your use of edit summaries is good and you have a kind, nice way about you. With broader experience, you should have no problem in three months with you next RfA. Please contact me then if you would like me to consider nominating you for your RfA#2.-- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 18:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, sorry. You're doing well and your wikignoming is commendable, but you must gain more overall experience particularly in admin-oriented tasks. By the way (and this is in no way a reason to oppose, just a personal comment), the color combination of your signature somehow hurts my eyes.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, as per above reasons.  Cheers, Je  tL  ov  er  00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose &mdash; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 20:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I think this is an excellent editor who is probably going to make an equally excellent Admin at some point in the future. However, I would really like to see some experience in project space before she gets her mop. Trusilver 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose but will support in a couple of months. Needs more experience in project space before she gets the mop...Stillstudying 12:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose a good editor, but needs some more experience. -<font color="red" face="georgia">Lemon <font color="orange" face="georgia">flash talk  01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I'm going to oppose, Not quite enough experience.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose I went through your contributions & talk pages, and while I think you are an excellent wiki-gnome editor, I see little evidence that you are familiar with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. I see a lot of spelling fixes, but nothing to indicate your activity in more "involved" areas (AfD, RFA, Admin Noticeboard, etc.) I hope this does not discourage you from editing at Wikipedia. --Ozgod 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral - I'm neutral for a number of reasons. One, there are several verbal clues that indicate lack of experience with the project, which is why I'm reluctant to give him the mop. While adminship is no big deal, I feel this user lacks some experience in the project. I just don't feel comfortable supporting or opposing. <font color="#000FFF">Cool <font color="#000FFF"> Blue <font color="#800000">talk to me 13:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another point is that, according to the statistics I've pulled up and posted to the talk page, he has, and I hate to say X number of edits in Y namespace, but the user has very little Wikipedia-namespace edits. And 5 of them were to this RfA. <font color="#000FFF">Cool <font color="#000FFF"> Blue <font color="#800000">talk to me 13:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious; what are the verbal clues you are citing? Thanks for voicing your opinion, Nera <b style="color:#00ff00;">nei</b> 14:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely not opposing on those, but some of them are "battle against vandals", "fight against vandals", and "vote". You're a very good contributor, and all I'm saying is that you should gain some more experience before coming back. As WP:GRFA cites, "The nomination process is not intended as a forum for voting on a nominee's popularity or strength as an editor. Instead, it is an evaluation of their likely ability to appropriately use administrator rights." I have no doubt that you won't abuse the tools, but I'm worried that you just aren't experienced enough to use them right now to the best of your potential. We need more admins like you, though, so if you apply in a little while after this, I'll definitely support you. <font color="#000FFF">Cool <font color="#000FFF"> Blue <font color="#800000">talk to me 14:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the feedback! Nera <b style="color:#00ff00;">nei</b> 14:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I love wikignomes (I'm one myself). However, you just don't show enough participation in the project itself for me to feel that you've got a firm grasp on Wikipedia's policies. I'd love to give you advice, but I feel that (aeropagitica) has already given you a wealth of information; follow that advice and I have little doubt that, in a few months, you could breeze right through your RfA. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I could easily Oppose, but that would be your basic pile-on, since everything has pretty much been said. Wikignomes are always valuable to the project, but, like most of the other !voters I think that you need to get a better understanding of policy. Get involved in XfDs, etc, etc. --<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">tennis <font color="ForestGreen" face="verdana">man 17:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I too could easily oppose and I do not want to pile-on the opposition comments. Try again after three months and you will have my support. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I think you are well on your way, but just take the time and edit for awhile, and you'll pass next time around. Jmlk  1  7  04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] Neutral. Per Cool Blue. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral: based on what we've seen from you so far, all indicators are that you would be a fine admin. At this point, however, your experience level isn't quite enough for me to roll into the "Support" category. But keep up the good work, and don't be afraid to put forward another RFA in the future should this one fail. -- MisterHand 15:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral. You're not quite ready yet, but if you use the next 3 moths or so to develop into an even greater wikipedian, you'll pass here no problem. Wizardman  21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral You do show what is required to be an admin. I think it's better if you to hold on for a few months longer to get used to the community. Good luck on your next RfA <font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited  Talk page  15:47, 13 July 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.