Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/New Age Retro Hippie 3


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

New Age Retro Hippie 3
Final (13/27/3); Withdrawn by New Age Retro Hippie at 22:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination
– New Age Retro Hippie (previously known as A Link to the Past) has been an editor for many years and is dedicated to improving the quality of the encyclopedia, specifically the computer and video game articles. His first edit was December 2004 and he has made over 40,000 edits, around half of which are to the article space. He has shown significantly increased maturity since his last RFA in 2006 and has stood the test of time as a valued contributor. He has grown up along with the project and is a real asset, I believe he could do more good work as an admin. Andrevan@ 20:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:14, 29 November 2013 (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: Considering that I'm very often a mergist/deletionist, I would involve myself in the process of those. Any administrative work related to images, especially fair use images, is something I would be rather enthusiastic about.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I'm not the best writer, so in the end I often look back more fondly on small things like my personal (and sometimes project) drives related to reducing the number of fair use images to the bare minimum necessary.


 * 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: As people can tell, I did have a bad history back in the day with poor attitude and excessive edit reversions (as recent as 2011). Since then, I have virtually ceased this and have decided to follow bold, revert, discuss much more stringently. With respect to people who could reasonably be described as trolls, I've recently made a policy to actually treat them very respectfully. I find that if the person is a troll, it will usually kill their momentum, and if they're not, they'll generally become more civil.


 * Additional question from Salvidrim!
 * 4. Are there any specific areas of admin-related work that you intend to actively avoid and/or not take part in, and if so, why? (For example: image-related issues, username investigations, etc.)
 * A: Nothing in particular comes to mind. While there are some things I would likely participate in more than others, I do not intend to actively avoid any duties.


 * Additional questions from Buffbills7701
 * 5. What word would you best describe for your attitude for becoming an admin, and why?
 * A:
 * 6. What essay (essay, not policy) do you think best describes Wikipedia?
 * A:


 * Question from Keithbob
 * 7 Can you provide links to all the talk page discussions that you have initiated (since your last block in 2011) as part of your new WP:BRD resolution? I'm specifically looking for situations where you were reverted and instead of reverting yourself, you went to the talk page and worked things out. I think this would be helpful in allowing us to verify the substantive change in your behavior that you have referenced in your comments above.
 * A: One recent example is Pro Evolution Soccer 2009 where I removed an image and was reverted by an editor whom I left a comment on the talk page. When the user did not reply after several days I then took it upon myself to revert back with an invitation to discuss the image use. Tetris Attack I also tried to avoid excessive reversion in with respect to the merge of Panel de Pon. The initial reversion toward the merge was made by a user who not only did not reply to my user message but reverted it which I took as concession on the matter. As another user joined the discussion, I chose to participate in the discussion on the talk page. I reverted his reversion after sufficient consensus was formed in favour of the merge in addition to a misinterpretation of what he had said in his initial comment on the talk page. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Beeblebrox
 * 8. With several days left to go, this RFA is seeing roughly twice as much opposition as support. Do you believe Wikipedia is harmed, helped, or unaffected by leaving an RFA that seems certain to fail open for its full run?
 * A: I would say unaffected or helped depending on the user. In my case I would say that it was helpful to keep my RfA open though I plan to close it soon (as I feel I've received as much unique criticism as there is going to be). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for New Age Retro Hippie:
 * Edit summary usage for New Age Retro Hippie can be found here.
 * Transcluded since the candidate has accepted the nomination. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this might have been a bad idea, since it looks like the candidate wasn't expecting the RfA to go live yet and wasn't planning on answering the questions until later. — Soap — 02:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Soap. It's standard for the candidate or nominator to transclude. Since it seems this went live prematurely I've boldly untranscluded it. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't  look  as if it  has been untranscluded. The clock  is still  ticking, and I've posted my  vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit stats posted on talk page. buffbills7701 01:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Overall I'm simply satisfied that I'm getting a response. The opposition helps me to see the faults involved with me becoming an administrator - that is, the past occurrences of semi-retirement and lack of involvement in administrative areas. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Support

 * 1) Andrevan@ 20:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Tentative Support - I have no reasons at the moment to oppose the candidate; NARH has shown, IMO, an appropriate level of knowledge both of policy and procedure, as well as a generally constructive attitude. My opinion remains open to be solified into complete support, pending the answer to the RfA questions. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In answer to the inevitable opposes, I am completely unconcerned with a perceived slower rate of editing in recent months. Not everyone racks up a high number of contributions, but every little bit helps. As long as the user is trusted to take constructive actions as an admin, whether he's expected to take few or plenty of these helpful actions is irrelevant. My editing rate was even less in recent months that NARH's is, and especially in total over years, and yet I'd like to think I've been able to do some good since my own RfA was successful. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I am slightly disappointed in the lack of elaboration in the answers to the RfA questions (which are meant to help every !voter learn more about the candidate), but maybe I simply hold artificially elevated standards of verbosity because my own answers were more wordy. I still cannot find a reason to justify opposing, although I'm leaning towards neutrality. The block history is of little concern to me: while we can all agree edit-warring is not constructive behaviour, I still think it is less of an issue than things like personal attacks or vandalism. Even admins get involved in edit wars from time to time to defend their ideas, and while going far enough to merit a block is obviously not a good idea, disputes are a normal part of editing articles; in recent months I've disagreed with NARH on a number of things and can affirm that the attitude and vibe I observed during these discussions did not worry me as to the user's level-headedness. The fact the user was resilient enough to keep trudging on, grow from his mistakes, and is still editing constructively after almost a decade despite being under evident stress at times... that's a quality of character in my eyes. And "low content contributions" or "little activity in recent months" is an absolute non-issue in my mind, for reasons I explained above; "he is likely to only perform little work" is not a reason to oppose a candidate, unlike, for example, "the work he will do is likely to be unfitting of an admin" would be. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)  Baseball   Watcher  00:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I believe he will do well as an admin. He has definitely grown over the years, and has learned much. He has created many high quality articles, and helped keep some up to standards. In the past year or so, he has largely been on a campaign to fix how WP:VG uses images in their articles, making sure that the rationals are kept, and extra needless images are removed. I believe he knows policy significantly well enough to accurately facilitate discussions and/or AfDs. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As with Salvadrim (Salvidrim, please!), I agree that NARH's editing rate isn't of concern, as while he may have went semi-retired a few times, he always edits strong when he is active. As an admin, I doubt he would go on further retirements. Also, you can't blame a guy on not being on the computer thanksgiving night! It's family time! Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I hate deletionists, but will support never the less. Wincent77 (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support. Good luck! ''' Jianhui67 talk ★ contribs 14:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – The fact that they are a mergist/deletionist isn't concerning to me. Nor is the fact that they hardly edited between June 2011 and June 2013. However, I think that the quality of their edits are good, as well as their understanding of Wikipedia policies. Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support this long-term user. He's a deletionist, we need more deletionists to remove all the crap. jni (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Such as ? -- Trevj (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, my secret plan is to submit the 700 or so LoPbN subpages that were deleted out of process (without posting the AfD template on every page) to DRV. I'll do that when I understand the meta-structure completely. jni (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I trust Andrevan judgement Secret account 18:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support - the lack in participation is somewhat concerning, as is the tendency to !vote "Delete" in an AfD where I would not have done so (and the consensus has gone the other way); however, his matching percentage has gone up with time, enough to where I do not feel that his deletionist tendancies would result in him mis-judging consensus and closing an AfD in an improper way. The answers to the questions have been satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Salvidrim. In my opinion, some of the opposes don't hold merit, while others certainly are cause for concern. The fact that we have an experienced Wikipedian who wants to further their experience on the encyclopedia is something that I am going to support, as we need to be encouraging people to stay on this site, and there really is no reason to discourage someone who wants to do something more for their community by helping out a bit more. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral Support. Good luck! --► Cekli    829   13:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, after much thought about the concern posed by the candidate's recent low level of activity; while there's a learning curve for any admin, that curve is shallower if you've been around picking up some of the nuances a decent admin needs. However, after a rocky start the candidate is definitely a net positive.  Mini  apolis  03:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Tentative Oppose - Moved to Neutral - I have no reasons at the moment to support the candidate; my opinion remains open to be converted into complete support, pending the answer to the RfA questions. Technical 13 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheeky you! ;) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I've spent a little time looking into his editing history, and I'm slightly concerned about his block history. 17 blocks over the course of a year, mostly for edit warring, from Fall 2006 to Fall 2007.  Sure, (s)he was younger and didn't know better at the time and was a new editor and that was six years ago and they learned their lesson... I would be okay with that... except for that block in 2011.  Yes, that was still a couple years ago but it says to me that despite four years having passed from this user's reign of terror in 2006-07, they hadn't completely learned their lesson.   would I would like to know now before I can consider supporting, is how would you handle your previous interactions differently that resulted in your blocks in 2006-07 (pick one or two of the worst, no need to detail them all) and most importantly, how would you handle the incident that resulted in your 2011 block differently if the same situation was to arise in the future?  Do you think that administrator tools should be used by you in the event that you are in disagreement with another editor? Technical 13 (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the most noteworthy block would be the first one given by A Man In Black. The context of that was that I had gotten in an edit war with the administrator on the article which led to me becoming upset that he blocked me despite involvement and a similar violation on his part (not an excuse, just explaining how I acted and why). This led to a wheel war of sorts and a conclusion that, while not a justification for my poor behaviour during that trial, had some vindication in the form of (what I recall was) an AN/I that found the block to be excessive. With that out of the way, the most obvious things that I can say I would avoid would be violating 3RR and/or allowing my emotions to get the better of me in the first place. The most recent block for edit warring on The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past's article also applies, as (again if I recall) it was poor judgment and didn't involve the aforementioned poor behaviour (I had thankfully improved significantly by then). To address your question about the administrator tools, absolutely not. I understand the importance of getting a second administrator to step in to give an impartial view of the situation so it doesn't become an issue to have the administrator possibly abuse his or her power. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, there weren't 18 blocks. InShaneee adjusted block settings for NARH four times over the course of two days in October 2006. Then, Fran Rogers blocked the user and reblocked them on 24 August 2007. Still, 13 blocks is a lot of blocks against NARH. They may have learned their lesson, however. Epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose - Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I must say that New Age’s lack of editing within the last 2 years is somewhat of a concern; as well as their lack of participation within administrator-areas of the project (such as AIV; RPP; UAA etc). Being a trustworthy editor is a wonderful thing, something that this user clearly is. But to become an administrator, one must comprise the tenacity to participate, have knowledge and experience within administrator areas – I'm yet convinced that New Age has this. Granted that they are yet to answer questions, I’ll be keeping an eye on this discussion – and I’m always willing to review things in due course. Either way, good luck! — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 00:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose the candidate has simply not been active enough over the last two years. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. (moved from neutral). A check  on  the most  recent  50 or so of the  202 articles created shows that  while some appear to  be very  well  referenced, many  are are unsourced or needing  additional references and are also  tagged for other maintenance issues. While I  do  not  insist  that  a huge amount  of content  work is needed for adminship, I  do  expect  that  creations, if any, should serve as good examples and be free of issues. Roughly  42 edits per month average over the past  two  and a half years but with  breaks of even lower activity. A burst  of some activity  in  the four months leading  to  this nomination, but  IMHO, still  low. There is too  little recent  interaction  with  other users to  estimate if the issues in Requests for adminship/A Link to the Past have since been addressed or how the candidate would react in  contentious or stressful  situations today. Total AfD pages edited: 281: 2013 (3), 2012 (2), 2011 (27); only  52.4% matched the result. Only  23 uses of Twinkle which possibly demonstrates little use of user warnings.  Five PRODs in  2012/13 but  no  other significant  work  at  CSD.  No  edits to  policy  pages. 2 edits to  guidelines. No reports to  WP:AIV. No  reports to  WP:UAA. Limited participation  at  WP:AN/I and nothing  since 2011 and nothing  to  WP:AN  since 2007. Although  not  recent, the extent  of the block  log  gives me pause. I'm  afraid I  cannot  really  support this candidate at  the moment, but  perhaps some solid, regular contribution  to  maintenance areas would change my  mind in  about 6 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my late input; I just want to note that a good majority of my articles created that are not up to snuff are from quite a while ago. Nowadays, any article I create is created only once it is nearly or fully verified and with proper copy edits. To note, I actually was given a user right that allowed my newly created articles to automatically be labeled as patrolled in response to the high quality of my newly created articles. As for other concerns, I will address them as soon as I can. For the time being, I'm going to go play some Taboo with my relatives. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the basis of the earliest 50 articles which  are what  I  would have checked at  an application at  WP:RFP/A, I  would not  have granted Autopatrolled at  that  time (29 July 2010); naturally  I  cannot  speak  for the criteria applied by  other admins working  at  WP:PERM. Among  your most recent  50 creations since that  date, Katamari (series) (9 April 2011‎), Nosepass and Probopass (7 April 2011‎), Bit.Trip Flux (13 March 2011‎), Bit.Trip Fate (3 March 2011‎),  would probably not  have escaped the scrutiny of an experienced New Page Patroller. If  those issues have since been addressed, you  are of course perfectly  free to  remove the redundant  tags. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the confusion; while it does not pertain to new page patrol, a number of my articles that I do create are articles that already existed as redirects. Crono, Little Mac (Punch-Out!!), Lee Everett, and Pokémon Emerald were created with almost entirely original content (some more so than others) and were well-referenced upon their creation. While I have in the past resorted to making subpar articles such as BIT.TRIP FLUX and Katamari (series), I now prefer to make at least a Start- or C-class before I create it. I often end up working on the article in my user space. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I'm sorry but I cannot support an editor who states they are a "deletionist" and wants to work in XFD. It implies that you have a bias and I fear you could ignore/mis-interpret consensus. GiantSnowman 11:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To defend the term 'deletionist', to me it simply means a person who doesn't shy away from deleting an article/supporting the deletion of an article should the reasoning be strong enough to support this. In addition, despite the fact that I describe myself as a mergist and deletionist, I create a large number of articles, including articles on subjects that often have no precedence. Characters from Punch-Out!! went from having no articles to having more than a dozen (in general I am a noteworthy participant in the act of splitting characters in all mediums); I cleaned up and established notability for Elena (Street Fighter) for another user in order to better explain to them the threshold for notability; and I helped save the Red pill and blue pill article as part of the article rescue drive. Perhaps describing myself as a mergist/deletionist is too general a description. To rephrase, my interest in the XfD process has multiple justifications: I would check myself for sources to show notability on the AfDs, as I often do. As a deletionist (to whatever degree), I don't want to delete articles haphazardly. I'm definitely not in the camp that thinks certain articles are inherently non-notable (Pixel Force: Left 4 Dead, for example, is a fan-made freeware adaptation of Left 4 Dead). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a 'deletionist' and creating articles are not mutually exclusive. GiantSnowman 11:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. New Age Retro Hippie has only three AfD comments this year, and only five during the last two years. This is inadequate to justify entrustment with the deletion tool, especially for someone who labels himself as a deletionist.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  12:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose a block almost three years ago wouldn't bother me at all, but the amount of editing he has done since then is quite small. I'd like to see more evidence of the new NARH before confidently supporting. --Stfg (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The candidate has about 44 000 edits and contributed to several good articles. However, from August 2011 to August 2013 his edit activity was generally low, with 13 months of either zero or one single edit. He has been active again the last 4 months (edit counts from 21 to 329). These four months of activity are unfortunately not enough to convince me that he is “back for good”. There is a tendency that users who come back after a long retirement have a problem becoming fully engaged in the project again (See Antandrus nb. 70 for a keen observation on this). Somebody might well pose a question to the candidate about his semi-retirement and plans forward, but for me, the only thing that will convince me that he’s truly back will be if he is still eagerly editing next fall. That of course, would be very welcome. (I have not looked into the other issues). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I have had nothing but good experiences with NARH when our editing or discussions have overlapped, for example he recently conducted a GAR on one of my created articles and was pleasant throughout. My problem, as with other opposers, is the lack of edits over the past two years. If the number increased to that seen in 2007-2011 over the next year or so I would be much more inclined to support. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Stfg. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. If New Age Retro Hippie is not very active and there are problems with some articles I worry there is a risk that NARH's admin decisions wouldnot be in touch with today's community feeling and today's policies. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 15:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose No apparent enthusiasm for content contribution. Long-term low activity level. The conversation re nomination and acceptance does not fill me with confidence either . And I must confess to missing where this "significantly increased maturity" is in a username change to New Age Retro Hippie. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two things to which I must reply. First off, I would strongly disagree with the notion that I have no enthusiasm for content creation. A number of my articles created are done so for the sake of experimentation or to create standards. For example, all of the articles for Punch-Out!! characters was effectively to see if there could be notability established for all of them. I took Rugrats: Search for Reptar to GA status solely to act as a proof of concept for people who are interested in the show or animation (basically in an attempt to show how simple it is to improve even that kind of article to GA status). Recently I have made a commitment to bringing every Virtual Boy game and related article to GA or FL status (making it the first console to have a good or possibly even featured topic with its library). If we are to address true enthusiasm, then I should point out that Castlevania (video game) - my favourite NES game of all time - was in dire straights and featured only assumed notability. While it is still unfinished (the other dozen or so references I plan to use are still sitting in a text document) I feel it's been brought to demonstrated notability. It's also a difficult topic to research due to the fact that the title is used in all later games in its series. To address the second point, while I do not take offense to the notion that my maturity can be judged by my name, it is rather silly to do so. The user name comes from a video game that I played at a young age and to this day hold as my most treasured gaming experience. Not just in terms of gameplay - which many people would say that its gameplay is certainly not why it holds such reverence - but also for its witty and funny writing as well as its deep and involved plot. I think that a person who celebrates their childhood shouldn't have it held against them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk)  (contributions) 20:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My observation regarding content comes mostly from your answer to Q2. Where you could not identify anything you'd written as worth drawing our attention to, with that hackneyed excuse of I'm not the best writer. You already know you don't need to be. None of us are. You have demonstrated more than amply that you write to a standard more than sufficient for purpose. To give such an excuse - at once so feeble and so clearly untrue -is lazy; to expect it to be accepted without challenge is...somewhat childish? There is however no doubting the enthusiasm with which you give the examples in your response above. But it seems to me to be more an enthusiasm for content created to gratify self-devised subjective and/or qualitative standards. The GAs seem collected more as page baubles or point-making rather than work crafted for those seeking to read, whether primarily to attain info or for the pleasure of interest. Anyway, as for your username...to this Wikipedia editor (and, I confidently guess, likewise to a substantial number else) the existence and merits of your cherished video game are entirely unknown. And are in any case entirely incidental to the project as are all obscurely meaningful, deeply important usernames (and most others).  Therefore it has to be taken at face value, along with what we know. Which is a young person endeavouring to gain a position of responsibility, trust, merit, and acknowledgment of proven judgment and demonstrable discernment, here on the world's most consulted website. That this is your third go at it, and that since attempt #2, inspired by a childhood videogame, you changed your username to something that nonetheless sounds like the title of a parody and which I cannot take seriously Plutonium27 (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no purpose in being so strangely combative in your response. All of the articles I GA I do so out of an interest in making them an interesting subject. Whether or not I have a point behind elevating the articles to GA status shouldn't matter. In addition to being interesting or informational, a GA can be helpful for people with different interests to use as reference when they make similar articles. So if point-making is an element that goes into them, then I guess we can just shrug and say "oh well." In general, it seems like you're trying fairly hard to demonstrate a level of immaturity. First with that rather obvious example related to my excuse, and then later the inference I found in your discussion of my name (where you quite subtly imply that there is something inherently childish about the medium or the enjoyment thereof). Frankly, it makes you seem anal retentive about something so small. While I do not deny your point - that people would see a name from a video game and respond negatively - I expect that far more people would not care. It's quite unfortunate that you're so hung up on such a trivial detail. At least you made a valid point before that, otherwise your opposition would seem pedantic. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too many concerns raised above. Widr (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Not seeing enough activity, especially at XfD. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  18:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose a self confessed deletionist needs to be able to show they can stick to policy in what they delete, and also that they can diplomatically handle lots of upset article creators and guide them towards creating stuff that won't get deleted. Your recent edits are too few for me to be confident of the former, and whilst it is ancient, this admin only edit shows you tagging an article for deletion and leaving the creators talkpage a redlink. Newbie biting is bad enough in taggers, it isn't what I want to see in an admin.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of non-admins, it was a G4 nomination of San Andreas: Multiplayer in January 2011 after it had been AfD'ed an impressively large number of times (under San Andreas Multiplayer (latest before the G4 CSD was the 3rd AfD in 2007), and NARH opted not to notify Karlip1, whose first and only edit was to create that page. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that particular example I don't dispute the tag, my concern is the complete lack of communication. No userpage message and the G4 tag didn't link to the previous AFDs, so no great surprise that the author has not made another edit. Classic newbie biting.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose given the number of blocks (even not counting reblocks during the wheel war). 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 21:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as not very much activity on AFDs. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  22:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Candidate has not been active consistently enough over the past 2 years; I can understand a couple months for personal/off-Wikipedia reasons, but the length of very low is quite long.  Spencer T♦ C 03:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose – Appreciable work throughout Wikipedia tenure, but inconsistent, on and off activity over the past few years. Quite a bit of work in AFD overall, but again, in so far this year the user has only participated in three AFD discussions. User is also a self-described mergist/deletionist, which may raise bias concerns. The lack of recent, consistent content work raises questions on whether the user is fully accustomed to changing guidelines, policy for articles. I may very well support in the future when NARH has attained a consistent period of editing and participation in the fields he wishes to work in as admin.  TheAustinMan (Talk·Works) 04:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) "...poor attitude and excessive edit reversions (as recent as 2011). Since then, I have virtually ceased this..." That appears a disingenuous statement: it implies the candidate has improved their behaviour, when in fact all they have done is stop editing. If, by their own admission, they have behaved inappropriately, it takes more than a mere passage of time to convince the community they have improved; what we'd like to see is examples of good behaviour, particularly in areas that relate to adminship, such as conflict resolution or making decisions such as by closing discussions or AfDs. Oppose.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since returning I have been in numerous situations where I could have very easily fallen into bad habits. I feel that while it would be helpful to have more edits under my belt in this span of time, the edits that I do have show that I've ceased to violate 3RR. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Does not meet my RFA standards. More activity would certainly go a long way in the next 6 months. Mkdw talk 18:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose  I commend New Age Retro Hippie (NARH) on their many content related edits and contributions not to mention the many GA's and DYK's. Very nice work. I also highly commend NARH for his/her progress in the area of edit warring. It seems to be much less in recent years.  He/she seems to have come a long way there.  However, I'm still not comfortable supporting an application for Admin at this time because there is still the tendency for NARH to heat up situations when they interact with other editors. Here are two recent and related examples where NARH increases the tension in the conversation rather than cooling it down.  This is not a good quality for an Administrator and I think more time is needed for them to further refine their interaction skills.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Sorry to pile on. I'd also like to see more evidence of recent work in admin areas before supporting a request. That doesn't, of course, diminish the good work the candidate continues to do. I'll evaluate further next time, but simply don't have enough recent stuff to go on this time. -- Trevj (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose He has had way too many blocks, even though they were a long time ago. Finealt (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I'll support within about six months or so if NARH maintains his present level of activity and continues to moderate his tone a bit more. Otherwise a great editor. Here's hoping he'll be back for the long haul. :-) Kurtis (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Pride in being a partisan of the battle against fair use images (which are overly hard to get up and keep up at WP) puts me on the other side of the fence here. I'm uncomfortable giving deletion tools to one espousing this particular agenda. Carrite (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hardly an agenda (which in itself is already a really loaded word to use). I do not have a strict view of fair use. In most every case, the removal of fair use images by me is for purely decorative reasons (ie, a map of a game's world, even though the world's design is never discussed in the article), excessive use of cover art (which in the Video games WikiProject's image guidelines is frowned upon unless the cover in and of itself has received critical discussion), gallery images, and images that claim to be for the purpose of representing the subject of its article as a primary lead image but is not in the lead. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Although I firmly believe in the concept that people can "come around" (it's my core philosophy, after all), the lack of recent activity and the inherent issues surrounding "deletionist"/AFD history just show that although they've possibly turned a corner, they're nowhere close enough down the street to be provided access to these tools ES  &#38;L  12:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The blocks worry me, but what really sets me apart is that you haven't much recent activity.  buff  bills  7701  16:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral - for now. . Moved to  'Oppose'.  I  think  this is one of the only  RfA I've seen where the questions have not  been answered prior to  transclusion. I  personally  do  my  own research  and largely  disregard the answers to  the formal  and user questions, but  lot  of participants do  read the answers and base their voting  on  them. Not  having  these answers begs the questions as to  whether those who  may  have already  voted have actually  done any  significant  research. I'm  now going  off to  do mine, and I  may  come back  again  later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone else transcluded the nom. I had notified NARH so he could answer. Andrevan@ 04:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, you can blame me do this one, ! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral -- I just don't know. Being a deletionist may or may not be a concern, same with your inactivity, but you have quality edits, so I'm going to park it right here for now.  Sports guy 17 :)  (click to talk • contributions)  17:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral -- I'm afraid after the response to my question in the Oppose section above by the candidate, I was thinking of just opposing as I feel that the answer is TL;DR and more importantly doesn't really answer what I was asking (not to me anyways).  However, the note from  about it in his support section gave me a little more encouragement to this candidate.  The lack of (good, strong) answers in the Q&A section isn't particularly moving me towards support either. I'm not concerned so much with the username, the deletionist/inclusionist mindset, or any of the other nonsense mentioned above, and the slightly lower edit count is actually more of a plus in my mind because that it means to me that we wouldn't be taking a good content editor away from her/his current activities to preform admin activities.  So, I'm just going to park my vote here and let others call it.  Good luck ! Technical 13 (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I'm afraid you don't have enough recent activity to my put me at ease, but I will be more than happy to support you in six months time. Jamesx12345 09:58, 30 November 2013 (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.