Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ngb

Ngb
final (26/2/0) ending 17:46 16 August 2005 (UTC) - Ngb has been contributing to wikipedia for a long time, is a responsible and competent person, knows wikipedia well, and ought to be an admin by now. --Khendon 18:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC) 17:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * Thanks! I accept the nomination. --Ngb 18:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Khendon 18:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Ngb has been here since November 2003, though he has only accumulated a total edit count of 1300. He seems to do quite a good job on cricket-related articles and has done some wikifying and a little bit of vandalism reverts. There has been participation in VfD and CfD, and he does seem to have basic knowledge on admin-related things. He's not "very" experienced, but at least I think he is suitable for adminship. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: deals with vandals, participates on VfD, talk with others, writes edit summaries. While the edit count isn't astronomical Ngb looks knowledgeable of Wikipedia and helps in specific area. I think Requests for adminship/Biekko could be seen as precedent for such situations. Pavel Vozenilek 23:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Merovingian (t) (c) 00:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. FeloniousMonk 01:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC) What Pavel said.
 * 6) Support. Good record, experienced enough. N (t/c) 06:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support – done a lot of work for cricket =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support – a very worthy candidate - Ian &equiv; talk 07:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) This is long overdue. [[smoddy ]] 09:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Loganberry (Talk) 12:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. per Pavel Vozenilek and Stevey 15:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support: Following his answer to my query in the comments section below, I vote support. --Durin 16:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak Support. Seems to be a great editor, but number of edits worries me a bit.   ral  315  01:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. As far as I am concerned this one is scampering away towards the boundary at deep extra cover, with no fielder in sight. David | Talk 09:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support --Celestianpower hab 21:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support --JuntungWu 06:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. Absolutely support this guy.  He's been here over two years, and he ought to know the wikiropes. Denelson83 08:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Probably less active then the average admin, but not inactive enough for disqualification.  Good work on VFD and cricket-related articles. Mr. Know-It-All 23:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.     ( ! | ? | * ) 02:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hamster Sandwich 07:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) David Gerard 11:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A trustworthy and dedicated editor. I hope you make it to Australia one day too!--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support. This editor has won my respect through his exemplary thoughtful and diplomatic approach to a vfd I initiated against a project to which he was deeply dedicated (see Votes for deletion/Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005 for details). -- BD2412 talk 04:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. utcursch | talk 11:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I know him from WP:Cricket Tintin 16:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Boothy has been identified as using multiple vandal sockpuppets and has been temporarily blocked. It's safe to say his votes no longer count. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-15 15:51
 * Do not strike out any non-anon's votes. It is up to the bureaucrats to consider the validity of votes at promotion time. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) *see Requests for comment/Boothy443 --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  04:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose For someone with a two year old account, you don't even have 900 Article namespace edits. I'm not sure if you'd be able to put the time and effort into this job. Ryan 04:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: My edit count compared to the age of my account may be slightly misleading. Firstly there are a disproportionate number of edits in the User namespace, as I prefer to develop new articles there before moving them to articlespace -- I have several articles under development there at the moment, for instance. Secondly, and more importantly to your point, as I comment on my userpage I made very few edits until late 2004. Durin's useful graph at Image:Ngb-edits.gif makes this clear. --Ngb 07:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 900 is just an arb. figure. Anyone can get 1000 edits a month if they copyedit and don't use the preview button. Others my choose to use an editor offline and paste their work here only when they are completely satisfied. Take the edits counts with a pinch of salt. Look for the quality of edits and the user's consistency instead. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, 900 is a random value. But, I use it to see if a user is cleaning up vandalism. In that long of a time (even if only counting from late 2004), 500+ edits should have been made to correct vandalism. The rest would be talk page discussions, user page updates, and contributions to articles. Acetic Acid 19:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Kate's Tool page for NgBKarmafist 18:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this candidate discuss in more depth his views regarding his perception of systemic bias within Wikipedia as per his mention of it on Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005 (about half way down..search for "systemic"). --Durin 20:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Durin. I do believe there is a severe problem with systemic bias on Wikipedia (see WP:CSB for rationale, but the reasons why systemic bias exists in the project should be reasonably obvious). The point I'm making on that VfD page is that I believe the bias manifests not only in article content but also in what is considered encyclopaedic: the fact that the articles on cricket were repeatedly being put up for VfD as 'unencyclopaedic sports cruft' where articles on, for example, individual episodes of TV series were accepted as encyclopaedic is a good example.
 * I don't believe this is a terminal problem, and aside from participation in WP:CSB drives when I have applicable knowledge I have actively recruited Wikipedians from non-Anglophone countries and underrepresented fields of knowledge. I do think that the more Wikipedia grows the more the problem with systemic bias will resolve itself: but for now it is a problem worth being aware of as a user or admin on the project.
 * In respect of the articles that VfD was addressing, I do still believe that they're in the wrong place (I don't think they're acceptably encyclopaedic as individual articles, although crucially I do believe that what we're doing with them in the form of season reviews is encyclopaedic), but other participants in the WikiProject disagree with me on that so as of now they've stayed where they are rather than being moved back to subpages of 2005 English cricket season. --Ngb 07:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A chart showing this user's edits along with an total # of edits line is available here: Image:Ngb-edits.gif. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 20:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I don't envisage significantly changing my approach to Wikipedia, although I would start to watch the various pages requesting administrator assistance and help out where appropriate. I would certainly find the extra sysop facilities useful in monitoring and (as necessary) fixing new pages, which is my main contribution to Wikipedia apart from cricket-related articles, and also in protecting stable articles from vandalism.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I'm very proud of the work that I and other editors have been doing at WikiProject Cricket to improve Wikipedia's cricket coverage, which is progressing in leaps and bounds: we've raised several articles and many lists to Featured status, and I think we're set on the way to making Wikipedia one of the best sources for cricket information online, which will be a great achievment.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I haven't had any conflicts that haven't been neatly resolved through consensus. A good example of my approach is the discussion at Talk:University of Durham on whether Durham's claim to be England's third-oldest University was accurate: I resolved the conflict through independent research (section 'The Centenary History of King's College London') despite being under personal attack from another user.