Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Niz


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

Niz
Final (6/8/2) ended 05:43 25 November 2005 (UTC)

– A self-nom (i understand its acceptable)! Have reached the 1000-edit milestone at approx 6 months usage (plus edits from previous anon period), mainly adding content, especially bios for film-makers, and working on genre entries. Also participated in vfds (nominating, voting), performing merges, redirects, reverting vandalism, copyediting, peer reviewing, and nominating collaborations. Niz 23:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: self-nom Niz 00:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support does good work. Would be an asset.Gator (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Lack of interaction just shows effective noncontroversial work. I'm not convinced the people with full talk pages are the best Wikipedians. Smit 21:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Merovingian 05:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, doesn't seem likely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Opposers are too circumspect on this one. Pcb21 Pete 17:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support In agreement with the User Smit. Talk pages of most people are like the same 3 or 4 talking to each other like chat. Not much work done just chatting with the buddies. The candidate has a  good work record.--Pomegranite 01:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. 1000 edits in 6 months is not much. Not enough involvement in maintainance and deletion-related procedures (more specifically, not enough involvement to convince me that this user is sufficiently familiar with Wiki procedures). And I would have liked to see more thought put into the guide questions, especially considering this is a self-nomination. Coffee 14:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, reluctantly. Editor sounds quite nice, and article content is paramount, but some substantial experience with project space is needed. "Better safe than sorry vote" until editor has a record in that area. Xoloz 20:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Extremely weak oppose. 1000 edits and 6 months on Wikipedia is all fine, but what I find strange is the low activity of the talk page. When I was sysopped, I also had been here for 6 months, and already had close to 40 topics on my talk page. This is a sign of lack of interaction with other Wikipedians. If the candidate replies to this I might change my vote. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 20:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, per JIP.--Sean|Bla ck 22:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Seems like a nice guy, but with no community interaction, it is difficult to assess the candidate's communication skills. His answers to the questions below make me think Niz would have some trouble dealing with day-to-day admin tasks. Perhaps try again in a few months? Owen&times; &#9742;  22:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose for now. Seems like a nice fellow, but concerned about newness combined with lack of community interaction.  Needs a little more time and activity on Talk: pages. Jayjg (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose no community interaction, only 1000 edits in 6 months, etc. I just don't believe Niz to be ready, sorry. Fahrenheit   Royal  e  17:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. While I generally hold admins to a high standard, I hold self-nominating ones to an even higher one. Your short answers to the questions are therefore not good. In particular, some examples for question #3 would have been nice, plus a little more than "etc" for question number one. Turnstep 22:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I think that you are a really good editor, but you have too few usertalk edits. A potential Admin should have more that 100. Why dont you join the Welcoming committee or Esperanza? You can meet friends, and you could gain trust from the community.  Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e-mail)  Make Céline Dion a FA! 01:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral due to conflicting signs I would disagree with my fellow Wikipedians who vote Oppose based on the number of edits or Talk Page edits, since I personally believe that not all admins are going to be alike in either scope or personality. I was ready to vote for this user, but after reading the answers to the questions below I have a harder time voting Support.  I feel that in situations like this, where you're new to the community, you have to do something that shows how important this position is for you.  Answering these questions shows us, the voters, why we should or should not give you this very important power called "being an Admin".  If you're newer (by this I mean very new), you're going to have to demonstrate a lot more that you deserve to have these powers.  I hope this makes sense. LOL (Then again, I'm a fairly new user myself, so I really don't have much grounds to talk if I choose to do an RfA.) --Martin Osterman 03:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * You're doing just fine :) Keep up the good work a while longer and I look forward to supporting you next time. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with the "hidden message" someone put as an HTML comment at the bottom on the Oppose section. If you have something to say, do so publically, don't hide it. Turnstep 22:30, 24 November 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. Completing votes for deletion, dealing with vandalism, etc


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Mark Kermode and Jerry Sadowitz are my favourite in terms of writing-style, Nevada-tan and Horror film for informational content. My key articles are listed at User:Niz


 * 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. Vandalism and advertising on numerous page, reverted where appropriate, sent messages to the (almost always anon) users where necessary. Requested a block once via normal channels. Otherwise discussion on article and user talk pages is enough.


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.