Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Nev1 2

Username:	Nev1 User groups:	reviewer First edit:	Oct 03, 2006 16:09:14 Unique pages edited:	6,355 Average edits per page:	4.84 Live edits:	30,277 Deleted edits:	453 Total edits (including deleted):	30,730

Namespace Totals

Article	19151	63.25% Talk	4010	13.24% User	281	0.93% User talk	3496	11.55% Wikipedia	1526	5.04% Wikipedia talk	1229	4.06% File	29	0.10% Template	246	0.81% Template talk	100	0.33% Help	1	0.00% Category	184	0.61% Category talk	8	0.03% Portal	15	0.05% Portal talk	1	0.00% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2006/10	28 	2006/11	12 	2006/12	1 	2007/01	46 	2007/02	93 	2007/03	58 	2007/04	153 	2007/05	351 	2007/06	69 	2007/07	212 	2007/08	249 	2007/09	297 	2007/10	131 	2007/11	264 	2007/12	498 	2008/01	615 	2008/02	380 	2008/03	538 	2008/04	392 	2008/05	458 	2008/06	343 	2008/07	905 	2008/08	814 	2008/09	1073 	2008/10	878 	2008/11	1261 	2008/12	1426 	2009/01	1267 	2009/02	912 	2009/03	1496 	2009/04	1276 	2009/05	845 	2009/06	1443 	2009/07	1350 	2009/08	1419 	2009/09	1592 	2009/10	583 	2009/11	535 	2009/12	1427 	2010/01	1228 	2010/02	250 	2010/03	544 	2010/04	725 	2010/05	175 	2010/06	358 	2010/07	1099 	2010/08	208

Top edited pages Article

* 637 - Sale,_Greater_Manchester * 558 - Castle * 373 - Tower_of_London * 327 - Warwick_Castle * 284 - Ashton-under-Lyne * 283 - Trafford * 264 - Bodiam_Castle * 256 - Altrincham * 237 - Château_Gaillard * 223 - Lindow_Man

Talk

* 115 - Castle * 75 - Great_Divergence * 61 - Sale,_Greater_Manchester * 43 - Comparative_studies_of_the_Roman_and_Han_empires * 41 - Manchester * 29 - Peterborough * 27 - Military_history_of_China_(pre-1911) * 25 - Grade_I_listed_buildings_in_Greater_Manchester * 25 - Richard_I_of_England * 24 - Nico_Ditch

User

* 46 - Nev1 * 17 - Nev1/Sandbox * 15 - Nev1/List_of_DYKs * 13 - Nev1/Most_popular_castle_articles_on_Wikipedia * 12 - Giano/The_future * 7 - Majorly * 7 - Mogmiester * 7 - Malleus_Fatuorum * 6 - Richerman/sandbox * 5 - Nev1/monobook.js

User talk

* 660 - Nev1 * 251 - Malleus_Fatuorum * 146 - Jza84 * 85 - Parrot_of_Doom * 48 - Peter_I._Vardy * 31 - Majorly * 29 - WebHamster * 21 - Iridescent * 20 - Teeninvestor * 17 - Mr_Stephen

Wikipedia

* 116 - WikiProject_Greater_Manchester * 73 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 67 - Good_article_nominations * 56 - WikiProject_Cheshire * 30 - Featured_article_candidates/Trafford * 27 - Featured_article_candidates/Castle/archive1 * 26 - Featured_article_candidates/Sale,_Greater_Manchest...   * 24 - Featured_article_candidates/Tower_of_London/archiv... * 23 - Featured_article_candidates/Warwick_Castle * 20 - WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/WatchAll

Wikipedia talk

* 494 - WikiProject_Greater_Manchester * 138 - WikiProject_Cricket * 93 - WikiProject_Cheshire * 41 - WikiProject_UK_geography * 27 - WikiProject_England * 26 - Requests_for_adminship * 26 - WikiProject_Lancashire_and_Cumbria * 23 - WikiProject_Merseyside * 23 - WikiProject_Military_history * 20 - Good_article_nominations

File

* 5 - Lindow_Man_reconstructed_face.jpg * 2 - Castles_in_Greater_Manchester.jpg * 2 - Bodiam_interior.jpg * 2 - Plan_Bodham_Castle.svg * 2 - TraffordAreasAlt.png * 1 - Plan_of_Buckton_Castle_by_George_Ormerod.JPG * 1 - St_Jospeh's_Church,_Sale.jpg * 1 - Moss_Brow_Farm_4-9-2006.JPG * 1 - Quernstones_found_in_Warburton.JPG * 1 - Sharpe's_Honour.jpg

Template

* 105 - GM_News * 27 - WPGM_Inactive_Participants * 26 - WPGM_Participants * 19 - Lancashire_County_Cricket_Club_squad * 4 - Fortifications * 4 - World_Heritage_Sites_in_the_United_Kingdom * 3 - Forts_in_India * 3 - Greater_Manchester * 3 - WikiProject_Lancashire_and_Cumbria * 2 - Greater_Manchester_project_welcome

Template talk

* 82 - Did_you_know * 3 - Infobox_UK_place/Archive_7 * 2 - Infobox_World_Heritage_Site * 2 - Infobox_building * 1 - Politics_of_Ancient_Rome * 1 - Monasteries_in_Cheshire * 1 - Churches_in_Cheshire * 1 - Infobox_church * 1 - Manchester_B&S * 1 - Roman_Catholic_churches_in_Cheshire

Help

* 1 - Reverting

Category

* 3 - Conwy_county_borough * 2 - Bangladeshi_first-class_cricket_teams * 2 - Bridgend_County_Borough * 2 - People_from_Reddish * 2 - People_from_Rochdale * 2 - People_from_Royton * 2 - People_from_Rusholme * 2 - Wrexham_County_Borough * 2 - Conwy_County_Borough * 2 - English_Test_cricketers

Category talk

* 2 - People_from_Trafford_(district) * 1 - People_from_Altrincham * 1 - People_from_Urmston * 1 - People_from_Davyhulme * 1 - People_from_Sale * 1 - Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Yorkshirian * 1 - People_from_Stretford

Portal

* 6 - Cheshire/Suggest * 2 - Cheshire/Suggest/In_this_month * 2 - Cheshire/Selected_biography/9 * 1 - Cumbria/Recognised_content * 1 - Greater_Manchester/Featured_content * 1 - North_West_England/Features * 1 - Science/Featured_article/17 * 1 - London/London_Boroughs

Portal talk

* 1 - Greater_Manchester

Economical with the truth?
I thought that out of respect to the candidate this discussion should take place here rather than on the RfA itself. I have stated this already but let me really clearly state it again as several commenters have misunderstood or misrepresented my words. My rejection of Nev1 as a candidate does not arise from the fact that he has been uncivil (I imagine everybody has at some time or another). Nor does it arise from one mistake, as mistakenly stated here by Deskana in an otherwise very insightful post at the noticeboard. It doesn't arise from stating an opinion (huh?). It does not arise from not being perfect, as none of us is.

It arises from the combination of a pattern of unnecessarily combative behavior shown by my diffs, with the vague answer given in Q3. This, especially when considered along with the failure to answer my optional question, gives rise in my mind to an impression of untrustworthiness.

Here's an easy way to solve this; can the candidate state unequivocally whether he supports the conduct policies mentioned in my question? If he doesn't, that would be interesting. If he does, perhaps he could undertake to follow them in future. I note with interest that he made a number of blocks for NPA breaches during his previous tenure as sysop. Answering the question honestly would dispel a lot of the doubts I have over the candidate. Finally let me state my admiration for the candidate's cojones in seeking reconfirmation, which I think is where a lot of the support is coming from. I totally see that, but I need to see honesty and transparency as well in order to support. --John (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Your question was optional 2) the nature of the question means I have decided to take time to phrase my response carefully. I have also had other things to do. As the diffs show, I have sometimes used intemperate language, but this is a minority of instances. For each diff provided where you feel I did something wrong I could provide a dozen where I have tried to help others. If you want transparancy it's right there in the nominating statement. I highlighted what I thought was my biggest mistake as an admin: wrongly blocking Endrick Shellycoat; I did not hide anything. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My question was optional, true, but Q3 is not. Why didn't you mention these incidents under the head 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? Seems to me you should have. --John (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Emphasising a minority of incidents over the majority seems somewhat unbalanced. I have not claimed to be perfect, I have not claimed that I've never been in a conflict. More important than the odd hot word is how I behave the majority of the time. Time and again I've been involved in disputes where I have kept my head. I said "it's important to be patient. Sometimes it's best to walk away from a situation and come back later". I aim to do that, and sometimes fail. The instances where I succeed tend to get ignored as they're less interesting. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, and for the implicit acknowledgement that some of these diffs were unfortunate. Whether it's fair or not, admins are remembered and criticized for their mistakes and failures. Maybe like football goalkeepers in that regard. Per Hammersoft, a single incidence of rudeness (and I'm talking about the spirit of WP:CIVIL, which isn't directly correlated to the use of particular words, to be clear) can deter/demotivate other editors more than you might realize. Like you perhaps, I was raised in a culture in which robust criticism and earthy language are the norms. I've recently been reminded that rudeness is in the eye of the beholder and that admins are (perhaps unfairly) held to extremely high standards of conduct by other users, even when not invoking the tools in a discussion. I promise to read the links you posted, but I was never in any doubt that the majority of your contributions were positive ones, and I congratulate you on the fine work you've done. My worry is about where you stand on civility, how you will handle it as an admin when you are reconfirmed (because it will come up, you can bet on it), and how you have handled the matter in this RfA. It's a major concern that double figures of participants have raised about your editing (even though that's still a minority of those who commented); do you intend to respond to it in the RfA? You may, of course feel that this isn't worth the trouble, but I feel that this would be a statement in itself. Best wishes, --John (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Q9

 * 9. What is your opinion of our policy WP:CIVIL? How about WP:NPA? If successful in your reconfirmation (and it's looking good as I write!), would you plan to issue or threaten blocks in support of these policies?
 * A: I've seen discussions which get heated until one party accuses another of breaching WP:CIVIL or making a personal attack where there is none. It's Wikipedia's own version of Godwin's law. Whether a deliberate tactic to "win" an argument or a genuine belief that the other person was uncivil, it demonstrates a flaw in the policy. It's subjective. All policies are subject to interpretation, but WP:CIVIL seems the most malleable. I think it's one of the most misused around and it would be better redirected to WP:EQ (interesting to see that the parent concept is only a guideline, while WP:CIVIL is policy). It can be quite condescending to ask someone to be civil if done without care, and rather than soothing a situation serves to annoy. Another problem is it's possible to be impeccably polite and still be disruptive, which WP:CIV does not address. As you have noted, I have blocked people for making personal attacks. WP:NPA is a more serious policy and less open to interpretation. Comments such as   are egregious and unjustifiable. If I came across such comments as presented in the above diffs again I would not hesitate to block. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While this answer shows some thought and insight into the problems with WP:CIVIL as currently understood by many users, you seem to miss the point somewhat. You find it "interesting" that CIV is policy while EQ is guideline; it isn't just policy, it is one of the five pillars of the project. In my opinion, WP:CIV needs to be interpreted liberally and its spirit followed. Regardless of my opinion or yours on what CIV should look like, I don't agree that there is a hard-and-fast division between WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as you claim. How could there be? I agree that the breaches you show above were egregious enough to merit blocking, but I continue to have problems seeing how you will be able to credibly enforce a policy you have arguably flouted yourself recently. I am also still having problems with the mismatch between your answer to Q3 and the evidence of your history that even a very cursory look at your contributions reveals. I'm sorry if it seems like I am dragging you over the coals here, but I am looking as I always do for evidence of growth and learning from criticism in the candidate. Your answer goes a little way towards providing such evidence, but also raises new questions. Where, exactly, is this clear division between WP:CIV (which is "malleable" and should be redirected to a guideline), and WP:NPA which is "more serious" and for breaches of which users should be blocked? I'm just not seeing it. --John (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

More

 * Here was the context, PoD saying to me "I wonder how people with such a weak grasp of principles ever managed to gain admin tools."
 * Here was my answer.
 * Here is the first time I recall interacting with the candidate. "So John reveals himself as just another thug trying to mould people in his own image through threats and intimidation."
 * I asked if it was a joke. Nev1 said, no it wasn't.
 * I asked why Nev1 put such a negative spin on my words (which were intended merely to say "you should try being an admin yourself, it isn't so easy")
 * The context is sufficient, Nev1 said.

Now, I freely admit my answer was snarky, but I stand by it definitely not being "threats or intimidation". Especially in context. This is a pattern I have seen more than once from Nev, he will go wading into an argument, inflame it, then bow out without justifying what he did or acknowledging any mistakes he may have made. Of course nobody gets it right all the time, but I fear the consequences of giving someone like this the admin tools. These edits were in April, four months ago. Do they fall into the category of ''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?''

Nev didn't think it important enough to mention in his reply to that question.

''A: If you've edited Wikipedia for nearly four years and not felt even mildly stressed at one time or another you're either very lucky (do yourself a favour and go and buy a lottery ticket) or a saint. At such moments, it's important to remember that we're all here to build the encyclopaedia. With new users, I try to bear in mind that I was pretty clueless when I started and to help people get used to Wikipedia. Here's a recent example where I was explaining to an experienced editor why it can be useful to retain dead links. No one is expected to know everything, so it's important to be patient. Sometimes it's best to walk away from a situation and come back later.''

This is not the demeanor I am looking for in an admin; I don't mind that he made a mistake, and I forgive him for misunderstanding me and for being rude to me (some of the fault was definitely mine). It's the apparent lack of honesty and self-awareness that kills it for me. And I am really glad I finally managed to remember where I came across the candidate before. Let this also serve as full disclosure of why I looked into this editor's contributions in more detail as soon as I saw the nomination. --John (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll just wade in


 * "Economical with the truth" A bit obvious.
 * "Finally let me state my admiration for the candidate's cojones in seeking reconfirmation, which I think is where a lot of the support is coming from." That's more like it.
 * "an impression of untrustworthiness." Sweet.
 * "Answering the question honestly would dispel a lot of the doubts" Nice
 * "I need to see honesty and transparency as well in order to support" Love it.
 * "I forgive him for misunderstanding me" Did he? See WP:NPOV, WP:OR & WP:RS.
 * "lack of honesty and self-awareness" Aaah.
 * "I finally managed to remember where I came across the candidate before." Nice touch.
 * "I look forward to seeing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ Nev1 2 Parrot of Doom become a blue link"
 * Bowing out. (Requests for adminship/Anthonyhcole) Anthony (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)