Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 23:01, 20 August 2024

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Navou

Final (70/4/2); Closed by Rdsmith4 05:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Navou (talk · contribs) - It is with pleasure that I submit Navou for your consideration. Navou already requested adminship twice but fell short of the necessary support in the previous requests for adminship. He paid due attention to the concerns raised therein, took the advices on board and worked hard to meet all the expected requirements to become a great administrator. Navou has been a steady contributor for the past nine months, participating in a vast array of different areas throughout Misplaced Pages (particularly WP:CSN, WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, WP:AIV and WP:AFD, areas of typical admin intervention). Such versatility and dedication indicate that Navou is ready for a new level of responsibilities within Misplaced Pages brought by access to the admin tools, and therefore I ask my fellow Wikipedians to carefully analyze his potential and finally give him the rightful support his hard work has earned him by now. Húsönd 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Conomination from Durova

When Navou hinted he was considering another bid at adminship I told him I'd be very disappointed if it went live before I had the chance to nominate. For most of this summer he's been pretty much running the experimental Misplaced Pages:Community enforceable mediation program singlehandedly. No matter how that program eventually works out, he's earned my unreserved praise for putting himself forward there. Community enforceable mediation is designed to be very near to arbitration because the participants have the option to impose blockable restrictions upon themselves. Naturally enough, some of the toughest disputes on Misplaced Pages have gone there and Navou has handled the responsibility with flying colors. He conferred with me at all the appropriate points and recently referred a case to arbitration. I think I can fairly say he's performed well under tough field conditions because neither party to that bitter dispute has criticized his objectivity. Navou also enjoys RC patrol, which is always a good reason for mopification. In previous bids for adminship it was his shortage of well rounded experience that came in for criticism. He's spent more time in mainspace now, has over a year of experience with more than 5500 total edits, and has earned some DYK nods. I've always been impressed with his talent for Misplaced Pages namespace work, but field experience in article namespace matters in the long run. He's well rounded now and I'll vouch for him: let's give this man a mop. Durova 05:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thank you for the well written nom. Navou 05:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: I'll use these tools in a wide array of areas. I intend to protect and unprotect pages per requests at WP:RFPP and as needed, both in accordance with our page protection policy. I will block vandals reported to WP:AIV. I'll also continue to close AFD and MFD according to the consensus generated at those discussions. I'll also evaluate those usernames reported to WP:UAA. I also intend to clear the CAT:CSD. This is an area where I tend to see some backlog. I already help somewhat at WP:AN and WP:ANI, I think I'll continue to do that as well.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: My best contributions to Misplaced Pages, or the articles I contribute to. I've started some stubs, and I've started some start-class articles. There is a certain excitement I feel when I get the DYK template on my user talk, so my favorite contributions so far include Amygdalohippocampectomy and Lymphocytic interstitial pneumonia, both of which were featured on T:DYK.

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 think the most conflict I have experienced is with the Shawn Hornbeck article. An article I nominated for discussion at WP:AFD. I also informally mediated a dispute over there after the article was kept. Honestly, I'll prefer to take a neutral stance and mediate. If I have a dispute over content, I'm always open to discussion, and if consensus disagrees with me, I'll agree with consensus if that makes sense.

Optional question by Onnaghar

4. - You seem to have made over 236 edits on ANI and 68 edits on AIV, which is impressive, if you ever did mistakingly identify a user as a rogue editor, what would you do to reolve the situation? Many thanks. Onnaghar 12:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A. While is it my goal to never let this happen, if it did... I would desire to immediately undo whatever action I did in error (or hope someone else got to it) and apologize to the editor.

General comments

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

• Requests for adminship/Navou
• Requests for adminship/Navou 2
• Requests for adminship/Navou 3

• Links for Navou: Navou (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support I'll beat the nom and the other nom on this one. Good editor, should be a good admin. Flyguy649 _contribs 05:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Yep. --DarkFalls 05:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support Excellent contributions, great work on the unblock mailing list, sufficiently reputable nominators :) I ask that this RfA not degrade into a discussion about the merits of CSN, though. I personally think Navou's involvement with CSN is a good thing - admins who discuss are much preferable to admins who don't. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Beat the noms edit conflict support, I was considering offering to nominate Navou myself when I saw it was already being done. I've seen him around quite a bit and have always been highly impressed. Seraphimblade 06:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Support I thought this user already was. Seems more than qualified, could do great things with the tools, and I see no reason to be uneasy about them having the mop --lucid 06:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Yep. Seems quite good. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Looks to be an ideal candidate for the mop --Ben 06:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Support I trust the user, as well as the nom. Jmlk17 07:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Daniel 07:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - 三度目の正直 (The success (or the truth) on the third time). Absolutely no concerns. --Hirohisat 07:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
11. Good fella. Moreschi 08:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
12. Definitely a good editor, and a great future administrator. Originally posted 08:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC), reworded 09:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC) by Sebi
13. Support - Seems like a great user, and could do with the tools. Tiddly-Tom 09:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
14. Support I'm a bit concerned over the relatively low number of mainspace edits, but not enough to withhold support. Appears to be a fine user who would improve WP if entrusted with the admin tools. faithless () 09:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
15. Strong support, most definitely. And if this doesn't make WP:100, I shall be flummoxed. Neil ム 09:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
16. —AldeBaer 11:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
17. Support No problems here!!!! Politics rule 12:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. I normally don't bother with uncontroversial nominations, but Navou is an excellent user who deserves a resounding endorsement from this community. The admin corps will only be improved. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 12:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - Good candidate. Experienced in all the right areas. I don't think the tools would be abused. Good luck! Lradrama 12:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Now qualified to be admin concerns raised earlier cleared. Harlowraman 13:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
21. Support as nom.--Húsönd 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - From my experience a great editor. I also trust husonds judgement so I beleive this editor would make a great addition as an admin. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
23. Support, because as far as I can tell, Navou seems to make decisions based on consensus and is fair in that regard. Best of luck! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 14:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Per nom. We've had a lot of good candidates this week havem't we? Perfect Proposal 14:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Was just looking over his contributions for the last month. Very very impressed. He's clearly already playing an Admin role. Strong support. TimidGuy 15:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. Calm responses at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, having sysop powers will speed up things considerably. Can't see anything to oppose about. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
27. A good editor who would make a fine admin. — Black Falcon 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
28. Support, contributions look good and show an understanding of policy and procedure. Insightful comments left on other RfA's shows this candidate knows what the mop is about. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - Yes, yes, yes. Happy to see he has been recognized. Some nice mainspace contribs with close to 70 reports to WP:AIV. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - Seems to be one of the editors who are trying to spread the burden of dispute resolution around. My only comment would be to spend more effort on article talk pages so that users and items don't end up in as much dispute resolution process. --Rocksanddirt 18:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - no problems with this editor. Hard worker, always polite, knows policy well - Alison ☺ 19:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
32. Support of course. Would be an asset as an admin. Wizardman 20:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Fully qualified candidate with a good range of contributions. Newyorkbrad 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
34. Support. Seriously thought he was one already. IronGargoyle 23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
35. Support per nomination. Durova 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
36. Support - Good vandal fighter, and understands policy. Neranei (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
37. Surprised support I already bloody thought you had the mop. A solid candidate. VanTucky 00:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. Candidate has excellent contributions, and has shown strong, steady improvement since the last RFA. A good admin candidate indeed. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 00:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
39. Support No major concerns here. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
40. Support My one encounter left a positive impact, all of the above supports that impression, so there. --Allefant 08:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
41. Strong Support I got bored after reviewing the first 2,000 evidences of civility, knowledge, helpfullness, vandal fighting and article work. I guess you put all the edit warring, incvivility, trolling, poor closure of AFD's etc etc in the contributions before then so I wouldn't find them. :) Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  08:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
42. Support definitely. Good luck! :) CattleGirl 11:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
43. Support - good answer ;) Onnaghar 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
44. Support as much improved. Bearian 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
45. Sure... make us proud. By the way, kudos for starting the article on lymphocytic interstitial pneumonia. MastCell 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
46. Support How is it possible you haven't been snapped up earlier? Pursey 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Unblock-en-l wiki support, although we will need your wiki name, IP address, nominating admin, and reason for nomination before you can get the sysop flag set. -- Avi 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
48. support is clearly a trusted editor - why not. Majorly (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
49. Support no reason to oppose. Acalamari 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

    I like what I've seen from Navou. 128.163.226.239 18:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry, anons can't vote/!vote in Rfas. ~ Wikihermit 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

50. Support ~ Wikihermit 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
51. Support - alot of respected work and two good nominations. 23:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
52. Support. I've seen his work, and respect his judgment. EdJohnston 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. Candidate is a good encyclopedia builder and very helpful. Majoreditor 01:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. Third time's the charm for Navou. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
55. Support. I respect Navou's contribs and his judgment. Third time is the charm after all. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 15:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
56. Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 16:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
57. Why not? Melsaran (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
58. Support - Navou is one of the best editors I've seen on wikipedia, he's an expert mediator, and his contributions to WP:CSN and WP:ANI are always well reasoned and well balanced. I really can't see any reason he wont be an excellent sysop--Cailil 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
59. Support Navou is an excellent nominee who has made substantial contributions in mainspace since his previous RFAs and earned serious points with the community enforceable mediation project. I hope it turns out well, but I have no doubt Navou will turn out well as a sysop.--Chaser - T 02:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Okay with me. - KrakatoaKatie 09:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
61. Support - Garion96 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
62. Strong Support - Good editor, Good contribs. Great improvments since last RFA. Wikidudeman 17:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
63. Support per nom. I do not see problems here, you have good contribution at WP:CSN and WP:ANI. Good luck Carlosguitar 19:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
64. Support See nothing to suggest Navou will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
65. Yes, yes, yes -- FayssalF - 12:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
66. Support looks good. <<-armon->> 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
67. Support a bit more inclusionist than average, but this editor understands the ropes at XFD and I think he'll do well with the tools. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
68. Support - a fine user, who I was sure was already an admin. I've seen him pop up all over, and does great work on the unblock mailing list. Will be fine as an admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
69. Support per Alison and Newyorkbrad. ElinorD (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
70. Support. Navou has come a long way since his first RfA and I think he's now ready to be an admin. No issues that I can see. WjBscribe 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Another cop that wants to be admin. Not very useful or necessary to the project. OrangeMarlin 06:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

   <refactored> --DarkFalls 09:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oh snap! -- John Reaves 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yup, that's what I precisely fucking said. To quote, "I'm all that matters to the project." Love the WP:NPA around this joint. OrangeMarlin 04:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

   DarkFalls, please refactor. Orangemarlin, please don't hold another editor's inappropriate comment against Navou. Durova 06:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry. Was unnecessarily harsh. Apologize for the incivility. --DarkFalls 07:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

   Durova, based on your comments on my talk page and here, you must think I'm a complete idiot and fool. Like i would have any more of a negative opinion of Navou based on someone else's comments, unless that someone else is a sockpuppet. Your total lack of good faith towards my opinions on this candidate is appalling.OrangeMarlin 04:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

   Just drop it and move on. You're not assuming good faith either, accusing Durova of calling you an idiot and a fool. --DarkFalls 05:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

   This individual's most recent five votes at RFA are as follows: one strong oppose, three oppose, one neutral. Attempts to engage the editor in dialog yield responses that range from sarcastic to obscene. Suggest closing bureaucrat discount votes from this editor: this appears to be conflict-seeking behavior irrelevant to the candidacy. Durova 08:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

   Also note that on his co-nom of Jim62sch, he wrote: "...that would provide leadership to this project while still playing cop" and "...participate in the project as an editor as well as a traffic cop". The co-nom is in direct contrast to the oppose here.("Another cop that wants to be admin.") --DarkFalls 08:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

   Ha! That's really quite funny (and hypocritical too). Majorly (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

   Not speaking for OrangeMarlin but I think he vote counts as he has been consistent. He appears to oppose those who are here to admin without contributing to the mainspace. In the case of Jim62sch, Jim is here to contribute while playing "cop" as a necessary evil as an aside instead playing "cop" while contributing as an aside. I could be wrong but that is my interpretation of his stance. Spryde 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

   So because I do not like editors who play cop rather than actually contribute to the project, my vote should be discounted. In other words, go along with lemmings, and I'll be a great member of the community. Should have known. OrangeMarlin 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

   Well, now that I'm a little less pissed off. Thanks Spryde for defending. I need to watch these things, because I vote and move on. I supported Jim because he was/is an editor first, but can play janitor/cop when necessary. The better admins do both very well and focus on both almost equally so. However, for the last few months, we just get janitors, instead of leaders in building a project. I watch the admins who deal with the Evolution vs. Creation world. They fight with sockpuppets, clean up vandalism, but they also participate in debate and provide leadership. There are a number of admins who run projects, and build articles. I know one that runs the volcano project (and who recommended an admin, and I jumped on board to support--an admin that instead of just reverting a few deletes, has helped build Macintosh use on this project). I know another one that helps the dinosaur project, and who has done more to bring FA articles than anyone I know. I just had my first FA, and there are many admins who helped make it better. What has Navou done for us? Yes, he's a great janitor. Based on what I've read about him, it is my strong belief that he will be eaten alive in anything controversial. So, yes I am less than civil. Yes I am sarcastic. Yes I am very obscene when necessary to make a point. But I am extremely consistent and on point. Durova, I have tremendous respect for you. However, you failed to give me the same. Dark Falls wouldn't have affected my vote one way or the other, especially when I usually ignore uncivil comments towards me. But your lack of good faith about my analysis of this RfA is not the way to garner support from me. I know you're a power on this project, I know you are a hard worker on this project. I know you can have me blocked or banned from the project. But you should trust how I feel about these RfA's and see what I observe. Look at the incredible wars ongoing now on image deletion. Would Navou help there? He would be shot down and end up a blubbering mass of plasma. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that I'm right. BTW, I supported a nameless admin on here--we later found out he used obnoxious sockpuppets to get around controversies. We need to be tougher in our assessment of these applicants, to discover their skills. Yeah, I stand alone here with a snowball's chance in hell of getting this nomination stopped. But I'm doing what I believe is the right thing. I don't ever intend to be an admin, even though I know I would be obsessively devoted to this project and do everything to make it better. So, I'm not doing anything here to gain votes for myself or for anybody. I'm here, making comments on RfA's because I believe in this project. And I don't believe that Navou makes the project better, and may in fact harm it as issues become more contentious and more difficult. He lacks leadership, and that's the worst thing. So Durova, I might owe you an apology for being less than civil, but you ought to give more thought to the fact that I have analyzed every single applicant that comes on board, and I make a judgement if they can lead, or if they'll just make a good member of the janitorial corps. I guess I demand more. But don't dismiss my beliefs because they don't mesh with yours. And I won't dignify Majorly's rude comments with anything at his level of personal attack. OrangeMarlin 05:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose The editor needs a bit more experience in creating and editing articles.--Filll 04:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose, unfortunately overenthusiastic. Can't be sure how eagerly he will use the bits. He quotes RFPP as a page on which he wishes to work, but in my opinion, based, admittedly, on a single interaction, he will not make anything easier. My remarks on this incident are here. It may be temporary over-activity brought on by being the subject of an RfA, but that's too much of a risk as far as I am concerned. (First time I have ever opposed an RfA, if anyone's counting.) Hornplease 05:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

   Hi. I'm glad you commented. I made that report to RFPP, when I looked into the edits on that page history, I discovered what appeared to be a content dispute. I knew a 3RR report had been filed and I thought to myself, protecting the page in order to move to the talk page, or perhaps someone will block the editor for 3RR and no discussion will be made for the duration of the block. Both answers are good as far as policy states in both areas, however, in my mind, discussion is preferable to a block. This was my angle. I hope you will check out my other contributions to RFPP, and if you would like to ask any optional questions in the questions for the candidate section or here in this section, I'll try my best to your concerns, if I can. Best regards, Navou 06:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Reluctant oppose Navou commented on his informal mediation at the article of Shawn Hornbeck. It frankly left me rather unimpressed. He showed very little understanding of WP:BLP and I feel like his presence often exacerbated a rather unpleasant situation. I also have to agree that he appears overly enthusiastic in regards to becoming an admin, rather than in building an encyclopedia. AniMate 09:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

   Hi. Thank you for your comments, I'll admit, I had very little experience mediating seven months ago when I mediated that dispute you were involved with, but I've gotten better at it. I also did not understand WP:BLP, or what an admin is all about. But since then, I have grown and understand those two. If I'm enthusiastic, I'm enthused about the project. I can assure anyone, being a janitor with a mop will not distract my from encyclopedia building. My articles are getting better, and will keep doing so. If you have any questions of me regarding adminship, or biographies of living persons, please ask, and I'll try my best to answer. Many thanks! Navou 10:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

   Looking at your contributions, I really don't see all that much enthusiasm for the project, but rather an enthusiasm for becoming an administrator. I'd be able to support if I saw more mainspace edits, but I just see someone who has attached himself to various projects in an attempt to become an admin and further expand the bureaucracy. Personally, I do think we need more admins, but I think we need admins who are here to write an encyclopedia, not to hold up their mop as a status symbol or whatever your motivation may be. Regardless, it looks like this is going to pass, and I've said my bit. AniMate 01:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

#How do you intend to treat comments from banned users? Will you examine each case individually, or some overarching plan, both? El_C 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Individually. Navou 18:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? I'm a sucker for one-word answers! El_C 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. In a recent AfD you closed as a non-administrator, you failed to mention you were not at the time an admin, which you are expected to do when closing as a non admin. Normally, I wouldn't have been really bothered by this, but it was a lengthy and complex discussion, and would require some serious thought as to the closure. In this case, identifying that you are not an admin would have been important. I also strongly disagree with your close, but I dont base opinions on that. You're a good editor on the whole, but that AfD doesn't sit well with me. Thus, the neutral. In the interest of disclosure, I did suggest deletion in the AfD. i  21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

   Hello. Thank you for your comments. I'll admit, sometimes I do not disclose that I am not an admin during and AFD, and I probably should have. I'll note that while this is not a technical requirement it is recommended. I did have to place the {{closing}} template due to the debate's complexity and I needed some time. I am always open to review and if you like, I can list the discussion on deletion review. If you have any more questions, please ask. With regards, Navou 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral Seems like a good admin, but looking through some of his archives I've found some things I don't really like. But I can't really oppose. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:27, 5 September 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.

• Successful requests for adminship