Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nightscream 2 - Wikipedia


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

Final (30/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 14:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream (talk · contribs) - This is actually a second nomination. Two years ago, as a newbie, this editor nominated himself and completely messed it up. Since then, Nightscream has a been a model WikiGnome and a faithful editor. He has about 7,900 edits, including over 6,000 mainspace edits, and lots of talk. In addition to the usual clean-up tasks, he has posted notices on admin boards, created several new articles, and made extensive edits to many Reality show, New Jersey, Star Trek, and Comics articles. He has been involved in organizing Wiki Meet-ups in the New York City area; I actually met him in August 2007 at the Central Park Wiknic. I trust him to wield the mop. Bearian 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I formally accept Bearian's nomination, and thank him for the honor. Nightscream 06:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Since a lot of my work to date has been in copyediting, removing vandalism, removing NPOV violations, placing citation request and unreferenced tags, etc., my admin work would probably revolve around these issues, at least initially. After some time, and I get my admin legs, I might consider expanding my responsibilities if I discover areas where I might be needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Wow, this is like being asked for my best kids. The list of articles I created or heavily edited that's on my User Page is a good place to start. I'm particularly proud of bringing the various MTV's The Real World articles into line with WP policies, the massive rewrite/organization/expansions I did on The Real World, Judd Winick, Pedro Zamora, etc. Since I got so fed up with all the unsourced cruft on those articles, I decided to maintain the current season, The Real World: Sydney as it aired, actually watching all the eps at mtv.com to get it right (I had otherwise stopped watching that show years ago), removing info that editors keep inserting from MySpace pages, etc. As a result that article is probably the most detailed, sourced and referenced Real World article of all of them. I'm doing the same with the upcoming The Real World: Hollywood. I'm also proud of the couple of pieces of original artwork I've contributed to WP, the countless photos of mine I've added to articles, and for the objectivity I maintain during disagreements (See Answer #3).
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: Oh yeah. In such cases, I always try to conduct myself with logic and reason, and without responding to uncivil behavior by others with similar behavior on my part (and indeed, I have been attacked thus many times). Even when people accused me of vandalism (as when shortly after I became an editor, a number of other editors disagreed with my edits on Wolverine (comics)), I don't respond in kind. I respond directly to others' statements, and always providing the underlying logic or reason as to why I agree or disagree with their position, and politely point out to them that they're violating WP's rules on Good Faith and Civility. Such conflicts don't usually cause me much "stress", because I'm fairly dispassionate, and am used to how anonymity emboldens certain people on the Net, but one recent example that did irritate me was in March/April 2007. An apparent advocate of Corey Clark took it upon herself to add much POV, and unsourced pro-Clark material into that article, and attacked me, vandalized my User Page, made false accusations against me, etc. when I tried to keep it in line with WP policies. It was a while before admins stepped in, because those I contacted were busy, so I was on my own against this person. I tried to point out to her WP policy, tried to explain the difference between fact and opinion, a first-person quote and a third-person paraphrase, etc., and tried my best to find sources for this person's assertions. She was not as cordial, and if you read the Talk Pages of that article and hers, you'll see this. (If you wanted to know why a minor American Idol candidate like Clark has an article that's as detailed and sourced as those of the winners of that show, now you know.) I will continue to deal any such behavior in the future in the same way.
4. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 07:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I adhere to all policies, and will do the same as an admin. According to the unblocking policy, administrators may not unblock an editor unless they have discussed it with the other administrator who initiated the block in the first place, unless there is some obvious error, like a misspelled name that ended up blocking the wrong user, the second admin wishes to change the parameters of the block, or the block was a temporary circumstances block that is no longer needed.
5. Optional question. I checked your contributions to see if you had participated in any AfDs, but the only one I found was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitcentral, which is rather old. (It closed on 6 Aug 2006). Nonetheless this particular AfD seems to have involved you in a conflict with User:Rwetruck, someone who you had run into (outside of Wikipedia) at a forum you moderate called www.nitcentral.com. Is there any truth to Rwetruck's assertion that you were 'attempting to get other nitcentral members to sign and register with wikipedia to flood the site with keep votes?' EdJohnston 04:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Some, unfortunately. I have been absorbing as many WP rules and policies as possible ever since I started editing here, and prior to learning of the rules governing things like Canvassing or Single Purpose Accounts, I did indeed ask the others at Nitcentral to vote on the matter. However, User:Dreadlocke informed me on that page that it was not considered appropriate for those with Single-purpose accounts to vote on the matter, I apologized, and amended my approach. If you go to the page on Nitcentral where we discussed this, you'll see these comments by me (Yes, my name is Luigi Novi), which show the progression of my understanding of AfD voting guidelines between when I first notified my fellow Nitcentralians of the AfD, and when I was told about the SPA guideline:
By LUIGI NOVI on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 8:18 pm:
ATTENTION! Someone nominated the Nitcentral article for deletion...If anyone would like to save it from being deleted, please chime in on the voting page, okay? And to lend credence to your vote (and prevent any accusations that I or any other person voting against deletion is just using sock puppets), please register with a username.
By LUIGI NOVI on Saturday, August 05, 2006 - 9:38 am:
Neither Todd Pence nor I are single-purpose Wikipedians.
By LUIGI NOVI on Saturday, August 05, 2006 - 11:40 am:
And in my opinion, if you've made other edits in the past, then you're not a SP Wikipedian, and deserve to have your vote counted, even if it's to delete.
By LUIGI NOVI on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 2:15 pm:
I encourage all established Wikipedians here to vote on the matter. :)
As you can see, once I learned of how SPA voting was regarded, I amended my position to elicit votes only from established WP users. On the AfD page, you'll see this comment by me, in which I made no secret of my call to Nitcentral, and apologized for possibly violating the spirit of the voting process:
For the record, neither Toddpence nor myself are single-purpose Wikipedians. And although I did alert other Nitcentralians to this deletion discussion, I don't know for certain which of those who decided to participate here are. I apologize for instigating some to do this, as I was unaware of the SPA rule until Dreadlocke pointed it out. Nightscream 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Since then, I have also learned about WP's feelings on Canvassing, and how one should not canvass with a specific intent to influence a vote by contacting only those whose likely voting direction is already known. Under that policy, I would not even contact established Wikipedian Nitcentralians in such a situation, because it would definitely appear to be Biased Canvassing. (It's for this precise reason that I've decided that it was best not to contact any Wikipedians I'm friendly with to participate in this RfA, even despite the fact that any Wikipedian with an account is allowed to do. In a similar vein, I did not even participate in the recent AfD of this article I created, because I thought I would appear biased.) Bottom line: Once I'm informed of a given rule, guideline, or operating spirit, I follow it. Nightscream 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nightscream before commenting.

  • As a newbie in 2005, Nightscream was briefly blocked, and again in 2007, but immediately unblocked by the blocking admin as an honest BLP clean-up. These are not concerns for me, but feel free to investigate them for yourselves. Bearian 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support as nom. Bearian 14:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I was involved in sorting out the lengthy Corey Clark discussion mentioned above, especially regarding Paula Abdul. Nightscream consistently and repeatedly cited policies, tried to explain things and asked for reliable sources (nay, any sources) for information and received much abuse in return. The amount of effort I've seen put just into Clark's and some Real World participant articles by this editor is amazing. I trust this user with the mop. --Geniac 15:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - as Bearian points out, you were blocked on 22 April, but later unblocked in 62 minutes as part of the revert of edits later realised as vandalism. I am particularly impressed with this user's solidarity and sensibility in sticky situations, as he did here. It is all too often we see users here who go barging about on user talk pages. So well done. Although it would have been better to use some form of user talk template, I'm sure the edit that was made was just as good. So, overall, excellent candidate who deserves the sysop powers. No doubt about that. Rudget Contributions 16:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Nightscream's answer to Question 3 clinches it for me. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Yes NHRHS2010 talk 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, Sounds like a good candidate. Tim Vickers 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Sounds ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No reasons not to support. Good luck!--SJP 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I find no reason to oppose this candidate, so therefore I support SashaCall 04:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Neil ☎ 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Good candidate. Kingturtle 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support No reason not to. A good editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--MONGO 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support good editor. Carlossuarez46 02:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I've reviewed the contributions and see a sensible editor who will only be an asset bemopped. henrik•talk 08:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No reason not to. Acalamari 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Best wishes! Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 04:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 06:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. WP:20!! or some such. I've honestly not taken the time to review your contribs, but others whose judgement (and word that they have done so) I trust have no worries, so... — Dorftrottel⁠ 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, looked a bit more, without any negative results. Since I normally support, I think I should amend this to a strong support. — Dorftrottel⁠ 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - I was going to pick up on the lack of Wikipedia-space edits, but seen as the admin-related work he intends to take part in doesn't always revolve around Wikiprojects then I will give my support, as I can see some stellar contributions, especially in the mainspace. :-) Lradrama 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support John254 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I like his ability to calmly talk to anonymous IPs and his wonderful copyediting. Auroranorth (!) 12:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Lara❤Love 16:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support this strangely uncommented on RfA. Good user, plenty of diversity, old block explained etc etc - the work awaits !! Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, ditto Pedro about lack of commenting on this one. K. Scott Bailey 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Supporto Penso che questo ragazzo sarebbe un'amministratore eccellente. Quando parlavamo a New York, mi sembrava intelligente e dedicato.--chaser - t 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - everything looks to be in order. WjBscribe 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Zaxem 10:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.