Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NicholasTurnbull

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

[edit] NicholasTurnbull

Vote here (49/6/3) ending 14:47 07 Oct 2005 (UTC)

NicholasTurnbull (talk • contribs) – Nicholas first edited on Wikipedia in December 2004, and has been reasonably active in editing since June 2005. He impressed me with his general cluefulness and grasp of how the Wikipedia community ticks very early on. He works very well on a variety of articles, particularly WikiProject Scientology (he's an ex-member of the CoS and has been great value filling in articles on how the substance of the religion actually looks to a member). He's dealt with conflict admirably, having comported himself very well in ArbCom cases involving Ed Poor and AI. He's also a regular and a chanop on #wikipedia. His edit count is 719, which some here would consider low, but I think his edits are quality. And the most important thing is that he is extremely clueful and would handle the mop well and with good judgement. I said I'd nominate him after three months' active, so here you go ;-) David Gerard 14:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am truly honoured, thank you, David. I most gratefully accept. --NicholasTurnbull 16:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Well, yeah! - David Gerard 14:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support! ... after 10 minutes of edit conflicts --Phroziac^(talk) 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Extreme Tom Cruise support! Ral315 W_S 15:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Enthusiastic support! Kirill Lokshin 15:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
5. I doubt he will accept, but I would like to be on the record as supporting anyhow. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Well, how about that, he accepted. OK, then, I still support; his skill and willingness for dispute resolution and high quality contributions leave me convinced that he can be trusted with the tools. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

6. Support. It should also be noted that he's a contributing member of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, which gives few edits to show for very tedious work. -- Norvy (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Strong support - Nicholas Turnbull has all the qualities needed to be a team player. He's more concerned with the editing, and with the quality of his edits, than arguing over what he edits/how he edits, etc. Off his own back, he revived the continuing-to-be-a-success Mediation Cabal, managed to avoid burning out on the AI arbcom case and the XAL situation with the Bogdanoff Affair. Nicholas contributes tirelessly and unceasingly to the good of the project as a whole; keeping an eye on the minutae, without losing sight of the bigger picture. I can't really do much more to convince the skeptics of his worthiness, and as I know he doesn't view adminship as a big deal, I know he isn't going to want me to say any more. Rob Church ^Talk 00:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support CambridgeBayWeather 16:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. I'm a bit iffy, what with suffering a minor case of editcountitis (don't worry, my edit count's about the same as Nick's), but I think in cases of extreme awesomitude we can thrust forth the mop and bucket a little early. Nicholas has made uniformly good contributions, is level-headed, and frankly sums up "extreme awesomitude" quite well. It's a rare contributor who gets sysopped with so few edits, but nobody said Nicholas was a dime a dozen ... --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
10. Support MONGO 17:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Private Butcher 19:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. →Journalist >>talk<< 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, enthusiastically. Any user who feels compelled to help WP by establishing ways of communication and mediation will always have me by his/her side. Shauri Yes babe? 19:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
14. I tried to do this before, but Nicholas wouldn't let me. Oh well, here we go now. [[Sam Korn]] 20:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
15. FireFox ^{T C} 20:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, overdue. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Extreme Phroziac support! -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
18. My concern is that Nicholas will burn out on the project and/or lose interest quickly, but, to tell the truth, I don't think that's a reason to be neutral or, heaven forbid, oppose. Nicholas has been keen to learn the policies, to work toward mediation when he finds conflict, and to improve the project. I see no negatives at all, and he keeps his cool and, when he gets frustrated (and we all do), doesn't lash out. An excellent candidate and a good egg. Geogre 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. I first met Nichols on the #wikipedia IRC channel, where he is a channel op. He has an amazingly calm online presence and a superb ability to build consensus. Slow and steady wins the race, so I think he'd make a great admin and possibly a mediator as well. He's also man enough NOT to quit the project if his first nomination fails. FWIW, he's the one who convinced me to start listening to UninvitedCompany and to chill out more and respect consensus. We need more newcomers who can 'tame' us oldtimers. Uncle Ed 00:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support, I forgot to vote! meh, let me state he's a great guy, always nice, and nno good reason to oppose. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
21. I've already trusted Nicholas with a lot more than just adminship, so I can't in good conscience oppose here, now can I? Kim Bruning 02:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Remember that editcountitis can be fatal. Titoxd 04:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support – methinks he should also join the wikicricket cabal. User:Nichalp/sg 09:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Say no to editcountitis. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 10:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support TINIRCC Alphax ^τεχ 10:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support - Guettarda 17:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Pcb21| Pete 19:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, very committed Wikipedian who will use the tools well. Bishonen | talk 19:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support, he is quite reasonable and it is easy to have a discussion with him. I fully support his adminship. I hope he keeps in mind that administration is a mop rather than special authority to command others. --Gmaxwell 20:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
30. 'Support seen around every now and then.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support, with my edit number 6800. And, I am sure that he shall shine as an administrator. --Bhadani 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. I'm glad to make my first edit to Wikipedia in several weeks this. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. IceKarmaॐ 21:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ummm... Ice, if you "really" want to help Nicholas, I recommend that you place this a few lines above this, like... in the "Support" space? Shauri! Yes babe? 23:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops! IceKarmaॐ 06:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. This editcountitis is becoming a cancer. Ambi 07:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. seems good on dispute resolution and that's a rarer skill than spellchecking. Offline editing is a good thing. Dlyons493 Talk 18:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support, good experiences with this user, and I think Kim's comment about editcounting hits the nail right on the head. Radiant_>|< 22:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support, I don't see the edit count as a problem. Friday (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Since David vouches for the quality of his edits and prospects of becoming a good admin. El_C 23:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support --JAranda | yeah 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Strong Support I met Nicholas first while investigating the Bogdanov Affair, and I must say, I was greatly impressed with his handling of the matter. No qualms at all; in fact, it's my honor. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
42. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Cool. JuntungWu 11:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Absofuckinglutely Snowspinner 16:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Andre (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support is there a pill you can take for editcountis? --Rogerd 03:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Support good guy. Martin 08:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Support It's taken me far longer than usual, because of the low edit count I felt it appropriate to investigate more of his edits than I do for candidates with a longer history. After my research, I can say I'm thoroughly satisfied that Nicholas Turnbull will be a very good admin. Unfocused 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support. Generally I do prefer to see 1000+ edits, just to be sure the candidate knows their way around. In this case, I trust the nominator and see no reaosn to penalize Nicholas for being a quick study. Carbonite | Talk 13:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. 700 edits and 233 articles is simply not enough, IMO. Give it some time, maybe a month or two? ≈ jossi ≈ 21:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. I tried nominating him once on IRC, and he said no. I also think he should wait a while. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 17:53, 30 Sep 2005 (CDT)}

2. Neutral. I am one of the ne'er-do-wells who believes that one of the requirements of adminship has to be extended participation and commitment to the project. Both to gather an understanding of the community's processes and expectations and to provide the community with a chance to get to know and understand the candidate. I have no firm threshold for edit counts, and tend to adjust my opinions based on the breadth of a candidates participation, the length of time with the project, and the balance of substantial vs. trivial edits. However, the editting record I have before me is really not what I would generally consider sufficient to meet my standards (and not helped by the fact 45% of your edits are marked as minor). The argument being made here, is that this deficiency should be offset by his other activities on Wikipedia's behalf (which are of course invisible to me, though I trust the descriptions offered), and because he is argued to be of an unusually good sort. I am not strongly moved by either of these arguments. To the first, while I am glad that he works on IRC and email meditiation, I don't really see adminship as a reward for hard work, and I'm not sure these things substitute for participation in the project itself. To the second, well if he is a good sort (and I have no reason to dispute that), then he would still be a good sort later on with more experience, right? And it would be easier for all to see. This comment reads like an oppose, and for the most part it is, but I am going to stick it in neutral for now while I take some more time to consider this. Dragons flight 21:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. With all due respect to Nicholas and his supporters, I just can't support the idea of making someone a janitor before they've shown they understand their way around the system. From my point of view, becoming an admin is not a reward for being a good guy (though that certainly helps), it's an acknowledgement that someone understands how the community works and is prepared to help clean up the messes that inevitably occur. Though I believe Nicholas would approach this with the best of intentions, I'm not prepared to promote everyone that comes here eager and with good intentions. Experience and breadth of participation are in some sense the easiest of all objections to overcome, and I see little harm in delaying this nom for a while. If this nom fails (which is far from obvious right now), I would still encourage Nicholas to keep up what he is doing and to be involved in the administrative areas of Wikipedia. I have faith you'll make important contributions either way. Dragons flight 06:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose uh, it shouldn't be too hard to make another 300 or so edits...  Grue  05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose for now while I strongly trust David Gerard's opinion here, I still think Nicholas is a tad too green for admin. Sorry Nick, maybe in a month or two.  ALKIVAR™ 07:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I had at least twice as many edits on my first RFA candidacy and I was shot down for having too few. I don't see why this should be different. PedanticallySpeaking 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

   I suggest to the bureaucrats that this vote be discounted as sour grapes - David Gerard 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

   I suggest you let them do their job. If this had been phrased "too green" or somesuch there would be no problem.
   brenneman^(t)(c) 03:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

6. A lost cause vote, but I do think that while he seems a strong future candidate, current lack of experience (and not just simple low edit count) should mean that adminship is in the future, and not yet. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral until he gets off his lazy butt and answers the questions. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Neutral I have been considering this RfA all day now, and have finally reached my decision. Let me make this as clear as possible — I do not have any particular threshold for number of edits, nor do I have any amount of time necessary to become an admin. In addition, I beleive that NicholasTurnbull is a great editor and Wikipedian, and will make a great administrator. Also, I truly appreciate his efforts off the wiki in helping out Wikipedia. However, I truly feel that his amount of experience actually on Wikipedia during the past four months is insufficient for becoming an administrator. Perusing through his edits, there are many minor edits (45%, according to DragonsFlight) that involve copyediting; in addition, over 1/8 of his edits (97 of them) are to the user namespace. Also, there are few vandalism fighting edits — though I do see occasional groups of four or five edits reverting vandalism, I see no evidence that NicholasTurnbull has done extensive RC patrolling. In addition, the majority of the Wikipedia: namespace edits involve either RfA or the Mediation Cabal. This indicates, in my opinion, that NicholasTurnbull has not been completing admin tasks yet, and may not understand all of the Wikipedia principles. Combined with a relatively limited time on Wikipedia (just under four months) and an extremely limited number of edits, I feel that NicholasTurnbull is neither experienced enough nor ready for adminship. However, if this RfA doesn't pass, I will gladly support him in the future, as he has my full confidence. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   You point out that he "has not been completing admin tasks yet." Considering that he's not an admin yet, I don't understand the concern. --Michael Snow 23:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   After more consideration, I've moved my vote to neutral. What I meant by admin tasks was participation in Afd, RC patrol, etc. While I don't feel that participation in those activities are necessary to become a wonderful administrator (which I know Nicholas will become), I feel that in cases of candidates with a relatively modest number of edits, involvement in those activities is helpful. I don't think I should oppose him, since I feel that he is a great Wikipedian and will become a great administrator; I simply agree with Dragons Flight and feel that he needs more experience. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   For whatever it's worth, I'd normally agree with Ficelloguy here. What matters to me most is time on project and number of interactions with jerks than specific number of edits, although it's hard to have such interactions without chalking up the edits, because being an admin is just a species of editor; it is the species that gets into disputes and closing junk and deleting things. I also look for a user's authorship of article edits as an important thing. It's just that Nicholas started off more aware of the dynamics than usual and has, in fact, been plunging himself into the worse interaction space we've got. He has been calm and reasonable thoughout. He has also been writing big chunks and getting few edits because of few revisions. I.e. there is a skew to this particular user that sets him apart from others with the same numbers that satisfied my own standards, anyway. Geogre 03:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

2. On the Support side of Neutral. He has done well in my personal experience, and he meets some (but not all) of my standards. --Maru (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
3. OK, I'll admit it. I have a mild case of editcountitis. However, I do believe that NicholasT would wield the mop and bucket well, but I'm not going to Support. Neutral. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 20:24, 1 Oct 2005 (CDT)}

Comments

• According to WP:KT (and if anyone cares), NicholasTurnbull has 742 total edits. Complete count here. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't start the editcountitis thing and oppose him soley for his editcount please. I should also mention that Nick makes a lot of big edits, as opposed to lots of smaller ones. So he's actually done more work then a lot of us. --Phroziac^(talk) 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• His user page indicates he is on Wikibreak till October 1st. Maybe David noticed this and just couldn't wait the extra day? Dragons flight 16:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • He posted to wikien-l, so I took that as a return :-) - David Gerard 16:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I tried nominating him once on IRC, and he said no. I also think he should wait a while. Did you ask him why he said no? Nick didn't at the time feel ready for adminship; he wanted to wait until he was happy with it. I for one think this is a quality that all our admins ought to have; he clearly doesn't see adminship as a big deal, which of course it isn't. Rob Church ^Talk 00:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Note for people with edit count criteria:

Nicholas apparently uses an offline editor. This is a Good Thing, for obvious reasons. More people should do it!

Unfortunately, however, offline editing skews a persons' edit-count figure quite dramatically, because much less edits are made online, logically.

Don't forget to take this into account! Otherwise in the long run we'd end up with offline editing becoming discouraged.

Kim Bruning 02:42, 1 October 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 would anticipate using my administrator privileges to assist the community however and whenever I can. I am, at present, maintainer of The Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative; with adminship, I would able to protect pages and set user blocks where they are required in active disputes, which would greatly enhance my ability to stop POV wars, personal attacks etc. in the course of my position as mediator. In addition, enforcing Arbitration Committee rulings, dealing with vandals (via blocking, reverting, and page protection/unprotection), and closing deletion related matters (including AfDs, CfDs, speedy deletion etc.) would all be matters that I hope I would be able to serve the community in as an administrator.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Well, I would have to say that I am certainly particularly pleased with the recent redevelopment and maintenance of the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal page that I have completed, as I am confident that informal mediation could potentially solve a great deal of conflict issues in a civil and polite fashion, reducing needless cases being brought to the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee. In addition, I am pleased with the work I have completed under the auspices of the WikiProject Scientology initiative, as a neutral, accurate and well-researched series of articles on Scientology subjects is entirely unique to Wikipedia; also, I am pleased with my spoken recordings I have made of The Giver and Microwave radio relay as I feel that spoken recordings shall be the path to Wikipedia articles reaching some wider audiences that paper encyclopaedias have yet to reach. I am also pleased with the work I have done on drawing the map for Suburbs of Johannesburg.

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 have dealt with quite a number of conflicts in my time on Wikipedia, and my current position on the Mediation Cabal revolves entirely around managing disputes and remaining clear-headed despite emotive responses from dispute participants. In particular, the most recent Bogdanov Affair matter was quite trying; despite rather vehement and attacking communications from the parties in the dispute, I attempted my very best to bring the matter to an amicable close - in the end, it was necessary to escalate the case to the arbcom. However, I remained polite, civil and pleasant to all concerned, and acted to try to minimise the scope of the dispute as possible. Another dispute that I was involved in was the User:AI case, involving this user's negative POV pushing on David S. Touretzky, to which I brought an arbitration case against this user, in conjunction with User:MarkSweep, and the committee has recently passed a series of bans against this user. Despite incivility from this user I maintained politeness and cordiality. I learn constantly from these disputes, and hope that through this learning I become constantly better able to assist the community as a mediator.

4. A survey of 126 adminship nominations over more than 2 months found that no successful candidates had under 1000 contributions (though only 2 applied) and a less than 50% success rate for those under 2000 contributions. Please explain why you should be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to judging the amount of experience necessary to prepare one for adminship? Dragons flight 16:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have long been an advocate of judging administrator candidates on the basis of the work that they have completed, rather than comparing the quantity of edits that they have produced to other candidates; it is my view that edit counts only give a partial view of an adminship candidate, and that the abilities demonstrated by a candidate - moreover, the demeanour, nature and intent of the individual in going about his or her work - should take precedence over numerical edit counting. In other words, experience in my view should be measured by what the person is able to do, and the knowledge that they demonstrate in what they do. It is, of course, up to the community to decide whether or not I possess the relevant experience to become an administrator, but I hope that my work in the field of mediation, and in participation in editing elsewhere, demonstrates that I am knowledgeable in Wikipedia processes and procedures. In addition, I strive to help the community as best I can through mediation, and it should be noted that a large amount of my mediation-related work takes place outside of the wiki itself in the form of e-mail and IRC correspondence with parties involved in disputes, which I hope demonstrates good intent in the process as well. I hope this answers your question, thank you :) --NicholasTurnbull 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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.