Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NativeForeigner

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

NativeForeigner

Final (67/10/5); Closed by Rlevse at 01:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) – It's rare that you find a friend to share your troubles with when you are WikiBonked, much less a friend that can listen and reply to you with great patience and maturity. This user is NativeForeigner. He's been with us for more than four years now, but he's been editing consistently with us for a good half-year or so. I have been amazed at how fast he picks things up and how he interacts with others. To his credit so far are two featured pictures, two GAs, and three DYKs, as well as his gnomish activities and participation in our Wiki processes. I have no doubt that NativeForeigner will be an asset to the community, an ideal which I hope has not been forgotten in our search for fresh administrators. bibliomaniac15 07:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

NativeForeigner and I first met quite some time ago. He seemed like an amicable guy, so I talked him into working on USS Washington (BB-56) with me. We never finished (my fault), but the experience still stays with me, as collaborating with him was quite enjoyable. I have followed him since that time, and I have witnessed a remarkable degree of maturity and kindness in every one of his conversations. Topping it off, despite his active time here being measured in just months, he has been a great benefit to the encyclopedia—two featured pictures and two good articles can certainly attest to that. I have no reason to doubt that these attributes will not carry over into administrative duties. I hope that you find NativeForeigner to be as good of a candidate, and person, as I have. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Having the vote of confidence from bibliomaniac is adequate reason for me to accept. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan to take part three areas primarily. I would fulfill G10, G6, and G7 speedy deletion requests, as well as the occasional A7. Additionally I would delete files(see below amendment) that have been WP:BLPPRODed. Lastly, I would delete files with duplicates on commons, as well as do transferring myself. Having the ability to delete files decreases the amount of work required for all involved. However, I wouldn't put it past myself to close FfDs that are blatant copyright violation, or doing any other non-controversial tacks in the administrative backlog.

Amendment: BLPPRODed, in the sense that the blp prod template has been applied to articles. Files was simply a unfortunate typo that I should have caught. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

A: Although I have done a decent quantity of anti-vandal and newpage patrol, my best contributions have been in the form of my two good articles. (Mo Tae-Bum and LG Mobile World Cup), as well as my 4 (soon to be 6) DYKS. My best contributions are probably my two Featured Pictures. However, I'm quite satisfied with my work wikignoming around various articles, cleaning up new pages, and finding sources for unsourced BLPs.

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 have been in a few minor disputes, although most of them did not evolve to expand many other editors. First, I ended up getting involved with User:Wexeb after I noticed he had an image in his signature, and requested he remove it. He did, but then after obtaining rollback used it for some less than appropriate things. I left a few messages on his talk page, but it ended up resulting in him retiring as a result. I was involved in a minor content dispute on StarCraft professional competition. There are a number of English commentators listed, and all of them have references that could be considered less than reliable. However, a user removed some of them and added some entirely uncited additions. Upon undoing his edit, we got involved in a somewhat bizarre dispute with him arguing that I was a member of some starcraft fansite. However, soon after he unexpectedly stopped making his case.

Supplementary question Can you give some diffs to actual exchanges in the two disputes you have mentioned? JamesBWatson (talk)

Will do. I'll be out for a few hours, but will answer when I get back. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally my fault. Here are the diffs for one of the disputes, I'll have the other one up right after. Warned user for removing content (poorly sourced, but there), and personal attacks directed at Debivort (talk · contribs) [1] He then responded on my talk page [2] accusing me of being part of a starcraft fansite http://www.sc2gg.com of which I had heard of, but never visited. Upon asking him who he thought should be included, so that I could look for refs, [3] he never responded. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I first corresponded with Wexeb, as he had an image in his signature here He fixed it, so I thanked him here. I noticed his young age, and so recommended he remove his personal information [4], although he did not give an exact address. I notified him on a malformed image upload here MSG (talk · contribs) warned him about rollback to no avail, and the talk page was archived (to try and hide his warnings, which although allowed, is not smiled upon, especially when the concerns still apply. I seconded his concerns [5], and soon afterwards the user announced his retirement. 16:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

4. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: A block is the technical measure imposed on a user that disables them from editing Wikipedia. A ban is an action taken by the community to bar a user from editing in a certain subject area, with certain editors, or at all. It is a formal revocation of privileges by the community.

Additional optional question from Doc Quintana

5. When is it appropriate to AGF with Newbies when it appears they may have committed vandalism?

A: This is quite a difficult question when thought of in the abstract, but here is my best shot. Generally I assume good faith when there is any reasonable possibility that they could mean well. Blanking a section with negative (or positive) information on an individual is certainly vandalism in many cases, but as aptly brought up by JamesBWatson below, it is more than reasonable to ask the user why they are removing the information. I've used Huggle a small amount, and in my experience it's generally quite obvious what is blatant vandalism. It is not reasonable to Assume good faith when somebody repeatedly spams web links, or bombs a page with images, or inserts profanities. A user who makes an edit, that could in any way reasonably be explained, should be questioned why they made the said edit, and one should assume good faith.

6. Give an example of when you felt it was necessary to invoke IAR

A: I can't think of an example off of the top of my head. I remember thinking about IAR on one or two occasions, but I'll have to find them and answer this question in a few hours.

Still looking, I know there were times when I thought it, but I just cant' remember them. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from DGG ( talk )

7. You say you wish to delete files that have been BLP prodded. What do you consider necessary to check on an expired BLP Prod before deleting it? DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A: When dealing with BLPRODs, I find it necessary to check google news, google scholar if it seems applicable, google the term in question, and then look into any more specialized journals that the person may fall under, or applicable websites. For example, some professor at Cambridge who is unreferenced, if all else fails (which is fairly unlikely) I would look at the Cambridge website. Also, foreign language sites are often a good source for those who live outside an english speaking area, so in that case I would most certainly use foreign sites and translation tools as much as possible.

Additional optional question from MC10

8. You stated that you "would fulfill G10, G6, and G7 speedy deletion requests, as well as the occasional A7". If you see another speedy deletion request that falls into a different criteria not part of the four you mentioned (G6, G7, G10, A7), would you stop and consider the deletion request?

A: I will indeed stop and consider it. G1-G3 are often quite obvious, and so again I would consider it. Although those would be my focus (those categories in which I will regularly look at) if it gets backlogged I would not exclude myself from deleting others. I will certainly fulfill G11 and G12 deletions, especially if it gets backlogged, as they can be harmful. G8 is used quite often to delete talk pages, and is pretty much a housekeeping deletion. As an extension of closing obvious copyvio FfDs, I would also delete images that are obviously copyright violations under F9, although only those that are in the United States, as that is where my true knowledge of copyright law lies.

Additional optional question from Begoon

9. This is a sort of "King for a day" question. Assume that you have been given carte-blanche to make one change only to Wikipedia policy.
Obviously, the question is [a] What would you change? and [b] What is about that one change that makes it, to you, more important than any other?

A:

Additional question from Keepscases

10. "Oh, forgot to mention I love anal with strapping Scottish lads, mostly." was on your user page for almost four months late last year. Did you leave that up intentionally, or were you unaware it was there? To what degree do you plan on monitoring your userpage as an admin?

A: Well, I had some major back surgery late last year, and was on major narcotics, and honestly had more important things than monitor my userpage to do. However, my userpage is now on my watchlist, and I don't see any circumstances in which such vandalism to my userpage could go unnoticed. I didn't see it, and upon seeing it was rather perturbed by my lack of attentiveness at the time, but it should not be a problem in the future.

Additional optional question from Shadowjams

11. Your first edits were 2 edits, both to talk pages, and both with full sigs. You didn't edit again for 8 months, and even then, largely to talk pages. How long did you edit as an IP, and why the long string of edits right before Christmas in 2006?

A: Well, I didn't really edit as an IP for that long. I made a couple changes, I think I remember reverting vandalism on Halloween, but I think I did read a lot of policies, simply because I found them interesting. However, in the early time frame I just was making edits as I ran across the articles doing one thing or another, not dedicatedly editing. In November 2006 I first started 'editing', and I was quite enthused about the project by December. I don't remember specifically why I edited in that specific time frame though. I had another surgery in late 2006, which disrupted me from editing, and I didn't get back into it until December of last year. I'll just disclose now that I've had three quite major surgeries, but I should not be having any more for a fair while. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 14:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Hobit

12. You mention BLPPROD in your answer to Q1. Consider the following cases and indicate if you would delete an article if it has been tagged with BLPPROD and has

1. No sources other than a link to IMDB
2. No sources other than a link to the person's personal page.
3. No sources other than a book reference which seems unlikely to be correct but not impossible.
4. No sources at all but is for a former member of the US Senate who served only 1 year (1860 let's say).

Assume you can't find a better source for the first 3 and you can't find a source for the 4th that does anything other than confirm someone of that name did indeed hold that office for that time frame but all other information can't be confirmed by you.

A:

1. Well, there is actually a discussion Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#Are_we_broadening_this_to_poorly_sourced.3F as to whether this should apply. At the moment people are applying it both ways, and it does need to be standardized. The only criteria now is that it directly supports a statement in the article. If it did that, I might bring it to AFD, or regularly PROD it, but at the moment consensus does not exist to delete.
2. Probably PROD or CSD worthy (if that is the only source available) I would add more or nom it for deletion through PROD or AfD or CSD. Right now, as long as the source confirms a statement in the article, it can not be deleted.
3. Difficult call. I would remove all negative unsourced (or dubious in this case) information, and try to find the literature which it is referencing. In this day and age one can generally find this kind of information, even if in a restricted way, online. If it is clearly negative, it obviously needs to be G10ed.
4. Firstly, the senator would not be a living person, therefore WP:BLP would not apply to them. Secondly, I believe notability guidelines for people make this person notable. I would certainly remove unsourced information that is likely to be challenged, especially of a negative nature, but BLPPROD can not be applied in this case. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from BigDom

13. You have said you wish to deal with speedy deletion requests (A7, G6, G7 and G10) but would also consider other requests. How would you deal with this tag, and why?

A: At this current time I would leave it as is, or create an article if the topic User:BigDom/CSDexample is notable. ;) (Restore it and whatnot, and I'll really answer this question) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 14:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not accept it, as it does have content. Although the content is in the form of an infobox, it could easily be taken and phrased as sentences. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for NativeForeigner: NativeForeigner (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for NativeForeigner can be found here.
• I sincerely hope that the Crats will immediately discount any Oppose based upon edit count. As well, any rationale for oppose that includes using a script or semi-automated reasons should as well be immediately discounted. Basket of Puppies 05:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I striped your comments in the oppose section. You are entitled to your own opinion, but adding the same biased message to 3 votes is, in my eyes, clear Campaigning (And i factored your "move for speedy promotion to adminship" vote into this decision). Besides i would point out that supports and opposes are both allowed to be comment less, and that the crats are more then capable of forming their own opinion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Exciral. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Just a moment, let me see if I understand. You decided to strikethrough my comments without first discussing it with me? I am stating opinion, not campaigning. Please assume good faith, ok? Furthermore, the strikethroughs make appear as if I had rescinded this position. I have not. I ask that you please restore my comments. Please and thank you. Basket of Puppies 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Repeatedly chastising other users' opinions is not tantamount to stating an opinion of your own. Bureaucrats are even more respected and experienced users than admins themselves, and they do not need to be reminded of what is a good argument and what is a bad argument in an RfA. Furthermore, it does not really matter whether a user gives a good or silly reason to oppose, because we are looking for consensus, and each one of those users could just as easily not justified their oppose and left it alone. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 18:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• And this allows for my comments to be modified without consulting me? Basket of Puppies 21:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Your comments were not modified, they were striked out for being in violation of Wikipedia behavior policies and guidelines. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• And which would those be, praytell? Basket of Puppies 00:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• If it helps to form some consensus, and helps to put an end to this unseemly bickering on poor NativeForeigner's RFA, then I'll offer my opinion that posting 3 comments like that showed a lack of respect to the editors who had at least voted in a serious fashion, and provided a rationale. You don't need to agree with their opinion, but neither should you ask for it to be ignored. I expect you would be less than happy if someone were to ask for your Support vote to be ignored because it doesn't provide a rationale which meets with their approval.  -  Begoon (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• So I am not allowed to voice my dissenting opinion? Basket of Puppies 00:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats on talk page  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 01:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've seen some RfA's where nominators go all-out and respond to every oppose, effectively sinking the candidate they want promoted. I've responded to 2/5; I hope no one sees my replies as badgering or as too much, but I'll be happy to strike or remove them if someone does. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. I have full confidence in NativeForeigner. He strikes me as a confident, yet reasonable, experienced yet willing to learn, and clueful editor. He'll be a great admin. (X! · talk)  · @081  ·  00:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Per directly above. Juliancolton (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
3. I think X! said it all. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 01:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Support – Great candidate for adminship. I admire his contributions to mainspace; personally, I think that we need more mainspace-building admins. X! sums it up very nicely. I trust NativeForeigner with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Support. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
6. I remember working with him on Lac Dore Vanadium Deposit. I found him amicable, willing to learn, and clueful; per the arguments above, I think he'd make a good admin. ceranthor 02:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
7. Concise and to the point. I trust him Tommy2010 [message] 02:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
8. Support deletion nominations look good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
9. Everything looks very good to me - eg not seeing any declined speedies. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
10. Strong Support TomStar81 (Talk) 02:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
11. Support per my nomination. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
12. Support – I particularly remember viewing his great contributions for the first time on Mo Tae-Bum's article way back in February. I've seen only good things from him during my time here. Airplaneman ✈ 03:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
13. Nothing but positive interactions with NativeForeigner.  7  03:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Per X! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
15. Per X! No problem supporting. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 04:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
16. Support. Generally good contributions. Kudpung raises good points, although not significant enough (in my opinion) to prevent support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
17. Support We need more admins who hold (or are at least eligible for) a triple crown before standing for RfA. The fact that he's done this with a relatively low edit count is a strong mark in his favor. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    I don't necessarily disagree with having content creation admins (on the contrary, we need admins of every expertise, preferrably those who with well-rounded experiences on Wikipedia), but I think placing high value on featured article contributions or triple crown awards causes the project to inadvertently undervalue the contributors who, whether by lack of interest or time to commit, make small incremental changes that in themselves are beneficial to Wikipedia's content (ie. WikiGnomes). That's not detracting from those with the persistance to bring an article to featured status or achieve something like a triple crown, by any means, just the sentiment that those qualities are not the only things we ought to consider when granting adminship. Just a thought, sorry if you feel hassled). Master&Expert (Talk) 08:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    By saying "we need more" such admins, I didn't mean to imply that that's ALL we need. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

18. Support — Ahh, another RfA that seems poised to hit WP:100 by the end of its allotted time. This candidate should do fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    Ahh, maybe it won't get a super high tally or anything. But I recognize the name and I think he'll be fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

19. Support. It's always been the case that a candidate with a relatively low number of edits would need to be exceptionally good to get my support - and exceptionally good is indeed what I see here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
20. Low edit count not an issue here. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 09:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
21. Strong support NativeForeigner and I first had dealings on Wikipedia back in Feb 2007 and have kept in touch on-and-off since then. I'm delighted to see that others got here first to say things that I otherwise might have said. Suffice it to say that he's always struck me as a sensible, reliable individual who, if successful in this RfA, will use the tools sensibly and be a net positive to the admin ranks. Bencherlite^Talk 09:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
22. Support NativeForeigner should make a good admin. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
23. Support Having worked with NativeForeigner on the milhist coordination team I've found him to be thoughtful, constructive and collaborative in the best WP tradition. Experience isn't an issue for me at RFA because it comes with time; judgement on the other hand is. I'm pleased to say I've seen no reason for concern here. EyeSerene^talk 10:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
24. Support Looks good to me. —Soap— 12:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    Support Nothing to point to you being untrustworthy that I can see, but I am concerned about your low edit count. Immunize (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Immunize (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

25. Support. At the end of the day, the question here is "does the candidate have sufficient knowledge of the wiki, sufficient experience and and are they trustworthy enough and sufficiently competent to handle a mop without deleting the Main Page or something equally stupid?" In this case, I believe the answer is yes and any help cleaning out the spam category is always appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
26. Support Only concern is inactivity. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
27. Support. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 15:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
28. I know him from WP:MILHIST, where he does an excellent job all around. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
29. Support - I don't care what is said down below; I think you know what you're doing. No reason not to thrust thee... Orphan Wiki 20:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Yes! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
31. Support Seems like good people, and the more admins clearing out G10s/etc the better. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
32. Support, good attitude, history and answers; edit count is not a concern - will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 00:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
33. Support Given that another admin decided to block himself in good faith, I think NativeForiegner would be a fine substitute for the mop. Minimac (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
34. Support: Though this candidate's level of experience it toward the lower end of what I'd usually support, what s/he has done shows ample knowledge of the areas where s/he intends to work and makes me confident that s/he'll grow into more. I'm not the least concerned about the edits to articles subsequently AfD'd, per Bencherlite's evidence that NativeForeigner was approaching these articles in a constructive but critical way. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
35. Support - per satisfactory answers to questions and good interactions with other users. Good candidate overall. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
36. Support A quick review of experience leaves me with the impression that this candidate is exactly right for the role. I remain to be convinced that there are any genuine red flags here. Polargeo (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
37. Support Seems to be an excellent editor with thoughtful responses to the questions above. Sheeana ^Talk 17:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
38. Support Looked at contribs - looked at opposes. Liked the former better than the latter. Editor is roughly 900% more competent than I. →StaniStani  19:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
39. Support While otherwise lacks the experience I'd ideally like to see, I'm happy enough given high-quality answers. Opposes aren't enough to worry me though they raise reasonable points. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

    Support On reviewing the candidate's contributions I was particularly impressed with their ability to interact well with other users on a couple of occasions where a difference of opinion existed, avoiding conflict whilst still furthering discussion. General experience of admin related areas seems good, answers to questions are thoughtful and considered, and I see no reason not to trust this user as an admin. - Begoon (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry-moving to neutral

40. Support, a good candidate that as far as I can see will be a benefit to the project. --Taelus (Talk) 09:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Normally I would be very reluctant to support a candidate with so little experience at Wikipedia, but he seems to have learned very quickly. It's a bit of a guess, of course, but I have the right sort of feeling about it. DGG ( talk )
42. Support What you lack in edit count you make up for with your 3+ years longevity. You have a thorough knowledge of policy with good answers to the questions. Can't find any issues to oppose over. ThemFromSpace 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
43. Short version: Support. Long version: Not fully provided to prevent this turning into a rant. Some clues can be found here and by my complete rejection of the reasons provided in the oppose section. Peter 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
44. Support I've got this wierd feeling that I've already voted....--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 02:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
45. Support--Banana (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
46. NW (Talk) 07:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
47. Seen them around, which is generally a good sign.  f o x  10:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
48. --Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
49. Support No problems that I can see.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
50. Support See no problem with how this user conducts himself & has a clue to what is going on. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
51. supportSee no problems.©Geni 20:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. Slight concern around the periods of inactivity, but not enough for me to oppose. Net positive. -- œ^™ 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
53.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, NativeForeigner. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
54. Support, move for speedy promotion to adminship You have my full confidence. Basket of Puppies 05:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
55. Somewhat low content contribution, but seems to have a good knowledge of policy and has an understanding of CSD. BigDom 09:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
56. Support, quality > quantity. No real areas of concern that I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
57. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
58. Support - Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 18:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
59. Support The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
60. Support Great user and editor. Needs his tools. --Zalgo (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
61. Support Trusted user. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
62. Moral supportBejinhanTalk 05:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
63. Support per Jclemens and Lankiveil. Net positive. TFOWR 12:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
64. Support An analysis of NativeForeigner's editing history indicates (s)he will make a good administrator. --PinkBull 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
65. Support per my take on NOBIGDEAL. I don't see any convincing argument that he would misuse his admin tools, so support. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
66. Support. The history looks good and, as per DGG above, I have a "feeling" that this individual will use the tools well; time spent/edit count are not the only indicators of ability to wield the mop. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
67. Last minute Support ! wiooiw (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Whilst I am fully aware that a high edit count is not a criterion for adminship, NF has a relative low edit count (around 4,000) when considering that about 25% are automated. and only just over 2,000 edits to article space. Only four short creations, one a stub (I'm not sure of the policy on ski resorts but this might ring a tad promotional), two are very short, (but neverthless GA), and one unreferenced article. Contribs/creations also include a recent article that was unanimously deleted at AfD. I'm sure NativeForeigner has a basic knowledge of most of the policies and principles but has only been active during the past 6 months or so, and looking at his work to date, I'm not sure that he even really needs the tools yet. IMO (s)he has not yet accumulated significant practice that would demonstrate the sense of judgement needed for wielding them. Another six months perhaps at the same rate and doing the housekeeping that he already can without the tools would probably see him/her better prepared for the tasks of sysop.--Kudpung (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   You have a right to your opinion, but I think in cases especially like this, it's the quality over quantity. Tommy2010 [message] 03:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   I've already stated that I am aware that quantity is not necessarily a criterion. However, IMHO, after viewing the breadown of edits, I feel that the quantity does not demonstrate an accumulation of sufficient experience and/or routine in the areas that require the mop, or possibly a clear understanding of why articles get AfD, or whether the candidate even needs the tools yet at all. As you say, I'm entitled to my opinion. What counts is how the closing 'Crat will asses the RfA.--Kudpung (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   Not challenging this in any way, but what article got deleted at AfD? In fact I have worked on some articles, that probably don't meet inclusion criteria, to at least format them correctly. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   Also which one is unsourced? I can certainly source it, but I can't find what it is. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   You will find the answers in my response to the message that you placed on my talk page. Hope it helps.--Kudpung (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the time. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   I'm interested in the AfD point; NativeForeigner, would you mind responding here? In your talk page archives I can find notices relating to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Baker and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A New Beginning (album). I can't see the histories of the deleted articles, so perhaps you can provide some more details: I see you voted delete in the second discussion and it certainly doesn't read as though you were the author; do you remember what was going on with Susan Baker? (I'm trying to evaluate Kudpung's argument that you may lack "a clear understanding of why articles get AfD". Gonzonoir (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   From what I can make out from the history of Susan Baker, NF originally reverted some vandalism, then did some improving work: removing uncited information, culling weasel words, and converting bare urls into proper citation templates. The following day, Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs), who had also been carrying out improvement work on the article, PRODded it, and NF endorsed the prod saying "I can not see any reason to see that she passes WP:PROF either". Prod was contested by an IP without edit summary, so Ttonyb1 took it to AfD. This would be in line with what NF said above that he has worked on some articles even if they don't pass standards: the work that Ttonyb1 and NF carried out on the article seems to have got it as good as it could be, and satisfied them that it wasn't enough to be included on WP. Personally, I don't see this as a problem. As for the album article, he added a speedy tag then changed it to a prod, saying "Fails WP:NALBUMS as no sources other than amazon can be found. Generation Gap lacks an article, and album also seems to fail WP:GNG" – Generation Gap being the band in question. Bencherlite^Talk 11:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks Bencherlite. It's not a concern for me either. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

   It's sort of a criterion if you !vote that way :). I'm curious, though, what do you feel that thousands of edits are not telling you that another 10k (or whatever) would? ErikHaugen (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   This is an extremely poor reason to !oppose. I sincerely hope the Crats disregard this opppose. Basket of Puppies 05:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Comment striped by Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}, for reasons stated above.

2. Oppose Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh here, but I'm just not seeing enough diversified contributions. Generally, I do not support most candidates without enough in-depth content work, excepting several exceptional candidates I have seen. Not to say that you are unexceptional, or that you are a poor user, but the lowish levels of activity, and the relatively low number of edits in various places you want to work in, especially files, does not instill into me confidence. Some of the answers are a bit iffy for me (you can't actually BLPProd files, bans can be imposed by the ArbCom, "although only those that are in the United States, as that is where my true knowledge of copyright law lies" doesn't make me feel any better about your experience--things like the URAA are global yet very important in the U.S. as well--etc., etc.). While obviously a nom from both bibliomaniac and Ed are commendable, I think you would really benefit from another 3 or 4 months. —fetch·comms 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   wrt blpprod, I think he's referring to articles. Here's an example of one recently tagged by nominee: [6]. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, but then he should say "delete files in BLPProdded articles", which makes no sense as long as the images are within the project's scope. —fetch·comms 22:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   Just to clear up the confusion I'm quite sure that was a typo, although I certainly should have been a little more diligent in my proofreading. I was talking about deleting the articles themselves. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

   That tag was completely wrong. There were references in the article--just messed up from some bad table formatting. Look at the bottom right. —fetch·comms 17:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose I am not directly opposed to admins that wish to specialize in a certain area, but in this case i would say that there is to much specialization in regards to the CSD tags as you mention you only want to handle half of them. I don't directly oppose for this, but once i decided to check your deleted contributions for CSD tags i noticed that i saw the rather low number of 534 deleted edits. Based upon a search and analysis i say you tagged just 117 article's for removal trough CSD; Narrowing it even further down i see 5x G10, 2x G6 and 4x G7 and 36x A7 (And for completion - 11 BLP Prods and 21 regular Prods), which are the tags you say you will handle. I would say that these numbers not nearly sufficient enough to demonstrate that you can handle such tags as an admin. Hence, i remember my own first 500 CSD's tags; They weren't exceptionally bad, but they really weren't the kind of tags i make today. At times CSD patrol will presents you with a lot of variables to consider , so some decent experience is required in my eyes.

   As a secondary concern i notice that you seem to be a bit opposed to taking borderline or difficult decisions, as your answers indicate that you would mostly handle non-controversial and obvious cases. Admin work equals taking decisions, which means that you must be comfortable doing so; including the difficult decisions. The rather low edit count in total is equally concerning me a tad. To conclude, i would say that you are definitely not a bad contributer, but i would say WP:NOTYET - and i deliberately used "Yet" instead of "Now". Work a few months on the CSD tags to show competence with them, and i will very likely reconsider adding my name to the "Oppose" section :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

   [Not attempting to badger] I'm not sure that "only" 117 total CSDs—none of which have been questioned—should disqualify an otherwise fine admin candidate. Just my two cents, and again, I hope you don't take this as badgering. Kind regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose I was going to support until I looked at the two GAs, which are very short (basically two thoroughly sourced start class articles). And I like a lot of experience as well, given my past experiences YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose Per above and per the statement that you "BLP PROD files" which is impossible and demonstrates that this candidate is insufficiently experienced and knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies. Also concerned over recent inactivity. Immunize (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

   Immunize, did you see NF's answer to the oppose !vote (#2) above about this and his amendment to Q1? ErikHaugen (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

   I actually had not read that when I moved to oppose, however, I still, even though the candidate states it was a typo, do not feel fully comfortable supporting. I wou8ld be willing to offer my full support when it has become apparent the user has more experience. Immunize (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

   The recent inactivity was due to NF having major back surgery. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

   Experience != Inactivity. Experience is the amount of working experience and policy knowledge the user has, Activity is how many edits he made recently. Besides, is there a reason to question Immunize's opinion? If you don't agree you can simply vote otherwise. Other then that i find it rather annoying that 4 out of 6 long and well-though of oppose votes apparently require extra justification and rationale, while the comment-less support votes are accepted at face value. And to reply to the above comment on my own vote - no, 117 CSD tags (of which only 45 cover his intended working area) is to little for me to support , and no, that was not the only issue i raised. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

   I agree, Excirial. As for the comment-less support !votes, I think they simply mean that they, well, support the nomination. Airplaneman ✈ 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

   Almost every RfA oppose is questioned in some way if the candidate is good or even borderline. Also, I was responding to "Also concerned over recent inactivity", not the experience comment. Also, thank you for your reply to my question, that was what I was looking for. I tried to phrase it as kindly as possible so you wouldn't take offense, but evidently that did not work. My apologies, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

   Apologies gladly accepted. And will you accept my apology for being rather harsh above as well? After reading it back i figured that it was unnecessarily blunt. For what its worth: I don't doubt your questions were good faith at all; I was mainly voicing some general-purpose annoyance on the current status of the RFA procedure where opposing requires a lengthy explanation (And often results in comments on it regardless), while content-less supports are never questioned. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose Per Kudpung. Even if quality is better than quantity of edits, 5k edits is not enough of a history to judge by; especially since most of them were in the last 6 months. I'm sure he's a good editor, but I can't support for adminship at this time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

   We've survived promoting admins at 3 months and 1000 edits.©Geni 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

   This is an extremely poor reason to !oppose. I sincerely hope the Crats disregard this oppose. Basket of Puppies 05:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Comment striped by Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}, for reasons stated above.

7. Oppose - This is one of the hardest Rfa !votes I've made, because I suspect this is a good person who would/will be a fine admin. But... I find that, like some others, I have concerns about the edit count and overall time spent here, and my personal feeling that Wikipedia admins need a lot of experience to really learn the ropes. That I haven't noticed NF around much is a factor, though this is such a huge project that it's not a big part of my oppose. No, it's just the conviction that 4-6 months from now (given steady participation) the candidate will have a much better idea about the newfound adminship: what it takes to be one, and what those extra buttons really confer. Since it appears this !vote won't derail the Rfa, I'm going to wish NativeForeigner easy sailing with my very best wishes, now and always. Jusdafax 08:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

   This is an extremely poor reason to !oppose. I sincerely hope the Crats disregard this oppose. Basket of Puppies 05:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Comment striped by Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}, for reasons stated above.

   Lack of experience is not an extremely poor reason. Concerns about editcount ≠ editcountitis, in the context of the rest of the statement. Let the crats decide on their own. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 06:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose - We have a lot of good editors and good people on Wikipedia. I have absolutely no doubt that there are hundreds of users, users that have contributed to good or even featured articles, that if given the admin tools, would not do a thing wrong with them. I would actually trust this user with adminship. However, as much as being a good person and editor is a merit in and of itself, it is not grounds for being granted very serious rights in the Wikipedia community. The user has been here (or rather been active) for only seven or eight months (forgive me if I am off on that number), and during that time the user has barely any experience with the tasks administrators are usually given. Put simply, I just think this user is not experienced enough to go admin. (Yes, I have read the other oppose commentary and know that Inactivity != Experience, etc. etc., but that's my opinion.) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose, does not meet my criteria for an admin as he is far too inexperienced. Barely has 5,000 edits, with very few in the user and article talk pages - indicating little actual interaction with other editors. Most edits are just from the last six months, and still are still scant. Only active in the last six months, which does not meet my view that at an administrator should be an active and heavily editing editor, i.e. someone who has survived the "honeymoon" period of active editing. Little activity in the more contentious areas. Encourage candidate to get more active and more experienced, start interacting more and in more areas, and try back after a year or so of doing so. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose I am uncomfortable with lack of experience, patchy involvement, and not enough significant contributions to counter-balance the concerns. I would like to see at least 12 months decent involvement with Wikipedia, especially in areas of consensus building or dispute resolution. I'd like to see more evidence of understanding of Wikipedia processes and policies. SilkTork *^YES! 21:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. You comment that you'd do work with files, but less than 2% of your live edits are in that namespace. I'd suggest more experience in this area, before handling any File deletions.--Rockfang (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning towards oppose. Taking a look at your edits, I tend to concur with those who say that it's quality and not quantity that counts; however, I'm a bit worried, because you've shown a tendency, in the past, not to edit Wikipedia for few months in a row (the last time: no edits in July 2009; no edits in August; one edit each in September, October and November). I don't really know if you have the constancy I'd like to see in an admin. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   I'm curious why you like to see consistency? thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   Well, in general, what I personally seek in an admin candidate is a stable active presence, because I think admins are granted the tools so that they can and will use them when needed. I realize that admins (and, more in general, all Wikipedians) are volunteers here and that nobody expects any us to clock in every morning and clock out every evening, but I feel uneasy about supporting a candidate who might possibly vanish for three or four months in a row. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

   I've just read answer 10; since NativeForeigner has disclosed he underwent surgery late last year, it would be highly unfair for me to !vote neutral on account of his not being active during that period. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

2. comment. Same concern as Rockfang: your apparent record with files here and on commons does not convince. You said "Lastly, I would delete files with duplicates on commons, as well as do transferring myself.", but are you ready to decide whether the file meets the written policies and unwritten conventions of the commons? East of Borschov (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral: Per relatively low editcount (for an admin candidate) and heavy activity in recent months, although you're getting there; also per file-handling concerns. Keep up the good work, though. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral: I really hate to do this, but I'm not comfortable with my Support vote any longer, so I'm moving to neutral. The concerns expressed in the Oppose and Neutral sections have added up to give me too great a sense of unease. I failed to pick up on these things in my review, which is a criticism of me - not the candidate. However, the concerns related particularly to file deletion should not be ignored. One additional disappointing aspect to me is the promise to return with diffs for question 3, which seems unfulfilled. I understand things can be overlooked, but on your own RFA you need to display the attention to detail which will be expected of you as an admin, imo.  -  Begoon (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I'm open to the badgering which seems to have been prevalent here for !votes not supporting - but potential badgerers should understand that I already don't feel good about this move, more compelled to follow my conscience.

   Thanks for addressing my concern about question 3, I appreciate how quickly you did that. I'm going to stay neutral though, because it shouldn't have needed a prompt, given that this is your own RFA. I know if it were mine, I'd devour every word posted - so a 4 day failure to provide the promised info still "feels wrong" and leaves me with the "attention to detail" concern. I'm sure you will take this on board, and that's why I moved to neutral instead of oppose. I also couldn't let it go unmentioned, and I hope you understand. Good luck with the tools you seem likely to be given - you will have my full support as an admin (if that makes sense...).  -  Begoon (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

   Entirely understandable. I should have been more attentive to it, but once you reminded me I was more than willing to. No problem with the neutral on this ;) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

5. Neutral per above. One two three... 23:41, 21 June 2010 (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.