Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000 2: Difference between revisions

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

Northamerica1000

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (108/38/17); ended 07:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Andrevan@ 07:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) – Northamerica1000 is one of those users whose work in the background is indispensable for the smooth running of the project. In the space of an astonishing 252K+ edits over just 3 years NA1000 has grown a deep and comprehensive knowledge of our deletion policy and practice on the existing foundation of a highly committed and enthusiastic editor. What I have always liked about them, even from the early days when we sat on different sides of the deletion spectrum, was that NA1000 was never dogmatic in his views and was always genuinely open to discussing and learning from people who hold different positions. I can recall several occasions where he came to discuss a discussion that went against him, not as a proforma for a DRV but from a genuine desire to understand how the competing arguments got weighed against the policy. This openness to alternative views and willingness to learn from consensus is a valuable and rare trait and something that any potential admin needs in spades.

Another thing I like very much about NA1000 is that they are a content creator and have created 421 articles and hold 33 DYKs. Admins should have a decent knowledge of the trials and tribulations of creating content so that they can understand the impact and consequences of their actions on our key resource. I haven't seen any evidence of NA1000 interacting with anyone in a less then collegiate and open manner for years and a scan of recent talk page contributions shows a polite and helpful editor who takes concerns raised seriously and who will properly explain their actions. Another major plus point for adminship in my book.

Review of AFD closes shows a concern for preserving content properly balanced against our guidelines, and their thoughtful responses to queries show that the right issues have been considered and balanced before an outcome reached. If promoted, I simply cannot conceive that NA1000 would ever go on a mad deletion spree or end up keeping content that needs to die. What we will have is an admin who cares deeply about the project, follows consensus, learns from feedback, and who has a respectful and open approach to challenge. In fact, I strongly believe they will do a better job closing the full range of discussions then I ever have.

Someone once said that adminship was no big deal. But that was a long time ago and we all know that it now is. We know we can't keep losing admins without replacing them with good quality replacements but we also know there is a risk of poor admins driving away the people who write our content. This is why candidates applying for RFA are rightly tested so thoroughly. I am 100% certain that NA1000 has the right balance of personality, experience and knowledge to be one of those admins who bring credit to the role. That is why I am proud to be nominating NA1000 for the mop and bucket. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Yunshui

– I have no hesitation in co-nominating Northamerica1000 for adminship; I was delighted to hear that he was thinking of standing again. The two of us have not always seen eye-to-eye (years ago I regarded his opposition to what I felt were perfectly reasonable deletions as detrimental to the project, although I think both of us have revised our respective positions somewhat since then), but he has always impressed me with both his knowledge of policy and the strength of his arguments, and more importantly with his commitment to the Wikipedia project. He has done plenty of work in admin-related areas such as AFD and NPP, and has demonstrated time and again that he understands the policies underlying Wikipedia, and can be trusted to uphold them. Best of all, he has a proven track record of positive collaboration and interaction with other editors; "plays well with others" being one of my primary criteria for admin hopefuls. In short, here we have a trusted and capable editor who would be an asset to the ranks of the admin corps; I wholeheartedly endorse this RFA. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from RoySmith

– I've been an admin for about 10 years. Most of my time, I hang out on AfD. I've seen Northamerica1000 doing a lot of work there, on non-admin closures. From what I can see, he's willing to put in the time, knows the processes and policies, exercises good judgement, and is level-headed. I've seen him make some mistakes, but so do we all (I certainly have). When they are pointed out to him, he's professional about it and fixes the problem or at least learns from the experience. To me, these count more than any silly edit counts or other stats (which I'm sure he has accumulated too). I encouraged him some time ago to run for the mop, and was surprised to discover that he had done so already and was rejected. I'm glad he's decided to give it another shot. I am happy to co-sponsor his nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thanks very much to the nominators. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Immediate types of administrative work I would perform are in areas of deletion, such as deletion outcome closures for XfD discussions and the deletion of speedy deletion and prod candidates. I am skilled and knowledgeable in all areas of deletion and deletion processes on Wikipedia, and a significant part of the work I perform is in these areas. This includes closing AfD discussions, performing speedy deletion nominations, and managing the AfD logs and discussions, including performing relistings and deletion sorting. Per my extensive work in performing speedy deletion nominations, I am knowledgeable and able to accurately identify speedy deletion candidates that qualify as such. For overviews regarding my work in these areas, please view my:

Discussion closure log

CSD log (and archives 1, 2, 3, 4)

XfD log

Prod log

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

A: I favor my content contributions, which are denoted on my Contributions page. Examples of articles I have created that are fairly developed include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, the first eleven of which were also DYK entries on Main page (see my DYK page for more examples). Some significant article expansions include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, among others, and some useful templates I have created include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, among others.

I created WikiProject Brands entirety from scratch, which markedly increased my knowledge about the detailed workings and processes involved in WikiProjects. I also created WikiProject Breakfast and converted Wikipedia:Cleanup into WikiProject format.

I have performed significant work in expanding various portals. An example is the Coffee portal, which I expanded in April-June 2013, making it much more comprehensive. Per Stats.grok.se, the portal received 80 page views in March 2013 prior to its expansion, compared to 7,685 views in October 2014. Additional significant portal expansions include the Ecology and Agriculture and Agronomy portals.

Many of my list article creations receive substantial page views (in parentheses for October 2014, per Stats.grok.se). Examples include: Desserts (19,165), Dairy products (18,905), Sauces (14,796), French desserts (14,382) and Fermented foods (13,853), among others. Also, Pastries, which I didn't create, but expanded from a list of five entries, received 25,011 in October 2014. I have also performed extensive, ongoing work expanding many other list articles, as noted in part at my Article collaboration page.

A recent analysis of list articles I created with the highest page views indicates projections that they will receive an estimated combined total of over 3.3 million page views a year if present trends continue. When including List of pastries, this figure increases to over 3.6 million. Please see here for how this was quantified.

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 had disagreements at times regarding editing, but they have occurred relatively infrequently over the last two years, and are not what I would term as conflict per the definition of the word. Regular contributors to Wikipedia will typically experience some editing disagreements. I don't become stressful when disagreement occurs, because being calm is aligned with maintaining objectivity, which corresponds with more functional and productive interactions and discussions. I approach disagreements by first considering a person's viewpoints, being respectful toward that person and their point-of-view, and engaging in discussion, with hopes of attaining resolution or compromise. Even if resolution does not occur, I make a strong effort to remain collegial and positive, which is conducive toward having positive interactions in the future.

Additional question from Rhododendrites

4. Your involvement at AfD was a recurring topic of discussion during your previous RfA. As that was two full years ago now, I wonder if you could provide a statement concerning any ways your involvement there has evolved and any ways your understanding or opinions of that process may have changed since then?

A: Over the past two years, I have significantly increased my involvement in the macro management of AfD discussions and logs, such as performing relistings, discussion closures and deletion sorting. My ongoing participation in various discussions during this time has led to greater accuracy in my overall !voting contributions, as demonstrated by my AfD Stats. I feel that the AfD process itself has significantly improved over the past two years, with a higher degree of input in discussions and nominations being based upon Wikipedia guidelines and policies, although this can vary at times. A concern over the last several months is a considerably marked decrease in overall participation in AfD discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Kraxler

5. What is the "Show preview" button (which appears when you edit an article) commonly used for? Do you use it? If yes, what for?

A: The preview function enables the previewing of work prior to saving it, and has many advantages (see Help:Show preview). Yes, I do use the preview function. An example of its proper use is today, when I added comments to several AfD discussions and struck comments made by an indefinitely blocked sock puppet account (see here). Previewing ensured that the additions were performed with precision. I admit that at times I should use it more often in main namespace, to avoid incremental edits. Conversely though, when performing tedious list article expansions (e.g. adding dozens of descriptions over the course of hours), previewing and then saving the work for a new entry is a time saver. This is due to the nature of the work, which involves many steps, including locating an entry in a list (which takes even longer with table-formatted lists), copying from an article, pasting to the list article, copy editing and formatting the new entry, previewing and then double-checking internal links to ensure that duplicates are not present, and then providing copy attribution in the edit summary along with additional summary information. Despite this, I still add several descriptions in one edit at times, although this makes the process even more tedious and time-consuming than it already is. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure whether anybody can make sense of your answer. But talking about lists, please have a look at this (total 8 edits for +30k bytes, which took me several hours of work, over a few days) and then compare it with your article number 9 listed above, for example. Are three pages with 130 edits in the edit history of the article (total 10k bytes) really necessary? Kraxler (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from xaosflux

6. About a year ago you requested advanced permissions to high risk templates, can you provide a sampling of the high risk template contributions you have made since? Follow up, were any of these contentious such that additional consensus building was needed first? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A: I have a lot of experience working with templates, so I requested the template editor permission to help out in editing template-protected pages should the need occur. Edits per this permission have been very infrequent. Thus far, I have not edited any high-risk templates, very likely due to their state of protection, which prevents them from being vandalized, made erroneous, etc. I have created two article Editnotices (List of desserts, List of foods), which can only be created in main namespace by admins, account creators and template editors. These were created to prevent the addition of red links to the lengthy dessert list article and to prevent individual food articles from being added to the category- and list-based foods list. In response to the second part of the question, I don't perceive these Editnotice creations as contentious in nature or requiring discussion to obtain consensus. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Another additional question from Kraxler

7. You closed today Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Ali Haider as no consensus. Considering that there were no votes at all, and taht the nomination was made by a user who was in the meanwhile blocked as a sock, on what do you base the conclusion of "no consensus"? Did you try to establish the subject's notability, or the lack thereof? Wouldn't it have been more helpful to vote keep instead of closing the discussion? Kraxler (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A: Nobody other than the nominator (who has been indef blocked) contributed to discussion about the topic with !voting or commentary. As such, the nomination itself could have also been struck, thus negating the entire discussion. Upon consideration, I have added a WP:NPASR clause to the close; feel free to renominate it if you'd like. I didn't research the topic to formulate an opinion regarding potential notability or lack thereof, so I didn't !vote. Just cleaning up edits performed by a sock in this case. Additionally, per WP:SK criteria #4, a speedy keep close would have been inappropriate, which is reserved for banned users who perform nominations in discussions with no substantive comments (this user is not banned). The discussion also did not qualify for a procedural closure. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from Andrew Davidson

8. The first oppose complains that you have edited this RfA too much. I'm not sure that's a big deal but I noticed that you described several of those edits as "minor" in the edit summary but didn't tag them as minor edits. Why is that?

A: I performed copy edits/updates on the page as I went along, prior to this going live. The page title has a "2" suffix, so all links had to be modified. I added my AfD stats custom queries information. A user prematurely transcluded this page to the main RfA page before it was complete, which I fixed here and on the main WP:RFA page. Afterward, I added a do not publish notice atop. Updates occurred as I went through my contributions and as per updates to my Page views analysis – list articles page. I didn't check the minor edit box much because while the page was being formulated (prior to going live) it was unlikely to be scrutinized by other users. Sometimes I complete edit summaries using pull-down menus, whereby I select the "Copyedit (minor)" entry, which automatically places this in the edit summary field. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

9. You often relist discussions at AFD because there hasn't been enough comment. You say above that AFD has improved in recent years but, to me, these relistings are a sign that the process is moribund and needs a rethink. What are your views on this?

A: I'm satisfied with the structure, format and layout of AfD itself, and feel that keeping it in its present state, (versus the potential notion of increasing its complexity), will best-benefit the community at this time. Rapid change could have an adverse effect of further decreasing participation. I'm open to constructive change, but its unclear what that would entail. As stated above, I have noticed a marked improvement whereby discussion is more objective relative to Wikipedia's standards. Furthermore, discussion based upon wholly subjective criteria has decreased. Lack of overall AfD participation is quite likely correlated with the decline in numbers of active editors that has been occurring over the last couple of years. Participation at AfD is certainly an aspect that has worsened. Ways to address deterioration in AfD participation includes encouraging civility in discussions, encouraging involvement in WikiProjects (many of which have article alerts) and perhaps publishing an article about these matters on The Signpost. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Vejvančický

10. At your first RfA you stated that Unitedstates1000 (talk · contribs) was your first account you used on Wikipedia. That account made a lot of specialized edits during the first day here, on 12 May 2011. Tell me, how did you become familiar with the WP markup and editing interface so quickly?

A: Prior to creating my first and only previous account, I edited as an unregistered user, hence the experience and familiarity. This matter was addressed in detail two years ago at my first RfA in the general comments section (see here). An administrator (User:Fram) went through my edits and verified IP edits I performed from my locale prior to creating the Unitedstates1000 account. The analysis at that time was correct, which I confirmed therein. Also, I'm an experienced computer and internet user, so for me the edits under the closed account were rather simple, as is much of Wiki markup in general. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I missed the clarification at your first RfA, for which I apologize. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Additonal question from Dekimasu

11. You seem to have a reputation as an inclusionist. Without the admin tools you've been unable to close XfDs as delete, which may accentuate this impression. Can you give any examples of recent XfD closed as "no consensus" that you would have closed as "delete"?

A: I don't align myself with inclusionism, particularly per descriptions of the concept at 1, 2. I feel that these types of terms have a negative effect of typecasting, stereotyping and classifying people in an overly-simplified manner that serves to caricature. Furthermore, I support Wikipedia's guidelines, policies and standards being upheld, and I don't condone the retention of non-notable topics.

Regarding Afd discussion closures, first and foremostly, I always ensure that every close is performed accurately per Wikipedia's deletion policy and process. To answer this question, I looked through many of my closes over the last few months, and they were all proper. Regarding recent no consensus closes that I would have closed as delete, I imagine that there may be one or two that could have qualified for soft deletion. It would significant time for me to review every close, and these types of matters are what DRV is for. Only one of my closes has been taken to DRV, In April 2014, which resulted in the close being endorsed (see here). I do forsee performing soft deletion closures when warranted if the tools are obtained as a result of this RfA. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from User:Wifione

12. Dear Northamerica1000, thanks for applying for adminship. As a prudent administrator, how would you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.B. Chandrasekhar, if you were to close it today? Thanks. Wifione ^Message 08:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A: For this question, my response will be treated as if content at the discussion consists of this just prior to closure, and that a full seven days have occurred. The result in these particular circumstances would be to delete. The nominator states that the notability of the subject is "very questionable", provides an overview of sources in the article, and further qualifies deletion along the lines of WP:NOTPROMOTION. The nominator does not state whether or not they performed source searches to find additional ones. The first !vote states that the article qualifies for deletion as per WP:ARTSPAM, which is part of the Spam content guideline page. This essentially corresponds with a WP:NOTADVERTISING rationale, although this is not directly stated by the contributor. This !vote also qualifies deletion as per the article lacking sources to meet WP:BIO. It's unclear if this person performed searches in attempts to find sources outside of those in the article.

The second !vote provides little analysis of sources, and may have only viewed the links in the article, rather than reading them on the external websites. This is evidenced by the statement, "probably has improper references to self published sources", with "probably" indicating a possibility of the links only being viewed. However, this !vote qualifies deletion by stating that the article is "promotional in every aspect" and points out areas that consist of advertising and promotion. This essentially qualifies deletion as per WP:NOTADVERTISING, although this is not directly stated by the contributor.

Furthermore, my own review of sources in the article indicates that rationales in the discussion about them are generally valid: [1] Authored by the subject, [2] and [3] Interviews (primary sources that do not serve to establish notability. The reliability of the second source is also questionable), [4], [5] Primary sources, [6], [7] Dead links (unable to assess). The only way this article could be retained is if independent reliable sources providing significant coverage are found and a complete rewrite is performed. In its present state, the article is almost exclusively in the form of an advertisement, so WP:NOTADVERTISING is applicable.

Under these particular circumstances, it's quite likely that any admin would delete this article. Note that I have not performed source searches as if I were to contribute to this discussion, which is typical of an uninvolved closer. If I were to do so and then contribute to the discussion, I would not be allowed to close it. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

12a. Thanks for the exhaustive and precise answer. Would your answer change were you to perform source searches? Thanks again for the effort taken to reply. Wifione ^Message 15:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A: It's important to not overlook matters when assessing AfD discussions, which can vary considerably. If my own source searches provided significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources qualifying the subject's notability, I would !vote, rather than close the discussion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

12b. I don't want to belabour the question. But do you believe that multiple, independent reliable sources exist currently to support the article's notability? If you believe they don't exist, do mention the same. If you believe that they do exist, do please give your viewpoint whether an administrator should prudently undertake such a source search before attempting to close any AfD? Thanks. Wifione ^Message 17:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A: As stated above, I have not performed outside source searches to determine the subject's notability. I did analyze those within the article to assess the strength of arguments in the discussion about them. Sources in the article do not demonstrate notability for the subject per notability guidelines. Administrators are not required to research the notability of topics prior to deleting articles. The Deletion guidelines for administrators, Deletion policy, Deletion process and Guide to deletion pages have no such requirement. Furthermore, per WP:BURDEN, “the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material”. Per WP:BEFORE criteria B2 and D, nominators are recommended to perform due diligence in source searching. Closers are not required to do so. If someone were to later find sources qualifying notability, they can request for the discussion to be reopened on the closer's talk page and at WP:DRV. In instances of an article being deleted after an AfD discussion with little or no participation other than from the nominator, a Request for undeletion can be made. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from I JethroBT

13. Hey NA1000. Inre: Q3, could you provide a concrete example of a disagreement you were involved in where you felt you exhibited the respectful and collegial behavior described in your response? (It's OK if there was not a clear or ideal resolution.)

A: An example is an Articles for creation submission that I nominated for speedy deletion in late February 2013 as a copyright violation (link). An OTRS request for permission to use the copyrighted work in the submission was filed and accepted (link). It was then AfC resubmitted, but I had to decline the request due to the topic not meeting notability guidelines and verifiability policy (link). This is essentially the disagreement aspect of events that occurred.

In early March 2013, I was notified by a representative of the band on my talk page about how the matter could be addressed and ways to proceed (link). Ultimately, I ended up writing a new article from scratch, The Silver Heart Club, which the band representative kindly thanked me for afterward on my talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Fauzan

14. A look at your contributions here, shows that you devoted at least six hours on 31 May 2014 to editing wikipedia. How are you able to keep such a pace?

A: Balanced nutrition, exercise and rest helps. Many of these were automated edits to perform AfD discussion closures, relistings and deletion sorting. For example, every one click of the button using Mr.Z-man/closeAFD for AfD closes creates a minimum of three separate edits, and merge closes produce four. Every one click using this script for relistings produces three separate edits, and every one click using WP:FWDS for deletion sorting produces two separate edits. Others were routine edits, such as striking the delete !votes of a confirmed sock in a succession of AfD discussions, along with edits in separate article sections and to update the List of crab dishes article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Ivanvector

15. Thank you for taking the time to apply again. There has been some concern that users newly granted adminship gain immediate and permanent access to unfamiliar and powerful tools. If your RfA succeeds, will you be open to administrator recall and what would be your conditions? Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A: I would consider it, with the basic condition of misuse of the mop being the most general of initial criteria. Specific criteria and processes would be described in detail on a user page. I looked over several criteria that admins have created for themselves (pages linked at Admin criteria), which are quite diverse. One matter is that the process does not appear to have been used very often in recent times, at least per information at the recall Past requests page. As such, ANI seems to be a more useful place for the discussion and resolution of administrator misconduct, because it is watchlisted and viewed by many users. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from SNUGGUMS

16. If ever accused of abusing your tools as an admin, how would you respond? Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A: Objectively, seriously, maturely, thoughtfully and with integrity, while being fair and civil toward others, and consise in communications. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Ritchie333

17. I have to ask this, and I'm not expecting any right or wrong answer, just your thoughts .... but how do you feel about the Article Rescue Squadron today? Do you think the group can still play a worthy role in the project?

A: I resigned membership from the project over two years ago, and have not been involved in improving articles with its members to forumulate an opinion. I prefer to not become involved or cast opinions and judgments about it and its members in this discussion. I have moved on to other endeavors. Nowadays, I collaborate to improve articles at WikiProject Today's articles for improvement and through discussion on user talk pages. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Northamerica1000: Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Northamerica1000 can be found here.
• Important note regarding AfD Stats: Due to a high number of relistings and deletion sorting I have performed for deletion discussions, standard queries using AfD Stats produces imprecise results. Custom queries by starting date provides better results. There are also some errors occurring in the lists the tool generates, whereby it lists my having !voted in a few discussions where this did not occur. Please see User:Northamerica1000/AfD statistics for an overview regarding these matters and for custom AfD Stats query links. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure if this belongs here, but for those interested: Link to the prior RfA (almost exactly 2 years ago): Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Northamerica1000 —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support Have seen this editor's work in a wide variety of areas of the encyclopedia, and I believe we will benefit from allowing this editor the use of the mop. Edited to add: While a number of concerns have been raised in the oppose section, I still believe that handing this editor the tools would be of benefit to the encyclopedia. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Slightly surprised that s/he was not already an admin. A look at their stats shows they check every box on my list and then some. On a personal note, I can't remember the last time I was doing anything in AfD and did not see this editor doing something to contribute to the project. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
3. (edit conflict) Support. Great work at AfD. Candidate shows he can be trusted to do administrative tasks well as seen at WP:TAFI - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 02:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support- definitely. Happy editing, L235-Talk Ping when replying 02:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Good candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   Support Seems to have worked hard at addressing the issues raised at prior RfA. Knows policy well and can be trusted with adminship. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC) moved nuetral —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Support Although you don't have much of a record at AfD, and your CSD log is mostly G13s, I don't see anything problematic. I'm afraid I must now move to neutral. :( --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

6. I scanned a sample of 500 contribs from three months ago. After doing that, and relying in part on the Spartaz seal of approval, I'm comfortable with you being an admin. I'm also quite comfortable with the "history of the account" issue raised in RfA 1 and elsewhere. I did my own digging on that a few days ago, when I saw that you were about to run, and I'm satisfied. The TParis examples below do look like wikistalking at first instance, but on the other hand I've done similar things in the past myself as a way of offering an olive branch to editors with whom I've had a run-in, and I take it that's what you were doing. My only concerns are as follows. First, for closes like this, I'd suggest soft deletion, rather than "no consensus". These shouldn't be kept. Second, I'm a bit surprised you've only made two contributions at DRV. I'd suggest going there more often. Third, I'm not entirely keen with the way in which you've !voted to keep articles at AfD that are in a shocking state but done little to clean them up (eg Teet Kask, which needed much more than this). Having said that, others do less. Overall, I think your hard work and dedication will be an asset to the admin corps. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   Addendum with 4 hours to go: given that this RfA is right in the middle of the discretionary zone, I felt it incumbent on myself to consider the concerns raised by the oppose !votes, and to make a note of that reconsideration. The opposers' concerns are generally sound, and I share many of them, as outlined in my original !vote above. But they are not enough to sway my !vote or even to substantially weaken it. If anything, the answers to Questions 11 and 12, which came after my original !vote, strengthen my support because they assuage some of the concerns I had about the candidate's approach to AfD closures. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

   Support - Since I only just started editing a month before the 1st RFA I obviously can't say much in regards to the previous one but by the sounds of things he's came a long way since then and improved sufficiently - Truly deserved RFA IMHO - Anyway Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Moved to neutral. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

   You can actually say "much in regards to the previous one" - all the pages from a few years ago are still available to view. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 18:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   @Rcsprinter123: - I could've been alot clearer with that but I meant as in I didn't know anything about NA1000 then so can't say "He's came a long away" hence why I said "but by the sounds of things he's came a long way" ... I hope that's helped (I've probably confused you more ). –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

7. Support. Essentially per the nom statement by RoySmith. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
8. Support I've been performing NACs for a little over a month, and Northamerica is without a doubt one of the most prolific NACers. While some concern has been raised about this user's ability to end close AfDs, in my personal experience the overwhelming majority of this user's closes are sound and indicate a good understanding of policy and consensus. I have no objections to this user getting the mop. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
9. Support Per Spartaz and User has been editing regularly since June 2011 and is one of the most active users in the Project .A clear Net Positive to the Project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
10. Support – I have come accross Northamerica on numerous occasions; indeed even seen their non-admin closures. Having seen their previous RfA too, I'm satisfied that they have worked at addressing the issues previously raised. Might I also add, it's abhorrent to me that being an "over-analyser" is made out to be a bad thing, as suggested in the oppose section. All the best North, and good luck! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
11. Support He has done a lot of work in portal area. This shows that he's willing to perform work that benefits the overall community without seeking for recognition. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
12. Support One of the best candidate for adminship. I am impressed from his work and ability to handle multiple tasks, which is rare too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
13. Most of the concerns voiced in the below sections, while legitimate, have little to do with being an administrator. —Cryptic 07:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
14. Support, I am always glad to see him show up at an AfD. Antrocent (♫♬) 08:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
15. Support - I usually agree with both Drmies and TP over similar issues, but I see NA differently. We've worked on a number of articles where I've come in with a bit of an ax, without incident, and I've seen a demeanor that I think is a net plus. An imperfect history isn't a bad thing, it shows a willingness to change. Without naming names, we've passed a couple recently that had previous blocks and even a history that began with vandalism. Both of them passed with zero opposing votes, ironic I suppose. As he is now, I find NA to be someone who doesn't have to convince me that he is here to build and encyclopedia, his actions speak to this. Without trying, he's proven to me that he can be trusted to use the tools to the benefit of the project, taken advice to heart, consider other's perspectives and not be abusive. I don't look for perfection, I look for experience and a willingness to improve, perhaps because I identify with that. Regardless, using the simple test of "will it improve Wikipedia if he has the tools" test, I am a firm believer that the answer is "yes". Dennis - 2¢ 09:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
16. Support I have seen NorthAmerica's hard work at AfD for years and have always found it constructive. In addition, their prolific creation of articles, lists, and projects shows a strong commitment to building an encyclopedia. (And really, are people going to oppose because they Just Don't Like the topic areas this user works in?) I have sometimes been bothered by their boldness in NAC closing AfD discussions that were not clear-cut obvious, but in every case I looked at, their bold closure showed good judgment and would never have been questioned if they were an admin. So let's make them an admin already, and then they can do the full range of closures. They are more than ready and I have full confidence in their judgment. MelanieN (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
17. Support. I'm not saying that I completely disagree with the statements made by oppose voters, but most of it is rooted in ancient history or irrelevant to admin tool use. I trust NA1K to make fair closes at deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
18. Belated per nom support Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
19. Support I've seen the candidate around, and see greater maturity since the last RFA. Net positive, and ready for the mop. Miniapolis 15:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
20. Support - I get the sense that NA1K takes his involvement with Wikipedia very seriously and to that extent is always willing to have a discussion about his actions and to continue learning how the community works. I'm willing to AGF with regard to my one reservation expressed above in question #4 -- specifically that in the past he's operated outside consensus understanding of certain policies related to deletion discussions -- and otherwise think his head is in the right place for this. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
21. Support -- opposes violate NBD, and are based on personal animosity. I see no problems here. AGF. Andrevan@ 18:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
22. Weak support - it wasn't an easy one. I went from support to neutral to oppose to neutral to support before making a decision. The pros are: decent content work (I've reviewed many of his DYKs) and good AFD/PROD/CSD work. The cons are: apparent editcountitis (112 edits to this page...) and suspicious early behavior. The early behavior seems to have stopped three years ago, which is a long enough time to forgive pretty much anything save perhaps mass vandalism or death threats. The editcountitis, while strange, doesn't really harm anything. --Jakob (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
23. Support Seems dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. Has been a productive editor and content creator, and has done much useful work in the last couple of years at AFD. The oppose votes so far are unconvincing. Edison (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
24. Strong support - an excellent editor with whom I have had extensive interaction. His non-admin closures are thoughtful and have allowed AFD, most recently, the closure of discussions going nowhere fast. AFD suffers from a lack of clueful closers (just in terms of volume) and adding another who obviously has the skills is well worthwhile. As I pointed out on his own talk page, NA1K and I don't agree on everything, in fact there are plenty of AFDs where we have held dissimilar views. That fact that I'm willing (nay, enthusiastic) about handing him the tools should give you some idea of how much I trust his judgement. Some of the oppose votes here are among the most juvenile I've seen at RFA; the sort of stuff that can be dismissed with an Aesop's Fable. The fact that some watch-listed this so they could rush to oppose speaks volumes. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

    I watchlist about half a dozen people that I think shouldn't be admins and are simply checking the right boxes to build a resume for an RfA run. You don't?--v/r - TP 23:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

    • I, too, have watchlisted several redlink RFAs of editors for whom I think granting the admin tools would be a big mistake. That multiple editors in good standing have done so for Na1000 speaks to his unfitness for the tools. And if you think this oppose section has some of "the most juvenile [you've] seen at RFA", then you've lived a very charmed RFA life. Most of the opposes here have been thoughtful, or "per X" types--in other words, not "juvenile" at all. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    No, I don't spend too much time thinking about something that isn't supposed to be a big deal. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be contributing to a range of areas across the project and so for some, adminship is just the next step on their staircase of volunteerism. But I suspect the snipers in the clock tower have taken their shots, and if that's the best they've got... St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

25. Support - edit counts are m00t...I'll support him solely on the fact that he has created over 400 articles..Wikipedia needs more content creator admins, people who understand how wikipedia works and not more of the other type where people think the number of edits to the Wikipedia namespace is more important to article creation and building of a database...--Stemoc 01:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
26. Support Anybody who has logged that much AFD time without generating a flood of random bitter enemies is commendable. It's also something that requires and demonstrates true judgment, the mature kind, not the flashy kind. If this editor hasn't increased drama, then it's most probably rare (and needed) skill, not an unrelated accident. The only errors pointed out in opposition seem to be benign, not tendentious, not mean-spirited, and not damaging to the encyclopedia or the editors who work on it. I imagine that an increase of tools won't significantly change the basic approach taken so far. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
27. Support just to cancel TParis oppose, I expected better behavior from him than a clear revenge vote. My neutral comment is still relevant, and I can help mentor N1000 closing tedious debates at AFDs if needed. Secret ^account 03:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    Care to provide a diff of anything I have to be vengeful for?--v/r - TP 03:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    Revenge was assuming bad faith on my part and I apologize for that, so I crossed it out. But from reading this RFA your behavior, especially those "ANI" remarks makes most people, including myself believe you got a grudge against N1000 thus you opposed. I'm not the greatest fan of some of N1000 viewpoints neither, especially his views on notability, but opposes like yours is what we are trying to avoid at RFAs in order to make this place a much more pleasurable experience for future administrative candidates. When I see something that I don't like, I usually counter support even if I disagree with the candidate. Secret ^account 04:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    We're "trying to avoid" thoughtful, lengthy, reasoned opposes at RFA? Because that's what TParis wrote below. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    Secret, I've got nothing to hold a grudge on the candidate for. They've never done anything to me. I oppose for the precise reason that the candidate is entirely focused on being perfect and in that regard complicates issues they are involved in and has difficulty accepting when they are not perfect. Now, I personally don't care if NA1K manages to get the bit out of this RfA because, as you know, I've already told ya'all that I'm on my way out the door. And, for the record, I've reviewed 10 possible candidates for RfA in the last month. I know what RfA is like and I know you do. But that doesn't mean that anyone should step aside when they know a candidate is bad for the responsibility. It's not personal animosity toward NA1K - it's animosity towards an admin corp that is already controversial and adding someone in the mix who has difficulty accepting responsibility or blame for mishaps. Vote him in if ya like, but remember when I told you when you have to deal with walls of text, multiple section breaks, and wikilawyering. That's it. That's not animosity at all, that's experience from trying to help this user 'get it'.--v/r - TP 05:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    Gosh... It is so comforting that incumbent Wikipedia admins adopt enlightened strategies as intelligent and thoughtful as this, Secret. What a relief we are in such good hands. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    And what a relief we have your highly constructive insights as well... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    You're most welcome... --Epipelagic (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

28. Contemplative support - I was going to be neutral on this one until I read Dennis Brown's comment above. I imagine I am one of the editors to which he is referring, and I agree with his logic. Admins are not perfect -- I am certainly not -- nor should they be, frankly. I agree with Dennis, though, that it ultimately comes down to would the encyclopedia be better off if NA1K had the tools, and the answer, to me, is a "yes", which constitutes a net positive. My hope is that NA1K will "ease into" use of the tools, observing on the side before jumping in, but at the end of the day, I think I am okay with him or her having the opportunity. Go Phightins! 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
29. Support I have seen NA1K doing good work in various places over the years. While the concerns voiced by TParis and Drmies did give me pause, after due consideration I am happy that these do not override my own experience and that of active editors at AfD. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC).
    
30. Support one of our best editor, period. Cavarrone 10:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
31. Strong support - per above. That North may have had a personality clash with Paris is the exception that proves the rule. As Spartaz says so well, North is all about collaboration and seeing others point of view while remaining respectful of policy. They'll be a great asset to the admin corps. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
32. Not-so-strong support. I've seen his work occasionally over the past year or so, and it looks fine, so I am sure that NA1000 will not abuse the tools. However, the edit count bothers me; instead of a too-small edit count, NA1000's edit count is too big, as emphasized by TP and Drmies, below. I am therefore supporting with caution, as these problems cannot be ignored, but if only NA1000 used preview more often, there would be no problems. Epicgenius (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
33. cautious support - the exchange with TP surprised me as expected to come here and make a 'yes' vote. I am not aware of the complete issue but I still think the probability is that he'll be a net positive overall. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
34. Support Although the arguments raised in the oppose section are pretty week, it gained few pile on oppose !votes. I disagree with the #1 of TP's oppose !vote. Firstly there is no direct relation between NA1000's RfA and his edit count. He edits a page 110 times while others only required 3 is not really a reason for opposing. For example: X user writes a article with just 1 edit while Y user do the same thing with 10+ edits; doesn't necessarily mean, Y user has WP:EDITCOUNTITIS? Every user is different. Number of edits on this RfA page doesn't necessarily reflect NA1000's habits during disputes. And BTW I did some research but I haven't found any such habits as mentioned by TParis. I should also mention that NA1000 has not been in disputes in the last 2 years (after proper research) so I think most of the oppose comment of TParis relies on predictions. TParis"s #2: I AGF. About NA's judgement: I have seen him closing AfDs and have observed some of his closings of the recent past. I haven't found anything that can been said as a "wrong judgement". If one closely look at those AfD closings then one can find glimpses of good judgement. And as it appears from TParis's comment that they had some past conflicts so it is reasonable that TParis will not want (It is a human nature) to see NA1000 as an admin. Anyway, NA1000's content creations looks fine, his interactions between fellow editor's looks good. His CSD, PROD and XFD log reflects his knowledge of our deletion policies. His works at WP:TAFI are good. I don't see any good reason why I should oppose. Jim Carter 12:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
35. Support - Nice work on AfDs, and articles about food, drinks, etc. Criticizing edit count is just out of context. Noteswork (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
36. Support I always see your efforts at AfD, great work! st170e^talk 15:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
37. Support Clearly dedicated to the project, highly skilled in using the tools at hand, and not disruptive. There are some questions about style/volume of edits but these are largely cosmetic and I think the first oppose !vote has skewed the tone here disproportionately. I am confident that this user will use the mop to improve WP. Perfection not required. -- Scray (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
38. Support I see NA1K often. I see helpful, thorough, thoughtful, rational, productive, knowledgeable. Seldom concise. NA1K's style irritates some and sometimes irritates me. So what? Good work speaks for itself. I leaned support immediately based on past interactions but I spent time reviewing his contribs. I don't see walls of text; I see a personal style of being thorough. Found nothing that reached TLDR. I see honest effort to clarify positions rather than IDHT or dead horse flogging. Yeah, NA1K could (probably should) sometimes drop the stick a bit sooner but I see not just civil but polite that isn't producing or contributing to long agonizing disputes. His trivial articles on burgers and BBQ don't compare to articles by you and me on important things like long dead ornithologists, a historically important defunct weekly newspaper or a newly discovered species of critter or plant. Visitors actually look at his articles; few look at mine. I found few faults with NA1K's judgment and self-correction wasn't rare. From everything I found, giving NA1K a mop and bucket will definitely be a net positive for Wikipedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
39. Support I often see the candidate diligently working at AfD, performing routine clerical duties such as transcluding the discussions. Opposes are unconvincing. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
40. Support Ottawahitech (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Appears to me that so many here are rejecting this unquestionably great RFA candidate simply because the candidate is not part of the in-crowd Ottawahitech (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

    Umm, no. I'm not a badger by any means, but i find it hard to believe that Ottawahitech and i are looking at the same RfA. In this one, the Oppose section contains much useful information, debate, and opinion; i simply don't see any "in-crowd" business going on, unless it's the fact that TParis and Drmies are referred to effectively and repeatedly (are they the in crowd?). Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

41. Support Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
42. Support Enough experience to use the mop responsibly. Pichpich (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
43. Support I'm certainly familiar with this editor's name around AFD. I've read over some of the concerns and share in some of them, but ultimately I have to recognize this editor's body of work. Nominations from Yunshui and Spartaz, standalone nominations from either, have my complete and unconditional confidence as they hold my highest respect. Mkdw^talk 17:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
44. Support No problems here. Eurodyne (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
45. Support In the past, I sometimes found the candidates style of discussion less than helpful, even when we both supported the same position, but it has improved remarkably since the previous RfA. His recent deletion work is as good as anyones, and any concerns about over-inclusiveness should be obviated by the nom from Spartaz. We need more active and sensible admins; we have quite enough of ones lacking in those qualities. Based on his work, he'll certainly be active; based on his current work, he'll also be sensible. Of all possible objections, content creation is the most absurd--I think his work there is exemplary. It's an area I rarely contribute to, but considering some of the material we have on entertainers and similar topics, I just don't see an argument that his area of concentration isn't serious and useful. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    DGG, please don't read my oppose as saying "oppose because of trivial article creation". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

46. Support Per DGG and by what I've seen of him around. Peridon (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
47. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 23:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
48. Support User is not a drama monger and seems to put content first. Jehochman ^Talk 03:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
49. Support - I've collaborated with this editor on a few projects and I think his gaining the admin bit would be a net positive for the project. I hope he is a little slower on the close button for certain AfDs, as has been mentioned by other editors... there are lots of AfDs to close and it's more important to close them properly than too soon. Also, I'm rather happy to support an admin candidate with substantial content creation and editing experience. I'm sure the admin bit will be useful for this editor in the many projects he works on. - tucoxn\^talk 03:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
50. Support . I've spent two hours on this already and that's to long to be dithering between all three sections. I was originally going to park myself in the neutral section because although some valid comments in the oppose section and the strange obsession with multiple edits give me pause, nothing convinces me that I can make an outright oppose. After a final look, this candidate is hardly likely to to abuse the tools if he gets them, and knowledge of policy is not his weak point. So he gets my confidence with the recommendation that he tries to consoildate some of his edits into some larger chunks and/or takes a broader overview of what he wants to change before he presses 'save'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
51. Support, pretty much per DGG. He's active and sensible; I see him mostly around Afd, working away well in closing/relisting discussions, categorising discussions, contributing to discussions with a level head. I'm not really bothered about the edit count 'issue' or the chicken-bacon-mushroom-ketchup 'issue' in all honesty; giving him the tools would be a positive and sensible move. Good luck Northamerica1000. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
52. Support This was a tough one because respected editors have had issues with him in the past. I waited a while to see if others dug up anything I missed. Nope. So, I first saw his RfA1 a few weeks ago and was stunned. I could not believe it was him. But, I have worked with him for at least 2 years, and have experienced only good things. He has always been fantastic, reasonable, collegial, cooperative, fun, insanely productive in the mainspace, totally easy to deal with, sensible, calm, etc. etc. So, I think he has done a 180. Good. And raising those issues in the past will help to make him a good admin today. He knows exactly what areas concern others. He is aware that many eyes will be on him. I know he will be extra thoughtful and diligent before making decisions. I feel he will be a force for good. Plus, he works really, really hard. And I don't give a hoot about his edit count. Take a look at what he has produced in the mainspace. It is huge. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
53. Support. I've perused the comments and made some random dives into North's edit history, and he seems generally competent, experienced, and civil, which seem to me to be the key requirements for adminship. I would say, though, it would be wonderful if he tried to do his work in fewer edits. Others have pointed out a number of examples of doing in five edits what could have easily been done in one; it's not harmful or a huge deal, but I do think it would help make article histories and watchlists more manageable for others.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
54. Very belated support as co-nominator. Sorry for the delay; in-laws were visiting. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
55. Support This editor's contributions appear carefully considered and helpful. I myself like to make individual changes when I know that others are actively working on an article, rather than changes all over the article. I find that this helps to avoid edit conflicts and to make it easy for others to see what I've done and revert specific edits if necessary. I see edits like this all the time and no one complains; the fact that there may be a lot of them in a row just means that he/she made a lot of specific and beneficial changes in a row. I don't see how the average size of edits relates to adminship, except in that a lot of admin actions are small and targeted. Editing with RfA in mind isn't a crime either - that just means being careful to follow policies and gaining experience in areas requiring judgement, something we should all do. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
56. Support Reliable, productive, intelligent guy. I am confident that the candidate will look at some of the valid portions of the oppose comments, see them as constructive criticisms, and will easily make improvements which will overcome those criticisms ( which are not fatal flaws IMO ). Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
57. Support. Wikipedia needs competent admins - people who have a clue and won't abuse the tools, and I think NA1k fits on both counts. I waited to see if there were any deal-breakers in the oppose column, but I'm just not seeing anything that makes me concerned that he would abuse the tools.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
58. Support per Dennis and Stalwart. I would also note that the larger number of edits doesn't particularly bother me - it's not like we're going to fill up the encyclopedia or anything, and the concerns about an inflated edit count just seem like another kind of editcountitis to me. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
59. Weak Support was Support(Indenting and striking while considering the comments on closes given by I, JethroBT in the neutral section--back to support though weak. ). Thought a bit about this one after spot checking and reading opposes. I'm not sure I'm that worried about the edit counts or position on the comprehensive vs highly notable spectrum oppose that have been brought up The high edit account might be a concern for example if done with highly transcluded templates, but in many ways I see nothing wrong with a series of edits vs. combining them together. In fact coming from a programming background myself, there is high cultural value if splitting large commits. While Wikipedia is not exactly the same as say committing to a software repository in many ways it is not much different. Individual edits also make it easier to challenge just one piece instead of having to filter out a whole of other edits. PaleAqua (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

    Back to support after reading the closes in question. I do agree with the concerns and hope that future closes made by NA1000, especially no consensus ones and ones that could be seen as controversial, include a rational. PaleAqua (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

60. Support My respect for opposers, nominators and supporters alike kept me in the neutral camp for a while but after doing a few spot checks I just don't see NA1000 being anything but a good admin. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
61. Support, should make a fine addition to the administrative team. The edit count is a non-issue for me. Yamaguchi先生 00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
62. Support I've been on the fence about this one for a few days, especially since I really respect some of the people in the oppose section who brought up some good points. Yes there are issues that have come up in the past, but I am willing to assume good faith in that they have learned from the situation and are willing to improve further. Besides, I trust that you won't delete the main page or do anything else to that degree, so I am willing to overlook some of your imperfections, as no one is perfect, and claiming to be is incredibly dishonest. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
63. Support. Why not? James500 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
64. Support AFD stats look OK to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
65. Support. I was going to give a no-big-deal support, since I saw no significant problems; I disagree with the opposers, since (as far as I can see) nobody's raised any examples of why he would misuse the tools, and anyone who won't misuse them should have them. However, I was convinced to do more than that because of his response to Wifione's AFD question — if you've got a significant opinion on the discussion, vote instead of closing it. Admins should do just two things when closing discussions: assessing local consensus, and quickly thinking to see whether there are any wider standards that would apply and overrule the discussion, per WP:CONLIMITED. NA1K responded properly even when it's suggested that he's responding improperly. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
66. Support. I think the opposers make some good points, but we've promoted less than one admin per month over the past six months, and only one of those was really into deletion work ... if we don't either promote candidates like this one or make deletion a separate user right, then I don't know how long we'll be able to keep up with deletion work. - Dank (push to talk) 04:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    Ooo, that's actually a really good reason. For me, personally, if the tools could be unbundled, you'd have convinced me right there. My concerns aren't that he'd abuse the tools, my concern is more that if he made a mistake that he'd complicate the effort to resolve it. I'm fairly certain he has a good grasp of deletion policy and I could take a chance that he'd have less conflicts there and that might be enough to ease my concerns.--v/r - TP 05:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    Becoming an admin in Wikipedia is analogous to getting a CCIE Certification. Maybe we should create a new user role to handle deletions only? A "del-handler" perhaps. ("Deletionst" and "terminator" are semantically good but the first a slur and the second is trademarked.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

67. Weak Support The editor's experience in AfD is a strong point in an area where closers are badly needed. I don't agree with all of their closures, but on balance most of Northamerica 1000's judgments seem reasonable, though I hope they will be more careful when closing the most controversial discussions. Altamel (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
68. I've serious worries about the editor when it comes to dispute resolution. I hope NA1000 stays away from that for a while. I think the editor will do just fine at AfD and related venues. So weak support and a serious hope that NA1000 stays away from other parts of the admin job which I think they are at least somewhat unsuited for. If we didn't have a need for admins, I'd probably be neutral. I like the editor and trust them with respect to XfD, but serious problems have been raised indicating they aren't great at more person-oriented tasks. Hobit (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    I think the WMF quite reasonable regards access to deleted content as a particularly sensitive matter. There might be reason for unbundling some other functions, but I don't think it would work for this one. DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    I'm not one of those "The WMF is evil" guys, but if we keep making critical, top-level decisions based on what we imagine will keep someone at the WMF happy and not based on what resources we as a community need to function and how we're going to get them, then one of these days, we'll find that we've blown it and there's no way to recover. (No offense to the highly clueful DGG intended.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

69. Support. I've seen the editor's contributions in AfD over the past 6 months or year or so as solid and helpful, doing necessary work. --doncram 12:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
70. Support - Mushroom Ketchup is the best Ketchup. Good AfD record, my interactions have all been positive or neutral. WilyD 14:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
71. Support I'm unconcerned with how the work gets done, or the number of iterations, so long as it gets done correctly. I trust the candidate has the projects best interests at heart, and will seriously contemplate the good faith, well-explained opposes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
72. Support. Over-inflation of edit count is entirely irrelevant, users have been given the mop in the past after a mere 3000 edits. Edit count shouldn't play a part as long as the user can do a good job, which I believe they can. FF2010 15:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
73. Support NBD. Quite surprised to see that this is so contentious. HiDrNick! 16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
74. Support: I hung out with the neutrals for a bit on this one, to see what would come up, but I find the arguments against unconvincing. People make mistakes, and NA1K has shown willingness to acknowledge and learn from theirs, which to me is a good sign for an admin candidate. Perhaps this nomination is a good case argument for unbundling the tools, but that's not something we get to decide here, and I have no doubt whatsoever that granting NA1K access to these tools will be a large net benefit for the project. Ivanvector (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
75. Support No major hiccups and I have no interest in what this user hasn't done for Wikipedia, only what they have done. —Frosty ☃ 23:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
76. Weak Support Would be an asset to the project, but "weak" due to TParis' point. Spencer^T♦C 03:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
77. Support. Per Dennis Brown, DocTree, DGG and Anna Frodesiak, in particular. I have also looked at a few random edits and talk pages. Many editors whose opinions I respect are in the oppose and neutral sections. They express a few concerns that might bother me if they were recent but my conclusion is that they are too old to have much weight against NA1K's more recent contributions and discussions. Donner60 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
78. Support - A well-established Wikipedian definitely here to build an encyclopedia. I've seen him around AfD for a long time as an ultra-inclusionist voice there — but definitely rational, even-tempered, and rules conscious. I have no concerns. Carrite (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
79. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 04:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
80. Support - Trusted user. Has the experience, intelligence and calm to do the job. - Taketa (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
81. Support - While the opposition makes some reasonable points I believe this candidate will respect the will of the community as an admin. Chillum 05:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
82. Support - A hard-working Wikipedian with a clean block log, a knowledge of policy, and a polite demeanor. I am particularly impressed with how you have conducted yourself in this Rfa. The final nominator statement is also reassuring. Given that your support percentage is in the high 70's as I post, allow me to conditionally congratulate you on running the gauntlet. Best wishes to you and your adminship! Jusdafax 05:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
83. Support I've reviewed his edits significantly. A combination of that and his general conduct around our project gives me enough confidence about NorthAmerica. Without doubt, NorthAmerica should give heed to comments in the oppose section, which, in my view, can be corrected quite easily. Evidence of North's efforts to address those issues are also evident in recent edits. Reinforcing the point mentioned by some editors above, NorthAmerica's conduct in this RfA is also quite commendable. I hope North continues his productive edits as an administrator too. All the best. Wifione ^Message 05:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
84. Support I think he can be trusted with the mop Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
85. Support --Sorry for voting late..--The Herald 13:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
86. Support -- NA is hard working and I believe he is well-able to do administrative tasks and make administrative decisions appropriately and without drama regardless of any personal views, which is exactly what we want in an admin. I've seen him do many NAC closes without objection, and other administrative-like tasks which I have little interest in as a content editor. His experience is more than sufficient. --Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
87. Support Having read the nominations and responses, as well as the opposes, and having seen the user around, yes the user should be handed the mop. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
88. Support. Per Anna Frodesiak. Thoughtful, positive editor. Have always found it worthwhile reading his posts. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
89. I've thought long and hard about this one. Ultimately, I feel there is no strong indication that Northamerica1000 is poorly suited for adminship.

    Even though I always find his opinions valuable, I can't say that I agree with TParis's opposing argument here at all. Edit count is an incredibly superficial measure of an editor's value. I have almost 8,000 edits to my name, but this does not fully reflect a number of editing habits that I've been known to exhibit, including a tendency to make large-scale edits in a single revision, or to make subsequent changes to my own comments after posting them. Some would advise me to use preview more often; the thing is, both my computer and my browser (Google Chrome) have been known to crash on occasion. I have a slight paranoia that spending too much time in the editing screen will increase the likelihood of my edit being lost due to a BSOD, and using the preview button tends to trigger this irrational fear. I also sometimes realize an alternate way of wording something only after making the initial revision, and so I change it. This shouldn't necessarily suggest that Northamerica1000 possesses the same idiosyncracies as me, just that there are plenty of reasons why someone might revise their edits after saving them, rather than using preview. As for the article edits, I'm not sure if having a poor history with somebody else should preclude participation on the same page, provided interaction is kept to a minimum. Drmies also brings up interesting points about Northamerica1000's editing patterns, and I don't find any of it to be of real concern (although, the mere thought of mushroom ketchup is almost enough to induce my gag reflex). The only thing that would have given me pause was the lack of acknowledgement given to his last RfA, but this isn't a self-nom, it's a joint nomination created by three highly tenured editors — two of whom referenced his prior RfA in their endorsement of the candidate. I wish there were more links to verify the need for him to disengage from arguments and the like; as it stands, he doesn't seem to have any axes to grind, so I'm left unconvinced. If it's a shortcoming of his, then it's a pretty minor one.

    I strongly supported his ill-fated first RfA, and nothing has swayed me into thinking otherwise. If anything, he's only demonstrated exponential improvement over the past two years. I trust this user to use the tools responsibly. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

90. Support - I thought for a while on this one. I am impressed by NA1's thoughtful answers above, along with their overall work (particularly in performing non-admin closures at AfD, which can always be helpful when done correctly and carefully). I also took into account the points brought up by TParis, Drmies, and Ritchie333. I think the points are all valid concerns, but not enough for me to worry. I don't have particular concern over the nature of the articles created, and while the machine gun editing may not be preferred, I'm not going to oppose because of that preferred editing style. That leaves the issue of conduct with other editors, and while there may be speed bumps, nothing I've seen has caused me to doubt NA1's ability to put both the tools and their judgement to good use. I'm confident in NA1's judgement and I'm happy to support. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
91. Support (I have been very inactive editing with my account lately, but I have been following this). Net Positive. Some valid points in oppose but nothing I can't overlook. Mildly annoyed with the TP maths project that says "7,000 edits is too few". Sheesh. Pedro :  Chat  17:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    If that's what you took from my comment, then you skipped a lot of words and focused on the numbers. My comment was that he shouldn't be judged as an editor with 250k edits worth of experience when that is not the case at all. While editors with 7,000 edits do succeed at RfA (I was one of them), they are given a bit more scruitiny than an editor with 25k or 250k edits. When this editor's edit count is so padding, I want to make clear that the way they edit is misleading and assumptions should not be based on their 250k edit count.--v/r - TP 17:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    The way NA1K edits is not "misleading", it just requires explanation if people are assuming he creates a whole article with every edit. I haven't seen any youtube commercials saying "VOTE FOR NA1K - 250,000 EDITS CAN'T BE WRONG", so I also discounted the editing style point when considering this RFA.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

92. Support No reason to think he'd misuse the tools, and AfD closings seem reasonably clueful. Not seeing enough to the oppose section to concern me - whimsical articles and lack of preview don't disqualify you from admining. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    Additional support based on Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 110#Worst hook in the history of DYK, which shows him listening to concerns raised and adapting his opinion based on them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

93. Support - With added strong moral support for the way the candidate has handled himself during this RfA in the face of some of the criticism found among the "oppose" rationales. I know NA1000 from his work at AfD over the past couple years, which I find to be both dedicated and thorough. I have reviewed the criticisms of his AfD non-administrator closes, and I find nothing inappropriate among the linked examples. I cannot speak to NA1000's editing and interaction before his previous RfA two years ago, but I personally find very little evidence of the previously cited issues among his recent work. I was initially inclined to support the candidate, but I was discouraged by the comments of TParis and Drmies, in whose judgment I normally place great faith and to whom I would normally be inclined to give significant deference. I have, however, come to a contrary conclusion on my own, admittedly with the insights of Spartaz's nomination statement and the well-thought-out comments of Dennis Brown, DGG and Anna Frodesiak above. I must also say that I have been put off by what seems to be the active campaigning against the candidate by several of the "oppose" !voters . . . . I trust that NA1000 will take on board the criticism and advice rendered during this RfA, and will become the administrator his supporters believe he can be. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
94. Go on, then. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 23:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
95. Support Reflected on my rationale for being neutral, and decided that NA1000 is above all a net positive. The issues I raised with regard to specific deletion closures do push the envelope of WP:NACD, but that concern is ultimately outweighed by the vast majority of good closes, thoughtful rationales, and constructive work that NA1000 has done in AfD. Also, I could care less about concerns inre: edit counts. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
96. Support - Northamerica1000 is clearly here to help build Wikipedia, and his contributions are a clear "net-positive" to that end. The comments by users who oppose this nomination have shown there are areas where NA can improve, they have not shown NA incapable of betterment, nor have they shown him unwilling to listen or try. I am confident that NA will not abuse the admin flag or bring discredit upon the corp by misusing the tools.—John Cline (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
97. Support Though I would have liked to see a great deal more of his position on AfDs, I find a few of the "oppose !votes" unconvincing - NA1000 does not appear to be a regular denizen of the "dramah boards" and the "divide by 30" formula for counting edits fails when I look at any articles, discussions or boards at which we have overlapped. Collect (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
98. Support - The candidate has extensive experience in a number of areas that can benefit from help from more admins, especially AfD, PROD and CSD. Northamerica1000's content creating is admirable. After sampling some of their talk page comments and the responses on this page, I find their interactions with other editors to be engaging, light-hearted and and exceptionally helpful. As far as I can tell, most of the opposes (and the me2s) are based on style over substance. I think it's fairly embarrasing to oppose a candidate for adminship based how many edits they make when building content, or based on the subjects of the articles that they create. These are not aspects of adminship, and should be given very little weight when determining if someone is fit for the bit. I encourage editors sitting on the fence to consider supporting Northamerica1000 for adminship, as I believe they will be a substantial net positive for the project in that role.- MrX 13:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

    Making 10-20 edits where 1 would do makes it, over the course of time, incredibly difficult to scrutinize potential problem areas. For example, the largest subset one can create of user contribs is 5,000 per page. Even doing that, one has to scroll through 50 pages just to get from beginning to end of NA1000's contribs. If the 250K were a legitimate edit count, that would be different. But it's not. It's artificially inflated by his tendency to make far more edits than are necessary to a task. In addition to this, he's basically made almost no changes since his first RFA, other than making a bunch more edits. Yet supporters are acting like he's a completely different editor now than he was then. He's not. He's the exact same editor whose RFA (justifiably) went down in flames back then. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

    Scrutinizing an editor's contributions is not really a daily necessity. I still don't see any convincing argument as to why making too many edits when fewer would do disqualifies someone from being an admin. At worst, it's quarky and may occasionally be somewhat inconvenient for a few users.- MrX 16:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

99. Support Good answers to some solid questioning. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
100. Support I had some doubts but seeing an alternative has put these in proportion. The candidate is experienced, energetic, courteous and constructive. It's being so busy that seems to upset others and we see this a lot with editors that have high edit counts. It should not be a bar to adminship. Andrew D. (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
101. Support the high edit count and the articles about 'trivial' subjects don't really bother me. The other concerns aren't enough to preclude me from supporting. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
102. Support. After so many years and so many edits they still manage to be polite – and while working so much at AFD. It takes a lot of self-control to do that. Those discussions are often full of strong feelings that include personal attacks and general rudeness. That gives me confidence that NA would be a responsive admin, not a police-style admin. (I’ve been really happy at several points in my life to see the police show up, but it’s rarely necessary on WP, and I don’t see NA as ever doing the “Move Along Now, Nothing to See Here” thing. See [8]) And they clearly care about expanding WP, using references. I'm confident that NA will consult other editors and admins when their decisions are questioned. Novickas (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
103. Support. As you're riding the bubble, I put a bit more time into this evaluation. My mind went a little numb reading all of the "per T and D"s in the oppose section—I would have liked to have seen some more original thought there. My impression coming away is one of some distaste for largely unsubstantiated charges. So your talk page style may rub some the wrong way, but I've seen no diffs showing over-the-top-poor talk page conduct. Maybe you can work on listening to feedback and adjusting your discussion style accordingly. I trust your high minor-edit volumes, which put you at #43 overall, are just a matter of the editing mode in which you feel most comfortable, and that you are not intentionally editing that way to catch Koavf. Play fair now;) But really, if you made 50 consecutive edits to an article, it's not that hard to do a multi-edit diff that examines your changes as if they were just a single edit. The main thing is to make improvements for the readers, who may never look at the history. Hope you make it over the top, if adminship is truly "no big deal", you should make it this time. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
104. Support because I don't want negative comments like those here to lead to something like this again. Opposers at RfA must think about the conseqences of their actions. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

     That was a wholly different scenario, in which a good admin candidate was derailed by frivolous opposes basically only citing how "mean" he was to vandals and trolls. NA1000 has some serious issues that have not changed since his last RFA. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

     Just for the record, I have apologised at NA1K's talk for the "oppose" vote along with some other suggestions, and have also said elsewhere that people should not "follow the herd" and if they want to vote "support", they have every right to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

105. Support Net +. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 00:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
106. Support I meant to get here earlier, but I think I'm just in the nick of time. I've read the oppose votes and I think while they have good points, they are basically just about opinions and not for the most things that will affect your ability to work with administrator tools. And of course your good work in AFD would be much strengthened by having admin access to round it out. I definitely believe you'll make a great administrator. —Soap— 02:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
107. Support I have been observing this for a long time. Well, the concerns mentioned by the opposers are still valid. He has good work at AFD and CSD, and this is a net plus for adminship. After all, adminship is no big deal. Jianhui67 ^T★C 04:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
108. Support. I could say a lot here, and I admit that there are valid concerns in the oppose section. But overall, I think giving the candidate the tools would be a net positive. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I had written a lengthy and harsh oppose here but instead I've decided to simply state two perspectives of mine: #1) NA1K's edit count is deceiving. It takes NA1K 30x the number of edits that most editors require to perform the same task. For example, this RfA required 110 edits where most folks only require 3. Simple division would show that NA1K really has the experience of an editor with ~7,000 edits. Furthermore, I believe that the number of edits on this RFA is reflective of NA1K's habits during disputes. I believe that NA1K complicates disputes they are involved in because they are unable to accept it when they are wrong. They write walls of text and cause endless edit conflicts with their over analyzing causing disputes to become long, agonizing, and painful. #2) NA1K lacks good judgement. Despite being well aware that I did not want to interact with him anymore, he felt the need to twice make a bunch of edits to an article I was working on getting to FA status. Now, while I won't go and say his edits were unhelpful, and I don't want to claim ownership, but the edits do demonstrate a lack of good judgement in staying away from each other.--v/r - TP 03:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   I don't know the whole history of your interactions with NA1K but if those edits made the article better then I'm not sure it makes much sense for you to complain as this could just as well be viewed as an attempt to bury the hatchet. Pichpich (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   I honestly don't care. I'm out of here in March 2015 anyway so he'll be your problem. But when you see ANI threads get blown up because of something he did, he will try to Wikilawyer his innocence, and no one can make a comment because he edits 2 bits per edit x 20 edits/minute, - well, send me an email so I can say I told ya so.--v/r - TP 03:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   @TParis: You are of course entitled to your opinion but your 'oppose' and your reply to User:Pichpich show no real evidence of NA's bad editing but rather your personal animosity towards this editor. You do not show any examples where NA "complicates disputes ... because they are unable to accept it when they are wrong" or where NA "writes walls of text and cause endless edit conflicts with their over analyzing causing disputes to become long, agonizing, and painful" ... Instead of it you complain that NA has edited an article you was working on, which to me seems to be a childish matter, not worthy of mentioning, especially when you admit that the edits were constructive. Are you sure that it was a proof of NA's bad judgement and not a good faith helping hand? Furthermore, you call NA's edit count deceiving. Are you sure it is the intention of NA to deceive others? It might be childish editcountitis or just an innocent editing habit, in any case attempting to improve this project in good faith. So why to use strong words such as 'deceiving'?? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   You have your perspective and I have mine. Mine involves interactions with this editor since 2011. There is no perosnal animosity, this editor and I have managed to avoid each other for the most part for years and this editor has never done anything against me, personally. This is a matter of experience cleaning up after this editor, trying to explain processes and policies to this editor only to be Wikilawyered at with essays and cherry picked lines, ect. My oppose has nothing at all to do with me not liking the editor. The candidate seems like a nice enough guy. But the candidate lacks good judgement and they complicate issues that should be small enough to fix with a small trout. The judgement issue has come up since I met this guy. Between now and the last RfA, it was an issue of sending out 3 mass messages because the first two contained errors. Before that, it was tagging every AfD with an article rescue squadron tag which caused canvassing on some AfDs and actually harmed the ARS by diluting their resources. He also has a habit of opening up huge and pointed RFCs for issues that already have consensus just because he personally doesn't understand. Support his candidacy all you want or disagree with me all you want. There are only two users I've ever held a grudge with on Wikipedia. One I spoke to a few weeks ago and we're going to try to bury the hatchet and the other is indef blocked. So - no animosity here.--v/r - TP 18:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   @TParis: Would you mind giving one or two examples illustrating NA1K's tendency to "write walls of text and cause endless edit conflicts with their over analyzing causing disputes to become long, agonizing, and painful"? --Biblioworm 20:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   Feel free to read the rant he posted on my talk page last time I opposed. Or the over analysis he posted on his own talk, FeydHuxtable's talk page, and Spaatz talk page preparing for this RfA. That's how NA1K acts when he is outside of his comfort zone. That's what ANI cases are going to look like.--v/r - TP 23:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   I haven't found "the rant" he posted on your talk page after your first 'oppose', but I found this conversation on NA's talk page. What I can see in the discussion is stubborness and unwillingness to retreat on your part as well as on NA's. You've mixed some positive claims (words about respect) in the discussion with statements such as "I don't like you, at all" or "...as someone who generally can't stand you..." which shows unnecessary disrespect and belittling of another person attempting to have a civil conversation. I can't support this application because I don't support promoting anonyms to Wikipedia's administration, but I have to defend the candidate against opposes such as this one. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   @TParis:, there's something deeply flawed about the evidence you've presented. You say he twice followed you to a page after knowing you expressed a desire to have less contact with him. But your evidence of asking for less contact is from late-July 2014 and one of the edits is from May 2014. Did this editor use a time machine just to cause you grief? How is this evidence of "twice"? You provide a diff showing you asked for less contact in July, and provide a diff of an edit in May to prove he ignored your request? __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   You'd know if you read the diffs. The July 2014 proves he has been fully aware of the earlier diff as he was able to dig it up and find it himself. I'd expect that to be plainly obvious to anyone reading the diffs. Also, you need to take a second look at those dates - you're about a year off on one of them.--v/r - TP 18:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Honest mistake. Sorry about that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   No problemo, no hard feelings.--v/r - TP 21:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose, per TParis, as well as some of my own interactions with this editor. I watchlisted this page when it was a redlink, quite a while back. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose I was originally neutral, but TParis's comments changed my mind. I'm sure Northamerica means well with the tools, but it's simply too soon for adminship. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I also do not wish to be harsh. At least NA has a talk page now. But the edit count issue hasn't changed, and I agree with TParis on that one. Other issues that continue to bother me are article content and creation. Let me say first that I have worked with them, on Chicken harvester for instance. But articles like Dog surfing and Barbecue sandwich and Mushroom ketchup--I suppose the guidelines allow them, I suppose we accept those sources (at least John can't complain that the Daily Mail is used in a BLP, in the case of Mushroom ketchup), I suppose such articles survive deletion--but man it's all so trivial, and while I've written up plenty of trivia myself, I wouldn't seriously be seriously proud of Chicken-fried bacon or something like that, not if I was running for admin. The problem here is that I do not see where Northamerica has dealt with the more difficult aspects of editing here, the kinds of things that admins have to deal with and decide on. I'm sure they know all the shortcuts for all the notability guidelines, and I'll assume--for now--that their former inclusionist tendencies either reflect current consensus or have been lessened, but there is so much more to adminning than closing AfDs.

   The other thing that I'm missing, and how they formerly used their own talk page confirms this for me, is any kind of acknowledgment of the past. Not a word about what happened with the last RfA, for instance; it's as if the present is gone the moment it's a minute old. It's like I've never been able to debate something with them--in the exchanges that we've had where I had consensus (or God maybe, whatever) on my side, Northamerica just seems to sort of shrug their shoulders and walk off, to go and do the same thing in the next article. And what that makes me do is question whether they have judgment, which after all should take a more comprehensive view, incorporating more than the here and now. Now that I think about it, I suppose I see that as something of a pattern here, since a certain type of recentism characterizes their article (and referencing) work as well--I doubt that they invoke NOTNEWS regularly, and it seems to me that for Northamerica just about every fact is as important as every other fact. I see no judgment.

   I'm going to have a look at some of their recent AfD contributions, which is after all their main area of interest, in hopes of being proven wrong. But for now, I have seen nothing that makes me think that they are good admin material. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   Your argument seems to be that NA1K has contributed to this project too many articles about everyday things that readers might actually be interested in looking at. In the real world, whole television programs are dedicated to Chicken-fried bacon. And when presented with a choice between arguing with another editor and editing an article, NA1K chooses to edit an article. And that's now a bad thing? I can't keep up. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks for making us hungry! Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   Stalwart111, I know Chicken fried bacon has TV shows and whatnot dedicated to it--I wrote it, with a few of my socks, and apparently we got 30,000 page views when it was up at DYK. At the same time I am well aware of its utter triviality in the grand scheme of things. I am not saying NA1000 doesn't argue with other editors--at best I'm saying I would have liked to have seen more engagement with other editors, in order for me to judge whether they have judgment. What I've seen from them in article space is impressive in terms of zeal and sheer number of edits, but I am less than impressed with their judgment in the matter of evaluating sources--for instance. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   My good Dr, what you see as a weakness in North's preferred topic area could also be seen as a great strength. One of the most noticeable ways editor preferences differ from average reader tastes seems to be on interest in cookery. About 80% of Americans watch cookery shows at least occasionally, about 80% of American women buy cookery books, and here in UK cookbooks account for about 10% of all book sales. For me it's hard to overstate how much we owe North and Anna for helping to close the gap in our coverage of this topic. Also, North isn't just about improving this sort of arguably trivial content, he's also played a leading role in expanding undeniably significant content like the Hunger relief and Ecology portals. Lastly, WormThatTurned was also accused of liking to produce trivial content at his RfA, and no remotely perceptive person could say WTT's contributions as an admin have not been of great value. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Feyd, my old friend, I am not disputing any of your facts, but please note I'm not opposing this RfA because NA1000 works on those kinds of articles, which also need to be written of course. (Andrew D., if I had anything to do with Sex dice I hereby renounce that part of myself, and Girl Slaves of Morgana Le Fay is an essential part of Arthuriana, with a lot less pubic hair than one might expect for a movie like that.) It's just that I don't see them in other places outside of such articles and AfDs. Please don't take just one part of my oppose and pin me down on that--if that's all it was I would not oppose NA1000, whose article contributions by themselves are fine. But I would be better able to judge their temperament, their judgment, their diplomatic skills in more controversial matters than the Cinnamon challenge, and I can't help but think that their sometime zeal in rescuing such articles is better spent in real problem areas where judgment comes into play. And Andrew, now that I'm looking at your list again, I must object to the inclusion of Cloverleaf roll: America would not be what it is without the cloverleaf roll. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Apart from Drmies' extensive work for the Bacon Cabal, he has contributed numerous lowbrow, peculiar and whimsical topics including Bambi effect, cloverleaf roll, coin-operated-locker babies, Donald Duck (comic book), Girl Slaves of Morgana Le Fay, PieLab, plate lifter, sex dice, zombie shark and 5751. I think such dedicated whimsy merits a barnstar but it seems at odds with the oppose. Don't you find that people can get just as worked up about such topics as the more vital ones? Anyway, to bring us together, I notice that one of Drmies' specialities seems to be electric guitar trivia, such as that valve. Myself, I've been working on forgotten guitarists like Vahdah Olcott-Bickford. I started a list of guitars on a whim and Northamerica1000 did quite a lot of work to expand it, displaying a commendable spirit of willing collaboration. Aren't we really all on the same side here? Andrew D. (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Being a Dutch person who was raised with Donald Duck (comic book), whos father was raised with it, and who grandmother has read it, I would like to bring in, that it has nearly 250.000 subscriptions (1970: 350k, 1980: 450k) and as a childers comic book, it reaches 1.6 million Dutch citizens above 13 years of age, which is more then 10% of the entire population, not even counting children, every single week, for the past 60 years [9]. It is the most read magazine among Dutch students [10]. Whimsical topic for some, yet part of the culture. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

   Sadly our current article doesn't explain the importance of this topic so you have your work cut out for you. I'd do it myself but my Dutch is weak and I'm wary of Google's translation, "The first edition of the 'gay magazine' Donald Duck appeared on 25 October 1952. ... To be sure that the blade would fall well appreciated by the mothers was even a page removed from the original story Donald Duck because it runs on the street naked." :) Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

   I promise this will be my last comment here. I perused some fifty of NA1000's recent AfD closures, hoping to get a glimpse of his judgment. Of course they're all uncontroversial, since they're non-administrative, and so one has to look hard for an opportunity for him to exercise judgment; most of them are procedural because of speedy deletion reasons or because there was not enough participation (yes, we suffer from lack of participation at AfD...). I saw a few where NA1000 said a bit more than a word or two, but I appreciate the commentary in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toccio the Angel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Picnic (Wander Over Yonder), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idris Ackamoor. I also appreciate the relisting that led to, and the brief remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arina Avram (2nd nomination), where they were terribly harassed. What I did not see was explicit, specific commentary on any of the individual sources brought up, and I was hoping for that since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza cheese raised the question of whether NA1000 was too dependent on simple word strings via Google, a question that continues to nag me in the AfDs in which they participated. But I think that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist stripper should have been relisted. In all, I am now more convinced than ever that we should all be grateful for NA1000's NAC work--but I have seen no reason to change my mind. And before you say, "well, they're NAC so of course they're not controversial", sure, but that doesn't mean they don't have to exhibit judgment, beside zeal. Thank you, and NA1000, if this passes, all the best. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

5. Oppose per TParis, and not at all sure this user is a good fit for deletion-related tools & responsibilities. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose per TParis and Drmies. --John (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose Asks for permissions he doesn't use. Also thinks it's constructive to blank sections instead of fixing the small problems with the sections. You don't have to burn the village to save the village.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   The entire admin tool-set includes permissions many admins will never use. Your argument could apply equally to any (if not all) RFAs. Permissions are exactly that - approval-in-advance - so asking for them before you have extensive reason to use them is kind of the point. Excising a blighted section for the sake of the whole is common practice. Nothing wrong with that strategy at all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   He will obviously be using the tools mainly for deletion and related work, and there is no way of doing that without being an admin. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   He's not talking about the delete tool. He's talking about templateeditor, massmessage, and filemover which NA1K only ever used shortly after receiving the permission and never again.--v/r - TP 02:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Who cares if he used tools at his disposal or not, so long as they did not abuse them?—Gaff ^ταλκ 06:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Hat_collecting.--v/r - TP 07:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Which metaphorical hat are you talking about? That the would-be admin is no longer finding either the need or desire to edit high risk (though obscure) templates? Is there a large backlog of such templates in need of fixing that NA1K is neglecting? As a good faith act, NA1K could relinquish these rights, if no longer needed. Alternatively, are you suggesting that NA1K is not going to put to use the tools of adminship (e.g. deleting articles at AfD)? The dedication shown by NA1K at AfD does not support this argument. I have several concerns with NA1Ks style (in particular: overly inclusionist, non-admin closure contentious AfDs, closing too often as "no consensus" rather than exercising the shred of labor involved in simply placing a vote). However, I am not accepting that fear that they will not use the tools of adminship to be of concern. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Why don't you read the essay instead of badgering asking me. The essay explains broad community feelings concerning hat collecting, and I've never touched the essay myself. If you disagree with the essay, fair enough, but I'm quoting an essay that explains my position so asking me to explain my position is redundant when you could simply read the thing. Essays, while not policy, do explain how large portions of the community feel. The community has an issue with gaining permissions just to pad a resume when they are never used. That's in the essay. It has nothing to do with the physical tools (or virtual to be precise) but with the attitude behind it. The point is, the tools were never needed in the first place - not that they are no longer needed. This was part of the "harsh" oppose I originally wrote but I decided not to come down so hard on NA1K. But when I looked it up, he's only used templateeditor two or three times and it was immediately after gaining the right. I'm sorry that you don't like TeeTylerToe's oppose, but it is supported by an essay that has broad community support.--v/r - TP 21:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   In good faith, I was not trying to badger you & have a lot of respect for your judgement and contributions. I'm a relative newbie, so trying to better understand dynamics and etiquette. Yes, I had read the essay. The second sentence reads: "Voters in the request for adminship process need to decide whether or not the user requesting adminship actually has a use for those powers or is simply "hat collecting." That is why I requested the clarification (there is burgeoning support for the notion that opposes at RfA be valid). The explanation that you have given is very reasonable. Thank you. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

   @Gaff: Badgering was way too strong of a word which is why I struck it out immediately in the next edit. I didn't meant to accuse you of badgering, I'm sorry.--v/r - TP 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

   All good.—Gaff ^ταλκ 18:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

8. Oppose The number 1 thing an admin needs is good judgment, and the inability to disengage is a demonstration of the lack of that on the part of this candidate. This candidate appears to not have the requisite ability. Further, I don't care about his edit count being artificially inflated. That would be a reverse editcountitis. I am quite concerned that the incredible overuse of edits to get from point A to point B shows a strong lack of understanding of our editing here. Everyone makes mistakes, so to have the occasional edit after another one is all perfectly well. But to have it routine, and to keep on spreading out updates to articles across a whole host of edits? That's disruptive. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   [Placeholder for Rotten regard--see talk page]

9. Oppose, per TParis and others. I don't feel comfortable with this nomination, nor the last one. I don't often !vote in RfAs, but feel I must here. Dave Dial (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose, per TParis and Drmies. North America is a really great editor though =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    Oppose. TParis's second point (power of judgment) is a genuine concern. I myself experience it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn, pending further investigation suggested by an email I just received. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    If I haven't missed anything, your interaction with NA1K on AfDs is limited to three discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inori Aizawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Windows and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SUBST. Frankly I see nothing wrong with his closures, and I doubt any other admin would had closed these discussions with different outcomes. Cavarrone 14:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    I just took a look at those three. I don't see any issues at all with how they were closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    I concur, those were textbook closes not any different than what I might have done. Dennis - 2¢ 19:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    I see all 3 were articles you nominated for deletion. The first was closed as a keep (and what else could it have been closed as, since you said you would have liked to withdraw your nomination had it been technically possible?); the 2nd was closed as merge, which everyone but you supported, the third was closed as non-consensus, after a sharp difference in how to interpret NOT MANUAL. I can see possibly closing that one as keep, on the grounds that our uniform interpretation of that clause had been that such articles do not violate it, but that might have been overly bold for a non-admin close. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    @Cavarrone: Hi. You appear to believe my experience must be strictly restricted to those discussions in which I actively participated and made a scene. I cannot emphasize how incorrect this belief is. I avoid unpleasant encounters if I can help it; it does not means I am blind and deaf. Your comment however, might have been stemmed from the fact you yourself had a nasty encounter with User:FleetCommand in Inori Aizawa AfD and unnecessarily accused me of lying there. But I am afraid I don't share your feeling of bitterness. My philosophy of life is: See no evil, hear no evil. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    @Codename Lisa:, I didn't remember that AfD when I first checked the EIA tool to see which AfDs you were referring in your comment. In that AfD I never said you "lied" and I did not even voted, I just said the supposed rule you mentioned there was obviously wrong (as it is, and as I assume you yourself realized later). If you are referring in your "oppose vote" to some other AfD in which you haven't participated, I apologize for my wrong assumption, but it would be precious if you would link such discussions, at least a few of them, as to make me and others aware of the "genuine concern" about NA1000's conduct in AfDs. --Cavarrone 07:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    Yes, I daresay it would certainly be; I'll do so if (and whenever) I reinstated my opposition verdict. Right now, I need to focus. Please see my communication with TParis below. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    @Dennis Brown and DGG: Let me get this straight: Are you contending that I am here seeking revenge for a perceived wrong I've met in AfD? I vehemently deny that. Consider this: I never had an unpleasant encounter with Northamerica1000. Therefore, if I am hating him so much that I waited to prey on his RfA, my degree of perceived hatred for you two must have been so high as to have conducted a murderous act so far. But I believe both of you have evidence at hand that shows otherwise, right? My philosophy is: See no evil, hear no evil. Furthermore, the EIV tool at your disposal (both are still admins?) must show that I had far more experiences with our dear Northamerica1000 than these three. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    I might be confused by the vote, which was short on clarification (which doesn't make it any less valid, btw), but that isn't the same as claiming malice. And every interaction I've ever had with you has been positive, so no, there is no hatred. Confusion, yes, but "malice" is the last thing that comes to mind when I think of you. Dennis - 2¢ 13:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    @Codename Lisa: Can you clarify what this email is that you received? Is somebody trying to canvass support votes and sending out mass and private emails to the opposers? If so, that needs to come to light. Please clarify.--v/r - TP 05:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    Hello, TP. It mainly consists of diffs and its deductive approach is categorically written for me. I can probably posts its contents here; I just don't want to convert from an opposer to sympathizer in an instant in a damn hurry. This thing needs one thing right now: Investigation. See more details in my talk page.

    Best regards,

    Codename Lisa (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    I am very concerned about this as well. Canvassing is canvassing, whether it's done on-wiki or off. Private emails of this sort shouldn't be happening for either side of this discussion, support or oppose. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    You are not in a position to judge the content of an email of which you know nothing. I must warn you that any attempt to intervene on your part might subconsciously sway my opinion towards the sender. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    The problem is simply the existence of said email, not the contents thereof. Neither "side" should be sending such an email, whether in support or opposition to this candidate. Like I said, I'm not judging the contents, just the fact that it was even sent at all. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

    Blind prejudice... Codename Lisa (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    Seriously? Re-read my post. I'm not "prejudiced" against either side here, just against using private emails to try to sway a discussion at ALL, to EITHER side. Accusing me of "blind prejudice" is a personal attack, and I ask you to retract it as such. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    If this was a single e-mail from a single editor, then it is an example of bad judgement and should be investigated and the editor warned. However, presuming that it is not from the candidate, it is to be hoped that the RFA will continue uninfluenced by it. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    Codename Lisa's comments appear to support the idea it was a personal email from someone she frequently speaks to directed at her specifically. So I don't think this is a canvassing concern. That doesn't mean I don't think someone making a private argument that avoids a counter argument is unfair and unhelpful. But it isn't against policy to talk privately with a close acquaintance. It's only against policy to spam it out to everyone and try to change a bunch of opinions without scrutiny. I let this go after Lisa's comments, I suggest everyone else do the same.--v/r - TP 21:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

11. Oppose per TParis and Drmies. Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
12. Disagreements over definition of GNG in 2011 still stand. Cloudchased (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
13. Oppose Absolutly not. And per TParis and Drmies. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose per TParis and Drmies. Issue with judgement are clear here, and I'm also not a fan of the simply insane number of edits in one go that this editor has a tendency to do. Whilst sometimes I make a fair few edits in a row myself, I do not see why NA1000 needs to make 112 edits to this page - or 66% of all of the edits. As such, the contribution count, although genuinely high, is massively overinflated. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
15. Oppose. After carefully considering this, I've unfortunately found that I fall into the oppose camp. Northamerica1000 is a great editor and certainly a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project. I've seen his work at AfD, and I'm impressed by his diligence. However, the concerns raised about his ability to disengage are valid. Although it's not specifically in my criteria, I really don't want admins who are persistent in posting large walls of text and won't drop the stick. I'm also still a little suspicious of his unclear account history (as seen in his previous RfA), although I've found decent explanations for most of the socking concerns. --Biblioworm 02:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose Issues raised above were present in the last RfA. Both the candidate and the nominators should have prepared for this. I do think this candidacy is an argument for unbundling article deletion (the candidate's primary interest) from other admin tools. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
17. Strongly Oppose. Many of the previous statements have clearly laid out my opposition to this candidate's suitability for admin status; despite his obviously sincere efforts to improve Wikipedia, I have a fundamental disagreement with those beliefs. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a policy, and after several interactions with this editor, I do not believe that his edigting philosophy is in compliance with this standard. YMMV, of course; not every editor shares my views, but this is one of the cases in which I felt compelled to make a contribution to the discussion, something which I do not do with numbing regularity. Horologium (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose per TParis and Drmies, and pace Dennis, who is usually right, BMK (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
19. Oppose Does not appear to have addressed criticisms from previous RfA, particularly with respect to editing style and clarity / succinctness of communication. benmoore 08:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
20. Oppose – Like others above me, I found the statements by TParis and Drmies quite compelling. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
21. Oppose per TParis, and per my previous experiences with the editor that have led me to believe that this editor is more of a "hat-collector" than administrative material. I commend the nominee on working to revive defunct WikiProjects (which I have seen in the past), though I haven't seen any changes in the projects after their attempt on reviving them. I recommend that Northamerica1000 seem less eager to get noticed, and more eager to continue improving Wikipedia with their own edits; being a good editor is value in itself. Steel1943 (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
22. Oppose No need for me to repeat Drmies and TParis - been there, done that. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
23. The only interaction I remember having with this editor was an irritating pointless template add by him on my talk page. If I wanted something like that added to my talk, I could have done it. Townlake (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
24. Extremely regretful oppose - I have thought about this long and hard, and read TParis' and Drmies' comments carefully. I don't personally see a problem with the type of articles NA1K creates - "trivia" is so subjective a term and if the article survives our inclusion policies and has an audience, who am I to argue? I banged heads with him on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza cheese, which I still chuckle over the general pointlessness of the debate, but at the end of the day he argued for the article to be kept, supplied the sources, and got the result. However, I read User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 1#Rfa and felt especially the line "I'm not a prude, but please refrain from using swear-words on my talk page, because they tend to simply convey emotion rather than logic" is not what I expect an admin to write - if you're in conflict, generally I feel your only options are to show empathy with your opponent's point of view, or walk away. Don't ever belittle somebody about bad language, it ends in tears - as an admin, you may be required to manage Eric Corbett one day, and if you said that I can predict the result to the letter. Now, I fully and utterly appreciate that was two years ago and it was off the back of the last RfA, so I'm fully prepared to write that off as the past, having a bad day, nothing to see, moving on. However, I looked at User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 22#Feminist stripper close, which as well as being midly patronising to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz missed a basic rule that you should never non-admin close something that is in any way contentious (which Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist stripper was). And even if you did (again, I'm happy to accept we're human and make mistakes) your tone really ought to have been more along the lines of "sorry, I screwed up, mea culpa", not starting an argument about it. So, I'm really sorry to have to oppose this as I'm generally a nice guy (if sometimes blunt), but please, please carry on being a good content creator and writing articles. The project wouldn't survive without them, and that's what we really need. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

    Ritchie333, it's not the triviality of those articles--I wrote plenty of trivial stuff myself. It's just that there seems to be nothing serious about any of this at all. The answer to Q17, your question about the ARS, is a non-answer, when precisely that would have been a good opportunity for NA1000 to explain his philosophy on article retention and on how the ARS used to do that; and let's not forget that he wasn't just any old member. Indeed, how would he handle incivility or complaints of incivility? Well, he seems to want nothing more but the deletion tool, which for an inclusionist is an odd desire, so it has to be about closing AfDs, but there also, that Wifione has to belabor the point to get a clear answer that tells us anything about this editor's temperament and attitude--and I'm still not sure that we did. In other words, an unknown quantity. BTW, I find a lack of a sense of humor also troubling: saying, with a straight face, "Balanced nutrition, exercise and rest helps" if one wishes to edit Wikipedia for six straight hours--no. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    I for one took the "Balanced nutrition, exercise and rest helps" as a fairly dry joke. But I think you know this user better than I and so perhaps it was meant without humor. As far as the swearing thing goes, I just don't see a problem with asking others to not swear on your talk page. Seems like something very reasonable actually. Hobit (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    I don't see a problem with generally asking people to stay away from your talk page, but in this specific case, I felt the way in which it was said and to whom was inappropriate and unlikely to be helpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

    I'm not seeing a request for people to stay away from a talk page. That said, I did (just now) read the entire context and agree the whole thing seemed pretty odd on the part of NA1000. Not interaction skills I'd prefer to see in an admin. oyi. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

25. Oppose moved from Neutral. Further details that have arisen in the course of this RfA coupled with the concerns I expressed previously in the Neutral section mean that I now side with the oppose camp.  Philg88 ^♦talk 18:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
26. Oppese reluctantly. I came expecting to support, but after several days thought and some research i have to fall into the other camp. Judgement is clearly an issue, reflected in the huge number of edits as well as elsewhere, as is the possibility of hat collecting. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
27. Oppose I had been leaning very slightly to the oppose side per TParis's comments; however, the information in the !vote from Ritchie333 solidified my opinion. I believe the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist stripper was a controversial call and should not have been done via Non-admin closure. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • A brief comment on that --- AFDs are hanging more now than ever, NA1K is one of a number of editors who occasionally close discussions NAC because fewer and fewer admins are doing it in a timely fashion, relistings go on and on, things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon (2nd nomination) linger up to a month now, just whistling in the wind. As a de facto matter these NACs have seemed to be tolerated as a necessity; I'm sure NA1K and others would scale back if generally called to do so.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
28. Oppose This is a tough one, but in the end I am going to follow the lead of Drmies, TParis, and others. --Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
29. Oppose As per TParis and Drmies, and I would expect a user to try to address all the issues raised at a previous RfA, before trying again. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    This is what I don't understand about this RFA. Nothing has really changed as far as NA1000 is concerned, other than time has passed. He's the same now as he was then, he's just got a lot higher edit count, inflated by the microediting, which makes it even more difficult to scrutinize his history. Yet this new RFA seems likely to pass. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    Same concerns and the fact that candidate and the nominators are all ignoring the opposers despite being about 76%. That alone has sunk RfAs. I understand the candidate being unwilling to address my concerns, I'd like as little contact with the candidate as possible. But candidate ignoring Drmies despite a lot of opposes specifically referring to Drmies' oppose shows that the candidate is ignoring concerns and if I were supporting this RfA, I'd be seeing that as reflective of their attitude as a sysop.--v/r - TP 21:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    NOTE: with those below 70% support ending as unsuccessful, and those above 80% supporting ending as successful, this could potentially end in "no consensus" if between 70% and 80%. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    It will likely go to a 'crat chat where crats will discuss it. They will look at the strength of the arguments and which arguments have been cited the most and refuted the most and what policies support them. Then they will look at the neutrals and see who has been convinced by what. A few neutrals have gone both directions. So then they'll look at the remaining neutrals to determine what they are saying on the matter to see if it lends weight to either the support or oppose sections.--v/r - TP 22:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

30. Oppose Like other opposes, I am concerned with Northamerica1000's judgment. Perhaps I'm being too firm instead of embracing WP:IAR for non-admin closures. However, WP:NACD advises that "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." NA1000 mentions in response to Q11 that "Only one of my closes has been taken to DRV". But that number should be zero for non-admin closures (this was not a frivolously-opened DRV). While one of the DRV commenters wrote "keep seems to have been within the closer's discretion", I would not expect much "discretion" should be exercised in an NAC. I'm not very active with RfA's these days, and only ran across this via an AfD that I was surprise was relisted by NA1000 when IMO there was a rough consensus to merge, and there were already seven participants. I took my concerns to NA1000's talk page before I saw this RfA. Evidently, I had also participated and opposed their earlier RfA over similar concerns over judgement and participation in another non-straightforward NAC. I see the positives noted by the supporters, but I place my !vote here in the interest of a complete discussion on the candidate.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
31. Oppose: Echoing Drmies and TParis. And the troubling evidential comments brought to bear in this oppose section. As well, the astounding edits to Seafood pizza, as an example of an extravagant edit count. Fylbecatulous talk 05:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
32. Oppose per Drmies and TParis and others above...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
33. Oppose. I'm surprised to find myself on this side of the discussion, but the candidate's approach to AFDs has too many problematic elements to make me comfortable. As several other comments have pointed out, it's easy to find examples of NAC closes of AFDs that should have been treated as controversial. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist stripper close is recent, and, I believe, quite incorrect, giving too little weight to the policy concerns raised by delete !voters, and the response to my comments on their talk page was superficial and inadequate. The idea that copyediting can cure a fundamental SYNTH violation is ungrounded in policy, and no reason was given for cutting off an active discussion after only a single week; the lack of substantive content in their remarks is unfortunate at best. Conversely, the relisting action taken just a few days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Alencar is clearly wrong; the delete !votes are solidly grounded in policy and consensus practice; the keep !votes lack policy grounding and are sometimes counterfactual; and the compelling, unrefuted claim that the article was a BLP without reliable sourcing was apparently dismissed. NA1000, while a very good editor, shows a clear tendency to overweight headcounts and underweight policy concerns in their AFD decisions, a critical flaw. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
34. Oppose mostly per TParis and Drmies. Intothatdarkness 15:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
35. Like many of the other editors who have participated here, on both sides of the RfA, this has been a very difficult decision for me, and my opposition should be understood as borderline. I've certainly seen the candidate around a lot, but the concerns about judgment ring true to me. Like many others here, I have no doubt that the candidate is here to be a positive, but I just don't have the gut feeling that this is someone who can navigate disputes well. I think that once someone takes issue with an administrative action, we will end up having drama. This RfA is an excellent case study for the need for unbundling. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
36. In my RfA question, I asked for specific examples of XfDs closed as "no consensus" that NA1000 would have chosen to delete, had he the tools to do so. I mentioned that he seems to have a reputation as an inclusionist (quite clear in the first neutral comment below, etc.), and tried to offer him the opportunity to give a few counterexamples. Though it might not be an easy question, I didn't think this would be particularly difficult for NA1000 since he spends so much time at AfD. In his answer, NA1000 said that he doesn't consider himself inclusionist and doesn't find such labels productive (I was not trying to label him, anyway), but he did not present any examples of articles that he might have deleted. He went on to defend his own record of non-admin "no consensus" and "keep" closures, but this was explicitly not what I was asking about in my question. I hoped to see some evidence that NA1000 was within the mainstream on deletions, since it's evident that he would intend to spend a lot of time at AfD. As I'm not able to determine that and there seems to be some evidence to the contrary, I oppose the request at this time; this is the closest to being "per Horologium", perhaps. Dekimasuよ! 23:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

    I read that question as you asking for examples of his own no-consensus closes that should have been closed as delete (which of course would mean he shouldn't have closed them in the first place), not any recent no-consensus closes. Not to put words in his mouth, but his answer looks to me like he interpreted it the same way - he specifically says "I looked through many of my closes over the last few months" looking for ones to bring up in response. —Cryptic 01:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

    The question was, "Can you give any examples of recent XfD closed as 'no consensus' that you would have closed as 'delete'?" I still think this seems clear (it doesn't say "recent XfD you closed"), but thanks for the response. Dekimasuよ! 01:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

37. Oppose. I don't give a crap about an inflated edit count or creating articles on trivial subjects as long as they meet the gng, but past behavior has led me to have serious concerns about NA1k's judgment, especially w/r/t deletion related issues. NA1k is a good example of someone whose RFA I might support if we had an effective recall process if problems arose with his adminship. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
38. Oppose. Thank you for your contributions, but this RfA makes me uncomfortable. I was taught to read things for what they say, and then to read them again for what they don't say. I don't think the candidate understands the audience here, and that makes me wonder about perspective. The candidate has been here a long time, so I expect sophistication. I wanted a voluntary statement about the earlier RfA, but there was not one despite the lengthy preparation. I don't want to jab an open wound, but covering that topic would show growth. The omission is a big negative for me. Q1 is OK, but it doesn't tell me why the candidate wants to be an admin or what's important to NA1K: it is a claim about NA1K's participation and skill with an invitation to sift through a lot of detail. Q2, a question about best contribs, lacks a lead and is overloaded with detail; instead of three best articles there are more than 20. How about, "My best contributions are my articles about food" and then pick a few out and explain why they are best. I want the candidate to tell me what's important and significant; give me a clue about perspective and approach to problems. Q3 is a 180 degree turn: Q2 had too many specific examples but Q3 has none (see also Q3 v 1.0). I don't get a good feeling about focus from the first 3 Qs. Making lots of small edits isn't a big concern for me, but I understand how it can get in the way of interactions. Some other Qs also hold subtle surprises. The candidate has done good work, there were positive changes from the first RfA, and there was a more than suitable wait. That's solid and good. I don't expect rash behavior, I'll AGF, I believe net+, but that's not enough. I'm not getting a good read about perspective, and that holds me back. Glrx (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now. moved to support Let me be clear: I really want to support this candidate. Frankly I'm surprised they're not already an admin. I'm sure we've all seen their excellent work keeping AfD on target, categorized, up-to-date, etc. And the three-way co-nomination is very strong. However, there were a number of concerns brought up in this user's previous RfA which it will take some time to review, although it was two years ago. Ivanvector (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral. I'm currently reviewing the candidate, and I'll cast a definite !vote soon. --Biblioworm 03:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Addition: I was beginning to lean towards support, because at first glace, he seemed to mostly meet my criteria. However, I find the sockpuppetry concern to be very disturbing, and it is definitely something that I will investigate. --Biblioworm 00:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Moved to oppose. --Biblioworm 02:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now, but leaning support. There was a point when seeing Northamerica1000's name on my watchlist on an AfD was always troubling, since I knew it meant that there was going to be a !vote that would bundle weak or insignificant sourcing and portray it as definite proof of notability in an excessive and misleading evaluation, often leading to a whole pile on of misled support !votes. Additionally, I remember a stubborn discussion about whether the canvassing rescue tag was appropriate in every single deletion scenario and its use was therefore not debatable. But that was a fair while ago. Now, however, I pretty much associate Northamerica1000 with exclusively productive organizational work, from larger formatting and structure efforts to minor but helpful tasks such as relisting and categorizing. This gives me reason to believe that giving them the administrative tools would be a net positive for the encyclopedia. However, given that the user has indicated a strong interest in closing deletion discussions, I'm going to have to do some more research into whether or not their attitude towards notability and acceptable significant sourcing has evolved.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
2. I'll sit here for the moment. → Call me Hahc21 03:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   I wouldn't have nominated if. I wasn't satisfied that NA1000 had absorbed our cultural norms. Even during their very early days I could see a genuine desire to understand why the arguments they deployed weren't winning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   Spartaz, I greatly respect your work and your nomination; that I disagree with you doesn't change that, nor will I deny that NA has this desire you mention. It's other things that I miss, things that I want in an admin. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   Spartaz: I am grateful for NA1K's work. I consider that he is a great user and a net positive for the project. However, being an admin requires a big deal of judgement, and I don't see NA1K being ready for the job just yet. → Call me Hahc21 03:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Awaiting additional answers and comments. Still neutral concerns brought up by TParis and Drmies are the issue. I believe this candidate is a net positive and would work well if given the mop. ///EuroCarGT 03:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Last updated ///EuroCarGT 01:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. I was going to give a "no reason not to" support, but TParis has given a few reasons, so I'll have to evaluate the candidate in more depth. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Moving to Support.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

   Neutral this is a tough one. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC) moved to support

   Yaksar sums my feelings well. His early history is tough to ignore, and I feel N1000 still have some of those tendencies that got him in trouble his first few years in the project. Although I see a ton of excellent organizational work with AFDs for the past year or so, I just don't feel conformable in N1000 closing borderline debates, especially those regarding notability. I would normally oppose here, but a Spartaz nomination is a major plus in my book (Spartaz in the opposite end of N1000 philosophy views of the project). Secret ^account 03:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

4. Neutral for now, still reviewing logs, contributions, etc; edits such as this request on meta for tasks that enwiki sysops normally perform suggest unfamiliarity with the permissions processes. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Neutral: The opposes by TParis and Drmies have given me pause, regretfully. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   Neutral No problem if they have the experience of a user with 7,000 edits. Drmies has a point there. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

6. Neutral for now due to the comments of other editors about a deceiving edit count. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Neutral as per Ivanvector and StewdioMACK. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
8. Neutral, honestly initially I was entirely supportive of this nomination, as far my dealings with the editor in question, none have been negative, and the editor in question appears to have a great deal of WP:CLUE, but given the issues brought up by TParis, I am hesitant to support the nomination at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

   Neutral moved to Oppose Although NA1K has done sterling work in the AfD arena, I'm swayed from supporting by TP and Drmies' comments.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Neutral I was initially going to support, but after looking at the opposes by TParis and Drmies, I decided to vote neutral. He has done many good work in AFD, but the concerns at the oppose section are valid. Sorry. Jianhui67 ^T★C 13:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Switching to support.

9. Neutral for now, still mulling it over. I'm not such a big friend of piecemeal editing, but I don't think it would absolutely disqualify from adminship. The candidate has always been an extreme ultra-inclusionist: so he certainly won't abuse the deletion button, which is one of the major fears of the RfA voters in general. On the contrary, the candidate has been busy, beside content creation, in throwing real trash in the dustbin (like stale drafts and broken/misspelled redirects, per his CSD log) and in closing AfD discussions as "no consensus" when there was the barest minimum of justification for it. I still miss the candidate telling me a little bit about what happened to the concerns raised at the previous RfA. And, what ever happened to the Article Rescue Squad? Kraxler (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   My big concern on the "over editing" front is that it makes it nigh impossible to thoroughly vet his contribs, because the sheer number of them is so over-inflated by the fact that he consistently makes about 10 edits where 1 would do. As for the work he does in relisting AFDs and that type of thing, he does not need the tools to continue doing such work. I share you concerns regarding the previous RFA as well. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   Quite right, it's difficult to search in all those congested edit histories for a needle in a haystack. So, I'm still waiting for some real indication of bad behavior since the previous RfA, none so far. Almost all the opposers just express gut feelings or bad memories, no diffs. Well, TP was peeved when Northamerica meddled in an article he was editing. One article. Anybody else? Kraxler (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

   The cumulative effect of a series of consecutive edits can easily be seen by clicking on the radio buttons of the first and last edit, and then choosing "Compare selected edits". —Anne Delong (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

   @Anne Delong: That's not at all what the concern is. The concern is that 250,000 edits, many of which are unnecessary, bury problematic diffs and increase the difficulty for reviews. This wouldn't be an issue for a candidate that had 250,000 natural edits. That's not the case, though. NA1K makes many many many small edits and hits save. Often times, he's changing things he wrote on talk pages because he's not satisfied with how he wrote it. Besides burying his actual contributions (taking a needle and haystack and then dumping 100 haystacks on top of that), it also causes edit conflicts over and over when someone is trying to discuss a matter with him.--v/r - TP 23:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

10. Neutral I consider Northamerica1000 a conscientious and hard working Editor. We routinely cross paths "in the trenches" (not in an AfD or something formal like ANI) on a regular basis. But the concerns shared by many in the previous RfA and this one make it difficult for me to give my full support. I would like to see this Editor promoted to Admin at some point because the site needs more stalwart Editors and Admins. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
11. Neutral I was initially supporting, but TP and Drmies comments raise valid concerns. I'm also put off by a non-sdmin making so many AfD closes as no-consensus when there has not been adequate discussion. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

    Neutral (switching to support) I'm happy with NA1000's response to my question, first and foremost. Given that the candidate wishes to primarily work in AfD discussions, I primarily focused on their work there. NA1000 has good judgment with regard to actually participating in AfDs. Many non-admin closures are also appropriate. However, in reviewing their AfD closures from October and September 2014, I came across multiple examples of closures of controversial discussions (see AfDs for Math bass, Feminist stripper, 2014 Jerusalem tractor attack (2nd nomination), and Fan Free Clinic (2nd nomination)), which are discouraged per WP:NACD. These closures also lack a summary of the arguments about why these was were no consensus, and in some of them, if the arguments were weighed with regard to policy, it's plausible they would have resulted in something other than no consensus. These closes feel too recent in the editor's history for me to support, but I am open to revisiting my opinion. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    What's controversial about Math Bass? I see how more summaries would be helpful, but these mostly don't look like heated discussions to me. The Tractor attack looks the most dramatic, but I don't see how it could have been closed any other way with the nominator found to be socking the discussion,__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    Math Bass is the least controversial in the sense of # of participants, but there was still disagreement, and no indication that the "no consensus" decision was made on the basis of evaluating the strength of the arguments. An explanation is not just helpful in these cases, it's important so that participants (and others) understand the nature of conflict and what was so intractable. Earlier AfDs are frequently referred to as well in future nominations, and the absence of a rationale makes such discussion more difficult. Editors should not have to divine a rationale. The same concern applies to the Jerusalem tractor discussion. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

12. Neutral Some users down here have a point, so I'm now here in the Neutral section. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
13. Learn to use the bleedin' preview button, man! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
14. For now. (for the record, I didn't have this watchlisted, in case anyone's wondering why this account suddenly turned up on a drama forum after being semi-active for over a year: I happened to chance upon {{library resources box}} and ended up here via its old TfD.) Disappointed that NA1K's participation in the primary admin area that he wants the bit for is still entirely one-sided, and the nom doesn't really provide any evidence of participation that deserves the bit in other parts of the project. I could tentatively see me supporting if there were evidence to that effect, given that the project always needs more admins. That said, there are plenty of other behaviours that, were they still evident these days, would be grounds for the same opposition as last time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
15. Neutral - I was originally supporting but the concerns expressed by Drmies & TParis have made me think twice, So I'm afraid I'll have to move myself here instead (Good luck for future RFAs tho!). –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
16. Neutral - A strong candidate, but concerns from TParis and others leave me unsure--TMD Talk Page. 05:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
17. Neutral - I kinda feel like opposing here but I'm not fully certain. I remember a discussion about Mushroom Ketchup, being called the worst hook in DYK, which, along with the opposes made on top, made me think about this a bit longer. But ultimately I'll just put my vote here. GamerPro64 04:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

    I just read that discussion for the first time. The subtitle was inflammatory and the whole thing started out rather hostile but not by NA's choice. That kind of hostility is why my last DYK, I forcibly removed my name from it, and deleted all DYK references on my user page. There was some unnecessary behavior there, but not by NA. Dennis - 2¢ 04:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

    Agreed. I don't think that discussion demonstrates any questionable conduct or poor judgment on the part of NA. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

    Both of you are right. I will admit that the discussion was how I first noticed NA on this site. I won't hold it against NA but I still say that I'm still neutral. GamerPro64 04:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

{{subst::rfab}}