View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nightstallion

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

Nightstallion

[edit]

final (55/14/3) ending 12:23 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion (talk · contribs) – Nightstallion has been around Wikipedia since December 2004. He enjoys helping others and has well rounded edits in both the article and Wikipedia namespace. This Wikipedian is active in a number of projects, and knows how to follow through with things - he does great work at requested moves, and I'm sure he would find it rewarding to help out with other tasks, like those at WP:AFD. This user is an asset to the community and I think would make a fine administrator. Let's show our support for this friendly and trustworthy Wikipedian! HappyCamper 03:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly and gladly accept the nomination. Nightstallion ✉ 07:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator, of course --HappyCamper 04:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support During my Wp tenure, I've observed Nightstallion valiantly galloping to any number of topics and articles. It was his stupendous participation, though, in the project to incorporate the HDI in the country infobox/template that truly won me over: in between the time when I issued a call for assistance and when I awoke the next day, Nightstallion had completed almost all of the data entry for 150+ countries! Furthermore, I find Nightstallion to be analytical yet eclectic, amicable, and conciliatory ... traits that will serve him well as an Admin. Thus, I look forward to working with Ns more and offer my unsolicited support for Nightstallion's RfAdmin. Enjoy the ride! E Pluribus Anthony 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support has my full confidence. Izehar 12:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. King of All the Franks 13:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Psychically Beaming Strong Support for this excellent contributor who will use the mop well. BD2412 T 13:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, looks good. Leithp (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Gets involved in discussions, see him around a lot. FireFox 14:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support admin is no big deal (certainly not a big enough deal to vote oppose because of one's signature) and you deserve it.Gator (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I know little about Nightstallion, but I know that Netoholic is wrong and overbearing in just about everything he does. Firebug 17:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Support I would clearly vote oppose in this situation as I clearly agree with Thorpe and Radiant but I just can't as I also agree with E Pluribus Anthony. I don't know if this will pass or not but try to get more involved into article writing and AFD's, and next time you will get clearly get more than 75 support votes. --Jaranda wat's sup 18:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. I have seen a lot of his work and he always makes a good impression on me. - Haukur 19:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I knew Nightstallion from his work in Template:infobox country where he did a great job implementing the HDI information in all countries in a few time. CG 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Hell, yes. Support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support.  Grue  20:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I must however voice displeasure with NS's current signature, which contains a large number of unreadable non-ASCII symbols, which all look like a bunch of question marks on my machine.  Grue  22:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. He does a great job here. Stefán Ingi 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support seems very well researched and trustworthy. Contributes a lot, and is a good Wikipedian - Bourbons3 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Helps out on WP:RM and appears to understand policy to a decent level (yah, the sig though... oh well :)) WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support. Nightstallion is an active, helpful member of WikiProject Numismatics, and I can trust him to use admin tools. I would encourage him to tone down his signature, but I think he would be a good admin. --TantalumTelluride 04:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per everything else...a strong mediator(?), good communications, personable. Joe I 04:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I see this guy all over the place. He is a common face on RFAs and VFDs. His reasons are also not stale or shallow. They are well thought out and specific. I like that. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Funky Signature Appreciation Support. Minor edits help the encyclopedia, too. Matt Yeager 05:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Very Strong Support- Ich hab' gedacht du bist schon Admin! :) Ich wünsche dir viel Erfolg! He will be a good admin and we trust his opinion on various topics concerning Central Europe and so on. Let's vote with him!-- Bonaparte talk 08:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support the reasons for opposing such as not enough edits to project pages and concerns over your signature say little to convince me that you will use your admin tools unwisely.--MONGO 10:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. With his active participation, he will be a good admin. --Terence Ong Talk 15:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Thought he was one --« Wikiacc » 17:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Contributions look good. His signature doesn't cause my guts to tie themselves in knots. --Syrthiss 18:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Ditto on the above. His sig is cool, yet confusing. I feel like I should call him NGTTLINIHSALO with this current sig. karmafist 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Great guy, fine editor. His signature drives me nuts, but that is a tempary situation. (I prefer the one with the question marks.) Banes 19:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. His signature doesn't bother me.--Shanel 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Valuable contributor. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-29 02:29
  32. Support - Guettarda 04:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I have seen him around the wiki and is a helpful and useful person. Ian13ID:540053 12:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. I thought long and hard about this one... then remembered that "adminship is no big deal". There really is no reason that I can see (especially after reviewing the very weak "oppose" reasons below) why Nightstallion should not be an admin. Really needs to change his sig to one that renders though - I just see a bunch of squares. Dan100 (Talk) 17:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Will make a good admin. --Angr (t·c) 22:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support FrancisTyers 00:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Good editor, seems non-crazy. Hamster Sandwich 15:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. User's obsession with signatures aside, giving him the ability to delete pages would allow him to do much more productive work with required page moves and disambigs. Owen× ☎ 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Harrumph! -- MicahMN | μ 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Definite support. Longtime contributor, will make a fine admin; NBD. +sj + 09:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Please change your sig, Netoholic is correct, diffs for any talk page (or anywhere) where your username is signed, becomes very frustrating to read (sideway scrolling, clutter and so on). It simply isn't worth it for the rest of us. El_C 12:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see, it's changed not to include an image, and only contains minor funkyness in the form of small caps. I think that should be fair enough, no? —Nightstallion (?) 12:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. Thanks! El_C 14:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Dlyons493 Talk 14:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Personally, I think the oppose votes have been getting more and more ridiculous lately. A convoluted signature causes you to oppose? Come on, now. I don't like them, sure, but he'd make a fine admin, which is what you should be looking at... —BorgHunter (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support yes. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Ring in 2006 with new tools in your bag o' tricks! Mostly Rainy 03:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support the creative. And Happy New Year. --Ancheta Wis 05:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support pretty signatures. better to clutter talk pages with personal expression than to clutter articles with it... Tomertalk 09:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. - Phaedriel 19:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. I can't see that Nightstallion's interpretation of what constitutes a "minor" edit has any bearing on being a good admin. -- DS1953 talk 20:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Support: Although I am more active in the german wikipedia I did come across some of ns edits and did find them fair and moderate. I think he would make a good admin. As concerning the personal signature it is just that, as is a user page. I think this in no way (dis)qualifies any candidate for admin-work. Much more interesting are strong nerves and levelheaded reactions to sometimes emotional discussions (being objective and understanding while protecting textual and lexical integrity of an article - sounds like a mission for batman hehe) and I think he will do great. I also liked his interwiki work. --Gego 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support (changed from opose post agreement to remove image from sig) Nightstallion has a tendancy for janitorial work (seen a link repair) and admin powers will only fuel this. Also appears to be a friendly communicator, very useful.--Commander Keane 15:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support after changes. See my comments below under neutral. jnothman talk 00:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - First of all, as of this post, this RFA is still not linked from WP:RFA, and so is invalid. Second, Nightstallions signatures are atrocious. I can't support anyone that would knowingly continue to make diffs hard to read and clutter the page source for personal vanity. Worse yet, he's also chosen to use his signature to promote this very adminship vote. -- Netoholic @ 10:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely question whether you propose considering it detrimental to my RfA that the timezone situation prohibits the nominator from putting the RfA up at the listing until he's awake again (or back from work or whatever the issue is); HappyCamper has voted on this early because he is the nominator, and EPA because he saw HC and me discussing it on my talk page.
    I was not aware that it was forbidden to let other people know about RfAs (since opponents and supporters are equally likely to encounter the link), but if it puts your heart at ease, I'll remove the "advert" from my signature. I don't quite understand what the problem with the remainder of my signature is, though – yes, it contains fancy coding, but I've seen far "worse" around, and I personally don't find it too much of a bother to ignore signature code in diffs. Nightstallion ✉ 11:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I preferred Ns's prior signature (with foreign script, as it is distinct and makes one think), but whatever works. :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, it's okay to add one's own listing to WP:RFA. —David Levy 12:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. You win. This is the most ridiculous oppose vote to date. I challenge others to top it. Apparently this is some sort of encyclopedia, but frequenters of RFA would never know it. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-29 02:25
  2. Oppose, you don't seem to contribute much information on articles. I was just looking through your edits and most are marked "Minor" or you are on a talk page. Please consider making some major edits. --Thorpe | talk 14:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is grounds for opposition? How did that happen? At best it's a neutral. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-29 02:29
  3. Oppose. First, just about all contributions are marked as minor, indicating that Nightstallion doesn't know what a "minor edit" is. He should familiarize himself with Wikipedia custom before running for adminship. And second, there's not a lot of edits to Wikipedia space, except for 120 RFA votes or remarks in the past month. Radiant_>|< 16:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What's that got to do with adminship? Dan100 (Talk) 17:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reluctant oppose. Maybe in another month or two, I could support. The whole experience thing is slightly bothersome, and I really don't care for images in signatures. Sorry. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Mh. Might I inquire as to what exactly bothers you about my experience? I've been here for slightly more than a year now, and I think my edit count should be sufficient enough to appease just about anybody... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Radiant. Too many minor edits. Jobe6 22:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to support, but I'm weakly opposing on both the signature and minor edit counts. Go back to the Japanese signature, at least it doesn't clutter up the page with html code. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Oppose addressed. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 07:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Radiant on the minor edits issue. An admin certainly needs to have enough experience to know what is and is not a minor edit. Xoloz 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose as per Radiant. User seems more concerned with flash and style (see number of userspace/User template edits) than the Encyclopaedia as a whole. If minor edits should not change factual data, there's room for improvement here. And the signature thing is concerning, however hypocritical that may sound. Again, Nightstallion seems more concerned with getting a 'cool font' into his signature than making it legible to all. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity: Does see number of userspace/User template edits mean that you think participation in WikiProject Userboxes disqualifies users from becoming an admin? Nightstallion (?) 23:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. But when I look at your last 500 contribs, the vast majority seem to be in Template-space (mostly user templates) and User-space. I realize there's probably a natural progression toward non-article-space edits the longer someone is here, but your (apparent) focus concerns me. To clarify, I don't know you at all (to my knowledge, we're not working on any of the same articles). I actually came here originally through your commentary in the Wikipedia:Help desk, where your signature was discussed. So I'm an outside view that may not have seen all the good work you've done before, just right now it seems less than stellar. Hence, only weak opposition. P.S. Thank you for converting your signature back to English. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    shrugs Fair enough. Not much more that I can say about that; if there's anything I can do to make you rethink your vote, let me know. —Nightstallion (?) 12:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per Radiant.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Per Radiant. Would likely support in a few months if more edit summaries are used and there's slightly more familiarity with Wikipedia policies. Carbonite | Talk 12:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Radiant and Neto comments, I concur. --Wgfinley 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Radiant. Ambi 15:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Radiant. Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose (changed to support). Purely on the basis of having an image in his signature. Having the image shows a lask of respect for fellow wikipedians, why should I have to have Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg cached on my hardisk? (And don't tell me that it's small, I don't care, it's still there). It also slows down (however small) Wikipedia for every other user. An admin should respect Wikipedia and their fellow Wikipedians.--Commander Keane 10:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The image hasn't been there for a few days, and I don't intend to put it in there again. May I inquire whether that was the sole reason for your opposition? —Nightstallion (?) 11:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realise you had stopped using the image. Are you never going to use an image again?--Commander Keane 13:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye. The most I'll do is have funky fonts, but even then I'll get comments from other editors first on what they consider usable. While I do prefer to have my signature a bit stylish and flashy, I've no intention to deliberately annoy other people. —Nightstallion (?) 14:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. --Kefalonia 14:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Thanks for changing the sig. Neutral on the minor edits count. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 07:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per low edit count, but I honestly don't think that signature objections are serious. So it is a bit long in edit view... so what? It's small in normal view. It's pretty. It's unique, and means that I can spot Nighstallion sig easier then most of other users sig = saves my time. I like it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (changed to support above): I have seen you around a lot and think you deserve to become an admin. Thanks also for changing the signature: it is a lot friendlier to users you interact with that don't read Katakana. Nonetheless: misuse of minor edits was a problem in my RFA as well, but I am not yet convinced that you know how to use them yet. Since you stopped always marking with minor, you haven't used it once, but it's been definitely relevant at many instances. This combined with your varying use of edit summaries means that your contributions are difficult to understand in history listings. Improvement in these behaviours over the course of the next days will likely change my vote. jnothman talk 06:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, competent editor, but I can not ignore the fact that Nightstallion is somewhat unfit for adminship due to his argumentitive and sometimes negative personality. Clearly, he has engaged in sufficent defenses over every situation brought to to the rfa, and in his dealings regarding some editors, he does not always answer in good faith. Such things make me speculate weather or not he is suitable for mediation, which, I believe, is a very important ability required of our administrators. Also, in a personal engagement, when I constructed a query and left it on his talkpage he decided not to respond and/or explain his posistion at all. I hope this changes, he would be quite sutible for the posistion. -MegamanZero|Talk 06:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehm, I did respond to your query. I respond to all queries. Read the note on the top of my talk page – conversations will not be halved by me, so you'll find answers to questions posted on my talk page – guess where? Right. On my talk page. See here. —Nightstallion (?) 06:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. You're right, and you gave helpful advice indeed. Thank you, but I still remain neutral on account of your voting method in that rfa, it wasn't very nice, was it..? And account for the fact I had to seek you out and inquire a reason for your opposition, as it is clear you wouldn't have eloborated otherwise. -MegamanZero|Talk 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mh. It wasn't cozy-happy-feelgood nice, but it was not exactly nasty, either, was it? Fair enough, though, I can see where your neutral vote's coming from. Thanks for responding so quickly. —Nightstallion (?) 07:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I certainly did not expect a chummy vote, however... yours was the only vote worded so negatively out of the entire rfa, and even several berucrats and users commented that it was uncallled for on the rfa talk page. Mind you, it doesn't bother me, but when opposition is clearly worded so inconsideritely for others feelings (and without justification to aid your vote), you can see why I was a tad troubled with your actions. That is a comment I would have expected from a middle schooler, please try to be more considerate in future dealings. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm compelled to intervene. Let's backup a minute: MZ, you nominated yourself to be an administrator and you garnered no affirmative votes – Ns was one among 12 who dissented or were indifferent – and he merely did so, unequivocally, with: "Sorry, no." You then sought additional feedback, which he is neither required nor compelled to give, and Ns gave it to you fair-and-square and diplomatically. After missing it initially and despite your protestations of not being bothered by it, you now assert an (I think) ill-considered, almost condescending position while lecturing the candidate on being just that during your RfAdmin? Au contraire. Two pieces of advice:
    And this RfAdmin isn't about you, either. But perhaps you should be more considerate before harping and coming across like the middle schooler you accuse Ns of being. E Pluribus Anthony 08:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to be argumentative, but... could you explain how "sorry, no" is more inconsiderate than "oppose"? I actually thought that "sorry, no" was nicer than just "oppose"... —Nightstallion (?) 08:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And the "several bureaucrats and users" are, in fact, a single user, I might add; Christopher Parham stated that the four last oppose votes in your RfA were not really biting, "[e]xcept perhaps for Nightstallion's". [1] I can still understand where you're coming from, though, and will try to follow the WP:CIVIL guidelines yet more closely in the future. —Nightstallion (?) 08:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking for myself, E Pluribus Anthony, I observe that since being warned off by me from monitoring my point of views, you have contributed approximately all your time to commenting on another's opinion, which shall not change. I gently advised you to move on and find other things to get interested in. Please do so. -MegamanZero|Talk 11:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will comment judiciously and when needed, as I have here. You're entitled to your opinion and I do not besmirch individual input (nor am I attempting to change it), but I will not stand by while you sully another potential candidate because of your situation, sensitivities, or factual misrepresentations. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony 12:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've currently got about 6300 edits total; I'd like to add that a substantial number of my userspace edits went into editting my personal information collection and should be discounted; as Interiot's tool has recently been taken down, I can't tell you how many exactly, but I think it was about 700 or 800. Another statistic I might've been able to add is the usage of edit summaries; I can't prove it anymore without Interiot's tool, but as I recall it, it had constantly been between 50% and 75% in the last three months. Nightstallion ✉ 07:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interiot's tool may be down, but Kate's tool is back up. Your count is here for those who want it. Raven4x4x 06:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know it would be such a big deal, but quite frankly, it's not worth it – so I'm back to my old signature. If you've got any creative ideas, let me know; I was simply getting bored with the old one and was looking for a change.
Regarding the minor edits issue: It's not a matter of not knowing policy, but much rather of regularily forgetting to uncheck minor edit when I do make a major edit. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'm actually quite stupefied by the dissent based partially on your signature: many users – like those who have voted, both yay and nay – have image- or colour-character laden signatures. If a Wikipedian besmirches a prospective Admin for that (and, IMO, his thousands of minor edits/contributions, which barnstars are awarded), I think they should think hard and look in a mirror beforehand.
Perhaps you can use a different foreign script, say Sanskrit?  :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would oppose Nightstallion's adminship. You say he is "too concerned with flash an style," yet you also say he has too many minor edits. You say he doesn't have enough Wikipedia namespace involvement, yet you cite his extensive involvement with RfA as well as the new WikiProject Userboxes (hence the large number of user page and user template edits), while you completely ignore his participation in WikiProject Numismatics. The only reasons given for opposition are (a) his signature, (b) too many minor edits, and (c) not enough or too many edits to a particular namespace. Well, (a) he has tried his best to work with the community to reach a compromise regarding his signature. The half-dozen various versions of it on this very subpage are evidence of his cooperation. (b) Minor edits are arguably more important than major ones; they are required to maintain the aesthetic reputation of the encyclopedia. If the "major" editors would just take the time to copy-edit their contributions, minor edits would be less necessary. But spelling, grammar, style, and consistency edits are critical to the quality of our articles. And (c) Nightstallion is highly experienced in every major namespace. He helps WikiProject Userboxes with templates and user pages. He contributes extensively to RfA and WikiProjects in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. He frequently edits numismatics articles and utilizes the talk namespace to discuss them. Like all of us, he communicates with other users through user talk pages. He even has an image in his signature ;-). What more can you ask for? Please, review Nightstallion's contributions once again and re-evaluate your oppose votes. Don't deprive this great Wikipedian of adminship just because he tried to put a little creativity in his signature. --TantalumTelluride 05:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)![reply]

Here, here! E Pluribus Anthony 06:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I can see myself helping with WP:RM immediately upon adminship, as I've been doing that for quite some time (as well as it can be done without adminship). While I have not found RC patrol too enjoyable up to now, that may change in the future; I could still make good use of the rollback button for vandalism to pages on my watchlist meanwhile. Once I've worked myself through the appropriate guidelines and policies, I can also see myself helping with WP:AFD, WP:IFD, WP:TFD and WP:CFD. Should any other kind of administrator assistance be required or requested of me, I'd certainly love to help with whatever comes up.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. That's difficult to say, for two reasons: Firstly, I think one should see all of Wikipedia as one large cooperative effort, and individual contributions should be seen in context and as part of the whole work; and secondly, I mostly do minor changes, add recent information or events, or do standardization work. I helped with standardizing the three-letter ISO templates (e.g. {{AUT}}) before User:SEWilco implemented his ingenious templating scheme; I also recently helped with standardizing currently article names, implemented almost all of the HDI information into the country infoboxes, am regularily involved in cleaning up WP:RM from moves that don't require admin interaction, try to help with correcting SVG flag images at the commons, keep political organisation maps up-to-date, and so on. Recently, Alinor and I have begun to work a lot on the various trade bloc articles together, and I've started to look into reference books regarding United States of Greater Austria, as I find both topics highly interesting. I never know what other topics I might start to have an interest in a month or even a week hence.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Let's see what I can think off at the top of my hat... Standardization will often encounter resistance. See here and here for cases which we were able to resolve rather immediately; the issue of {{Infobox Country}}, e.g. here, is still pending, but E Pluribus Anthony, SEWilco and I should've found a way to standardize things in the long run for that, too (see Template talk:Infobox Country).
Generally, I think every conflict can be resolved by consensus or compromise; sometimes, a third opinion may be necessary if two sides just can't agree on a common position. As far as POV conflicts are concerned, my viewpoint is that it's not a problem to have a POV; it's just a matter of knowing what the neutral (i.e. NPOV) ground between one's own POV and others' is.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.