Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.

Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.

if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Cobi	76	33	0	70	Unsuccessful	04:57, 11 October 2007	0 hours	no	report
AA	42	7	0	86	Successful	16:30, 9 October 2007	0 hours	no	report
Siva1979	25	39	0	39	Unsuccessful	10:40, 9 October 2007	0 hours	no	report
Aarktica	44	1	0	98	Successful	07:30, 9 October 2007	0 hours	no	report
Samulili	75	18	0	81	Successful	09:47, 5 October 2007	0 hours	no	report

Current time is 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Cobi	76	33	0	70	Unsuccessful	04:57, 11 October 2007	0 hours	no	report
AA	42	7	0	86	Successful	16:30, 9 October 2007	0 hours	no	report
Siva1979	25	39	0	39	Unsuccessful	10:40, 9 October 2007	0 hours	no	report
Aarktica	44	1	0	98	Successful	07:30, 9 October 2007	0 hours	no	report
Samulili	75	18	0	81	Successful	09:47, 5 October 2007	0 hours	no	report

Current time is 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
AirshipJungleman29	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	27 Sep 2024	34	21	4	62
Significa liberdade	RfA	Successful	21 Sep 2024	163	32	10	84
Asilvering	RfA	Successful	6 Sep 2024	245	1	0	>99
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 18:17:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

---

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

Cobi

Closed as consensus not reached by Cecropia 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC) at (76/33/11); Scheduled to end 04:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cobi (talk · contribs) - I do hereby nominate my master, Cobi, for administratorship on the English Wikipedia. My master could greatly benefit Wikipedia with the extra buttons. He has been described as "the most level-headed person I know" by his friends and I think he would make a great administrator of Wikipedia. ClueBot 04:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 05:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment This RfA is supposed to close, it is already pasts its ending time. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See discussion here - TwoOars (Rev) 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC) discussion archived, updated link with new location --Jeremyb (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: There are several areas where I have experience working in as a user and bot master. First, I am a verified open proxy checker at WP:OP, so I will be helping out in that regard with the ability to actually block the open proxies as opposed to simply noting that they are open proxies. Second, I plan on working at WP:AIV, as I have had experience reporting vandals there. My bot also reports a lot of vandals there. I also plan on helping out at WP:UAA and WP:SCV.

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

A: I would have to say that my best contribution to Wikipedia has been User:ClueBot and the other ClueBots. ClueBot reverts a lot of vandalism every day and the other ClueBots do other work around Wikipedia, such as clerking WP:OP (IV), talk page archival (III), redlink removal at WP:SCV (II), and tagging inactive WikiProjects (II).

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: The only "conflicts" that I have been involved with have been in relation to false positives reported about my bot. Such false positives are inevitable, but users can often get very indignant when this happens. This has not caused me stress. My approach has always been to gently explain the computation behind the false positive and try to fix this from happening again. My approach as an administrator would be very similar, in that I would quickly find the problem, make a judgment on its correctness, and "fix" the problem, while making sure all involved parties have as little discontent as possible.

4. Optional question by AntiVMan: What are you opinions of COI, and what do you think it should be applied to?

A: I believe that people who are related to or have a strong bias about a particular topic should either 1) not edit articles relating to that topic or 2) use extreme caution when doing so.

5. Seemingly Optional question by SQL: I figured I'd get this one out of the way early on. What are your thoughts on Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Should this RFA pass, would you add yourself to this category? Why / Why not?

A: It seems like everyone has a slightly different method of implementing this, but I will because I think there should be an easier way to desysop administrators if the community no longer wishes them to be an administrator without the long and drawn out process of ArbCom and because administrators should be accountable for their actions. I am not exactly sure how I will implement it, yet, but I will list myself in that category.

6. Question from JayHenry

I'm having trouble figuring out your editing background from your contribs. It looks like you made a few edits and then, as about your 8th edit, started operating ClueBot. Most people don't start operating bots on their 8th edit. Two and a 1/2 months later, you're applying for adminship. That's a very accelerated path through Wikipedia. Is there more to the story here? --JayHenry 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A: It is true that new users don't generally start operating bots, however, prior to my joining Wikipedia I have run many, many bots on IRC and elsewhere. Most of which, I coded my self. I saw a need and I made an automated program to fill that need. And, I realize that I am relatively new here, but I have read and understand Wikipedia's policies and I have operated several MediaWiki installations before.

7. Question from Fiddle Faddle

Sometimes we "meet" other editors whose concept of editing Wikipedia differs so radically from our own perception of what we believe WP is that they can seem to us to be any of: obstructive, obnoxious, willful, stupid (list any pejorative adjectives you please here). It can feel important "for the good of Wikipedia" to show them where they are in error. Such situations can become combative, and require assistance to reach some form of resolution. Assuming no formal mediation or arbitration processes were available, thus the problem could not be delegated, what would your approach be, both with yourself as one of the "combatants" (I use the term particularly) and as an impartial editor (not as an admin, just as an editor) who has observed the tension and wishes to see it resolved?

A: Well, unless the editor is going against policy, I generally don't confront them or I do so gently. If they are going against policy, then I will give them a warning stating that they are going against policy. If they continue going against policy, then I generally notify administrators via IRC or the appropriate noticeboard. If I am an impartial editor who wants to see a heated conflict resolved, I generally ask both parties if they can try to resolve the conflict. If it continues, I usually notify an administrator via IRC.

8. Question from Eliz81

Some of the opposes are concerned with your lack of experience in typical admin areas and with more 'substantial' edits in the mainspace. For example, how do you plan to approach AfD? Would you never participate in it, learn about it and participate/delete articles, or jump right in? Are you planning to only work in the areas you've mentioned above, or eventually branch out, and if branching out, how and to where? When, where, and how can we expect you to be using the extra buttons?

A: I don't really plan on closing AfDs unless there is a backlog or need in that area. I do plan on eventually branching out into other areas, like WP:RFPP and WP:AN/3. I think CO summed it up nicely here.

9. Question from After Midnight

Can you provide any insight into your editing outside of the areas of editing your userspace, bot requests or reverting User:AlptaBot? When answering, please note that I used the word "editing", not "contributions".

A: I have done a fair amount of anti-vandalism work on my own apart from ClueBot. I have also tagged several articles with CSD tags which, for obvious reasons, do not appear on my contributions page. If you were referring to authoring articles or adding new content to existing articles, I have done very little in this regard. I do not have the gift for writing nor do I write very well.

Reverting and nominating for deletion would count as "contributions", not as "editing". Have you done any editing whatsoever, even if it has not been to add content? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have done a little. I created ClueNet and made some changes to Shell account. This was soon after I created my account and before I knew about WP:COI. When I did learn about WP:COI and WP:NPOV, I cleaned the article up as best I could and have tried to stay away from that article since I do, in fact, have a COI. I also created a stub, Offline File System, per this request, which was later redirected to File System.

General comments

• See Cobi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Cobi: Cobi (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Cobi before commenting.

Discussion

Question from Phoenix 15

1 Do you lot who opposed Cobi think he/she will abuse or misuse the tools?--Phoenix 15 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

While I did not oppose, I remained neutral because I couldn't evaluate how the editor would be in conflict situations, which is an inevitable result of becoming an administrator. In going through his contributions, and reading the responses he's made here, I'm leaning much more towards support. I definitely think Cobi would rock at WP:AIV, and at WP:OP! I just was concerned that interaction with other editors hasn't been a large part of what he's done here to allow evaluation of that area. (And Cobi, if you're a girl, my most abject apologies!) ^Ariel♥Gold 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexism...--Phoenix 15 19:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Not intended! I think it is because I saw someone say "Hey man," on the editor's talk page. Hee hee. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

hehe--Phoenix 15 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

^ that was a pointless comment--Phoenix 15 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

P-munny, you make me laugh. Dfrg.msc 22:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. I would like to note that, based on experience with the user by watching him on WP and seeing him as an admin of IRC networks, he has tried, and sometimes succeeded in making the user -> admin jump far too fast in many cases. It hasn't worked out for more than a few months yet. Keep the bot going though. User:Not Logged In October 6, 2007) (Not logged in to stay neutral)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.116.186 (talk)

  I'm sorry, but anonymous participation in the RfA process is not allowed. Please log in if you would like to participate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  Excuse me? It is most certainly allowed, but should be moved to the discussion section, which I have done. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. If this nom doesn't succeed, don't be disheartened. Trust and clue is all you need for an administrator. This user has my trust, and is clueful to the policies of Wikipedia. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
2. A helpful user, and a fantastic bot. Lots of good work. AntiVMan 06:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak Support - Good vandal-fighter and clearly a trustworthy user, although I'd like to see more participation in mainspace content creation and in XfDs. Nonetheless, the candidate will not abuse the tools. Walton^One 07:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
4. I trust you man, I trust you. That's what it comes down to, after all. I don't think you're gonna go psycho, and block everyone, I don't think you're gonna delete everything. In fact, I think you'll be an asset to the encyclopedia. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 07:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Why not honestly? Jmlk17 08:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support per SQL and Jmlk17. Heck, if this guy was here to harm Wikipedia he wouldn't spend hours writing bots that help out would he? Plus, as opposed to Jeffery below, I liked the introduction to this RfA. If we can't have a bit of fun here whilst creating a serious work lets just pack it all up and go home. I don't want to give up my valuable time for a worthwhile project if I can't have a bit of light hearted humour occasionaly. Pedro :  Chat  08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support, tending slightly to the weak side of the spectrum (only a little) per Walton. But a clear support nonetheless. Daniel 08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support good bot-op, wouldn't abuse the tools. Trust him. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Very Weak Support on experience concerns, but your dedication and help to wikipedia is much appreciated. Good luck - although I doubt this rfa will succeed --Ben^chat 08:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Tentative support from what I've seen, a level-headed and sensible user. Half an hour of going through contribs didn't turn up anything but I might change my opinion if any skeletons are found later on. :) Oh, and like Pedro, I too like the self nom statement. - TwoOars (Rev) 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support A good editor; his bot is one of the best. No reason to oppose. -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per nom. LOL. Yes I know Cluebot is a bot. I've warned and reverted some of the same vandals. No bot is perfect, and Cluebot helps clean out the ocean of vandalism. Anyone with the this sort of sense of humor is not likely to go nutter and destroy Wikipedia with the buttons. I imagine the comparably low edit count will sink this, so hope to see you back in about 3,000 edits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose has a sense of humour, and concentrates too much on mundane project maintenance tasks. Probably unsuited for clearing backlogs and dealing with wackos. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Riana. — Dorftrottel⁠, was: AldeBaer 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think these were serious opposes. --JayHenry 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Have moved these two oppose votes here as they don't appear to be serious, and were first placed in "support" by their creators. Thedreamdied 18:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Because they were supports. Please send a search party out for your sense of humour :p ~ Riana ⁂ 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    It helps to read the comments before you move them; why would someone oppose beacuse the candidate "has a sense of humour" and how is someone who " concentrates too much on mundane project maintenance tasks" be "unsuited for clearing backlogs". I think it is fairly obvious what the intent of these comments are but don't worry we all have off-moments ;) GDonato (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for your sanctimonious comments, I'd like to point out that i moved them out of the oppose section that someone had put them in. Also, knowing the kind of moron that regularly edits wikipedia, "a sense of humour" seemed as normal a reason as any for opposing this nomination. Thedreamdied 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    True. GDonato (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

15. Support or at least I think so since I can't work out which section this is now The fact that this user operates ClueBot clearly shows that Cobi will not harm the project and understands important content policies. GDonato (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support: the nomination is a cheeky breath of fresh air, and Cobi is helpful and responsive, and can explain things in a way even atechno-turkey like me canunderstand. The bots work well, and I can't see how one needs to perform a powerful lot of personal edits one's self in order to qualify as a competent admin. Seems to me that all the relevant buttons are pressed here. Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Appears to have good knowledge of policy, and is experienced with technical matters. Has a sense of humor as well, which, as I stated in Alison's RfA those many months ago, is a quality more admins need to have. Acalamari 17:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose -Sense of Humour...HA !. He is an editor who is hell-bent on destroying vandalism and that is not what we expect of an admin, his bot has made many people cry..which is mean ( :P ).. he will make a terrible admin..but seeing that he was nominated by a bot :O scares me..his bots are trying to take over wikipedia..fleeee.. :S ..--Cometstyles 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support This editor knows what they are doing, and I couldn't find anything in the contribs to suggest a lack of judgment. [1] edits such as this also lead me to believe you are accountable, and respond to the needs of your fellow Wikipedians. Hiberniantears 19:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support -- I don't see any evidence that this user will abuse the tools. --Haemo 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Blocking open proxies sounds good to me, that doesn't require experience in articlespace at all, and having a popular anti-vandal bot in use sounds like this user must already be very experienced with Wikipedia despite the short time span. Homestarmy 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Weak support. The user's mainspace contributions seem a bit on the thin side, but all in all this user appears to know what is going on and seems trustworthy - there's a lot of havoc a bot operator can unleash on the 'pedia even without the admin bit. I believe sysopping this user would be a net benefit to the project. The self-nom via bot thing was funny, for the record :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
23. CO₂ 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
24. SupportPer Pedro, I believe this user will definately be able to contribute more to Wikipedia through his getting of the tools. Plus, I've encounted his bot/s countless times. Phgao 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. I understand the concerns about article writing, but I believe despite the lack of it, he is dedicated to building this encyclopedia. His way of building the encyclopedia is protecting it from the bad guys, so that the users who our good at article writing can write and not be distracted by vandals and trolls. I feel that this is perfectly legitimate. --Mschel 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Weak support That is about trust, you have my trust. Just do not try to experiment in the areas which you have not experience. Good luck. Carlosguitar 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong support. Cobi's a really friendly guy with a sense of humour. That's of utmost importance in an admin to avoid burnout. I don't have a concern about the edit count because I know he's dedicated to helping the wiki, and his bots have over 50 thousand edits total. Cobi is also a great boon to WP:OP. —Crazytales talk/desk 00:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support (or is it oppose?) Per Riana. —[[Animum | talk]] 01:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Oppose votes just don't convince me. By the way, loved the 'bot nomination.' Very funny. Yahel Guhan 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support No reason to oppose this user. And I wonder how ClueBot nominated Cobi. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    He logged in as the bot, maybe? :) Carbon Monoxide 03:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

31. Support Seems like a trustworthy user. Pax:Vobiscum 02:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support While it would be nice if Cobi had more mainspace edits, his contributions suggest a strong understanding of the rules that make wikipedia work. I think he'd be a productive editor in many areas outside of mainspace (and maybe there too), and will be a valuable admin. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support This user would not abuse the admin tools given to him. Happy to give my support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support The main reason for opposition appears to be that this user does not have enough "experience" or has not made enough edits. Cobi has had a huge amount of experience both as a general administrator (he is a chief administrator of the successful ClueNet network) and with Wikipedia in particular. He has obviously researched the policies of Wikipedia in great detail and is very knowledgeable of its workings. Cobi's writing of ClueBot is an example of this knowledge, but he has also even delved deeply into the MediaWiki code itself to make modifications for personal wikis and has experience as a wiki admin in the same regard. It is obvious that he would not harm Wikipedia in any way - his dedication is apparent. His ability to write a complex piece of software to automatically analyze pages demonstrates his general ability as well as desire to help. Opposition on the sole grounds of "not enough edits!" is illogical, because the purpose of an administrator is not to spend time improving the content of pages - it is to handle much larger issues regarding the overall health of the encyclopedia, its users, and its specific pages, a task for which Cobi is certainly more than adequate. I believe he is and will continue to be a great asset to Wikipedia. This user has my full support. Crispy1989 05:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    — Crispy1989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Crispy is the co-admin of Cluenet, and has known Cobi for some time now I can surmise. —Crazytales talk/desk 23:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

35. Support A sense of humor and slight disregard for How Things Are Supposed To Happen make for an ideal administrator, someone who understands what ignore all rules is all about and when it's appropriate to ignore them, yet won't make a mess of things by ignoring them when it's not appropriate. I have high hopes for this user. kmccoy (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Yes, the "oppose lack of experience" arguments are valid, but from their history I trust this editor not to do things they're not confident in — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support I believe this user will make good use of the tools, and that he has sufficiently earned the trust of the community. JavaTenor 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support, it saddens me that some of the oppose reasons brought up below are for "lack of experience". You can't be serious! I can't possibly imagine how difficult it must be to construct a good, working bot like the one he has! Cobi definitely possesses the knowledge to edit protected templates, which would be of great benefit to the community. And if I'm proven wrong and Cobi does abuse the tools (something I seriously doubt), he'll be listed for recall. So what is there to lose? *Cremepuff222* 21:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. Seems to have a use for the tools; doesn't seem likely to abuse them. --Carnildo 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Per above. Unlikely to abuse of tools. ♠TomasBat 23:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - seems like a good user, has mentioned where they plan to work admin-wise, appears to understand policy. The bot is a factor for which the community trusts Cobi, and I'm inclined to think that his work there shows that he is helping the project through automated technical means if not much directly. Nihiltres^(t.l) 23:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support as per Riana.He has shown commitment an has contributed to Wikipedia by cluebot which fights vandalism.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Hell yes.  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Support per DI.Marlith ^T/C 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - could obviously use the tools, clearly isn't a mental. Neil ム 11:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. I believe the candidate is qualified for adminship based on his overall record, including but not limited to the Cluebots' work. I hope that this current nomination will succeed, I anticipate that the candidate will continue working on Wikipedia and gaining additional experience, resulting in overwhelming support next time. Newyorkbrad 14:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Plenty well qualified in the areas he intends to work, WP:WPOP notably being one that always requires more attention from admins who know what they are doing there. Will make an extremely useful admin. Will (aka Wimt) 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Won't abuse the tools. He's been clearly showing that he only wants to help Wikipedia. Oh, and I enjoyed the commentary by the "nominator". =) нмŵוτнτ 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support hhe will be a good admin doing stuff like SD--Phoenix 15 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
50. Support With ClueBot, has made a substantial contribution to fighting vandalism. Civil and a sense of humor. Has earned my trust, and I do not think Cobi will abuse the tools. I trust your judgment, but especially since you didn't give quite the answer I had hoped for to my question, I make a small request that you be extra careful in admin-related areas where you have less experience. Although, I do trust your judgment in terms of misuse, and opening yourself up to recall should address concerns of the opposers. At the very least, I think you will make an excellent vandal-fighting admin with OP and AIV. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
51. Support We need all the help we can get toward all the reports and warnings filed by that damn Gluebopped thingy... LessHeard vanU 22:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Why not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. Sounds like a great vandal fighter. Let 'im block vandals too. Props on ClueBot, by the way; it catches a lot that previously slipped through. I delight seeing it on my watchlist (as I often do for the many pages I tend relating to politics and Mormonism). Cool Hand Luke 08:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
54. Support, as editor seems committed to fighting vandalism and improving the encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
55. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
56. Support, I trust you, sounds like a good idea to make you an admin. --CapitalR 10:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
57. I am confident that he will only use his tools in areas he's experienced in, and that the net effect of giving him admin rights should be a positive one. We need more people to help out with maintenance, and this candidate seems to be perfectly suited for that. Why wait while he makes more mainspace edits while he doesn't intend to work in that area? Melsaran (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
58. Support per iridescent and Cremepuff -- Cobi works tirelessly in fighting vandalism, has written an incredible bot to fight vandalism, and wants the tools to further fight vandalism. Good reason for having the tools + background that shows virtually zero likelihood to abuse them + substantial postive contributions to Wikipedia = support from me. Ashdog137 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
59. Support I think we can be sure that this user can be trusted as an admin. Captain panda 20:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
60. Support John254 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
61. Support. I was considering going neutral for a while due to Cobi's inexperience, but after thinking it over a bit, I definitely trust him to use the tools to the best interests of the project; why wait when he can and will help us now? --krimpet⟲ 09:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
62. Support I think we can trust him. Oysterguitarist 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
63. Support I thought about this for several days. This is a big place and nobody is familiar with everything. Over time try to gain experience in different areas. Since you won't abuse the tools, there's no reason not to have access to them when needed for your valuable work. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
64. Support Great nomination. ClueBot is a real time saver, and Cobi has demonstrated sufficient technical knowledge to handle blocking by himself. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
65. Support I think the opposers should read Cobi's answers to the questions above, if they haven't done so, and reconsider their vote. Adminship is said to be not a big thing, and it seems to me that everyone here agrees that he will certainly not abuse tools. Why wait, and waste time? He certainly needs the admin tools, and will make good use of them. This editor seems to have already achieved the experiency and usefulness level, even if he did not do so many edits. If he can notice and take care of key things of wikipedia, then he is more than experienced enough. He might not be an all around admin but doing a few things almost perfectly is not worse than doing many things rather mediocrely. ClueBot is not his only contribution, he will probably address other key issues in the future, so beware the other admins for becoming less useful (their edits don't count anyway, as they were mostly some Cluebot type edits, right?) His niceness and thoughtfulness are his great assets that will be most useful during vandal fighting, it is certainly much better for ignoring and waiting for the vandal to just go away. He even put that turn off button on the bot's userpage, that is an important minor thing, another sign of his thoughtfulness. He should feel free and be bold in doing mainspace edits, we are a community here, and we can improve other edits. By the way, thhis article is getting too large, we should split it. Deniz^T_C 13:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
66. Support. I looked at some of Cobi's contributions and read the above discussion, and have no concerns. I can live with the low edit count because of the potential value of his work in the area of vandalism and backlogs. He has credibility in my eyes because of the work he has already done with ClueBot. I don't expect him to be able to close the Daniel Brandt AfD, as noted above, but it doesn't sound like he is planning to do that kind of thing. EdJohnston 15:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
67. Support. Was tempting to vote neutral, but fence sitting wouldn't help anyway. I'm confident theat you will not abuse the tools, and you have shown enough good edits for me to put my support behind you. Good luck! Dfrg.msc 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
68. Support His bots have helped relieve some of the massive amount of work for the project. Four bots, all approved, clearly shows he knows what he's doing and would be a great help with the tools. Kwsn(Ni!) 00:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
69. Support. No big deal. ➪Hi;;;DrNick! 04:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
70. Support I trust Cobi's (perhaps implicit) representation that he intends to partake, qua admin, largely/exclusively of those tasks his familiarity with and aptitude for which are uncontroverted, and he appears to be possessed of a sound sense of judgment and a measured demeanor, such that I think him well to understand whereof he is not entirely sure and thus to be altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting in areas of the policies and practice relevant to which he is unaware) the tools; I feel quite comfortable concluding, then, that it is exceedingly likely that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
71. Support. Most of the opposes are "experience" related but this user is the coder of Cluebot, which has made over 40K edits. This also shows that he understands the fields in which he wishes to contribute so well that he was able to build one of the most praised automated tools for these tasks. --Kudret abi^Talk 05:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
72. Support I'll support this as well. and yes I know its after the deadline, its not closed yet so eh. Cluebot does good work, and while the nom is silly I really don't care. Cobi is as far as I can tell a decent user. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
73. Support - yes it's past the deadline. No, it hasn't been clsoed yet, so I'm supporting per the sense of humour shown in the nom, and my total trust in the user to complete adminny tasks as required. Martinp23 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
74. Support — meaning to support prior to this, but I believe that Cobi has the technical and social capabilities to be a beneficial to Wikipedia as an admin. Gracenotes^T § 20:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
75. Support per Martinp32 and Gracenotes above. Sense of humor is a plus. Article-writing is a worthy quality, but certainly not essential for most administrative tasks. Trustworthiness and grasp of policy seem to be much more important qualities. Cobi seems to have both. IronGargoyle 20:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    You're free to have your position, but I'd like to comment on a specific point. You say that "Article-writing is a worthy quality, but certainly not essential for most administrative tasks." and I've seen others say similar things. But have you considered that expecting article writing is the most powerful way to prevent or reduce gaming the system? In my participation and observation of hundreds of RfAs it's not that hard to meet the nominal admin requirements such as x number of edits in each namespace and some participation in various processes, even when x is very high. It is however difficult to contribute to content so that can be a valuable discriminant. I say this because it is known that the system has been gamed before through meeting nominal requirements. But if we expect more quality article writing, then the gaming will have a net benefit for the project. Not that it's a good thing, but the expectation can change a large negative to a net positive. Again writing an encyclopedia is the only thing we're here for. - Taxman ^Talk 21:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Do you think that I am attempting to game the system? Indeed, it is difficult to contribute to content, but it is also difficult to make ClueBot. If I were here just to get adminship, do you think I would have taken the time and energy to create ClueBot? Just a thought ... -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 21:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think "writing an encyclopedia is the only thing we're here for" is true -- or, at least, neither a complete statement nor accurate as it is often used in these discussions. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, open to contributions from everyone, and which is intended to be as reliable a source of information as is possible. Crafting Wikipedia thus necessarily involves people who make a commitment to, and who are highly skilled at, protecting the encyclopedia from vandals -- in other words, we need admins like Cobi in order to allow the mentioned "writing of an encyclopedia" while simultaneously maintaining the ideals fundamental to this project, as opposed to any of the myriad other encyclopedias created throughout history. To require every admin to be a direct author of high-quality content is to miss the forest for the trees -- it is precisely those editors and admins that focus on things other than content who enable editors to submit high-quality content, knowing it will be protected against abuse. Ashdog137 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    (double edit conflicted) Absolutely Taxman, I agree with you (almost) completely. Article writing is a great way to avoid gaming the system. If a borderline case (assuming we are talking edit-count here) was a great and productive article-writer, I would definitely take that into account. I think the bot-work shows something similar in surpassing the nominal requirements though. Are there bot designers that have made or would make terrible admins? Absolutely. There are also article-writers that have made or would make terrible admins. This is why civility is probably my number 1 criteria. I have not seen any evidence that this user is uncivil or will engage in any sort of disruptive behavior (good sense of humor is an indicator of that I think, and is why certain oppose votes in this RfA gall me so much). IronGargoyle 21:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Also, we are not here just to write the encyclopedia. We are also here to maintain the encyclopedia and reduce its entropy. IronGargoyle 22:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

76. Support I can't understand why this is on a knife-edge.--Bedivere 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, if its a joke nomination. If it isn't, oppose because its written like one. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   This is not a joke nomination, but essentially a self-nomination. Thanks. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 06:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   This is a very poor reason to oppose. RfA is often far too serious, and I don't see that this candidate's done anything wrong. Walton^One 07:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   With all due respect, Walton, but you have to admit that 'having done nothing wrong' isn't a sufficient reason to support adminship, or don't you? If this would be an argument, Editors who shied away from any controversial articles would actually have an advantage over those who tried to solve real problems. A candidate can have made mistakes, what's important is he learned from them and developed the necessary experience we need in our admins. Just my two eurocent. Gray62 13:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Actually - For Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: People support on the basis of a good track record with no "bad" incidents. That is, they think someone is a good admin because of a lack of evidence that person is bad. - User:Raul654/Raul's laws. Raul654 22:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

   Ehm, that was not Walton's reason to support, he said Jeffrey shouldn't oppose since the candidate had done nothing wrong. Melsaran (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   I shall support or oppose for whatever reason I see fit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Do you expect the closing 'crat to appreciate this comment of yours as much as the joke of not forcing you through RfA again may imply? — Dorftrottel⁠, was: AldeBaer 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose - The bot is good, but I really don't think you have enough experience, mainspace wise. I.E. creating articles. Also, IMHO, I think you are too new. Miranda 06:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Trustworthy user, but not enough experience. east.718 at 07:24, October 3, 2007

   Just to clarify, with no meaningful mainspace contributions and little participation in the wiki namespace outside of WP:BRFA, I do not believe Cobi has enough time put into areas related to adminship. east.718 at 02:42, October 4, 2007

4. Oppose 200 Main space edits is too low to demonstrate appropriate knowledge of how the encyclopedia is built. But please try again after you have more experience. Ronnotel 11:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   BTW, I really like ClueBot. However, I do find it somewhat disappointing that a simple PHP script can defeat such a surprisingly large portion of the collective imagination of vandals world-wide. It's not a reflection on you, of course. It's just that you have shown us how shallow the mind of the vandal really is. If this fails (which it probably won't) I'm looking forward to supporting your next RfA. Ronnotel 21:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose — your mainspace contribs do not demonstrate that you have the ability to work collaboratively, or that you are clear on what our goal is here, since they are basically all automated vandalism reversions. To those opposing above me, stop counting edits. --Agüeybaná 12:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Vandal fighter ---> admin. Cobi isn't going to be the one to close an AfD like Daniel Brandt's, he isn't going to fix the conflicts over articles like Global Warming, and he probably won't solve articles' BLP issues. Will he be able to block the everyday school kid vandal, deal with the inappropriate usernames, delete the non sense pages, and protect the pages hit heavily with vandalism? Yes, and he will be able to do it quite well. Yes, content writing helps make a well rounded admin, but that's not everyone's niche. Honestly Agueybana, your standards are getting quite high. CO₂ 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   And I'm getting tired of your constant assumption of bad faith. --Agüeybaná 10:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose. The candidate working here for a whopping four months isn't really enough to build a positive vote on. Also, his interaction with other users mostly seems to be limited to appologizing for his bot's mistakes (this begs some questions about thew usefulness of his bot, too, imho). Not much real edit work, as far as I can see in the diffs, and thus no experience in solving real conflicts. And the candidate didn't make a compelling case why he needs admin powers for the anti-vandalism stuff. He seemed to get along just fine without it. So, what shall we base a positive vote on? Wishful thinking? Sry, this might be a promising candidate next year, but this is much too early yet. Gray62 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Edited. After reading a bit more about AV bots, i see that a number of false positives can't be avoided. 'Cluebot' at least is superior to its 'ancestors', and apologizing for its errors is actually a nice move by Cobi. I don't want to discourage this productive and valuable user. I just think it's a bit early for adminship. Gray62 18:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose per Miranda. Majoreditor 13:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Sorry, Cobi. I have no doubt that you are a good user, but with so few edits to the article talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk spaces, I can't accurately judge your ability to interact with the community and deal with arguments, indecision, etc. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose - you have been so very useful to Wikipedia with what you've done so far, and the bot you created is magnificent - it even drove the previously unstoppable MartinBot into extinction! But, as a Wikipedian under Cobi, there needs to be much more experience in all areas. But, don't get me wrong, what you've done so far is great. :-) Lradrama 17:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
10. First I want to say that ClueBot does really, really great work. But is it's work so incredible that I feel comfortable supporting a candidate who's been active for two months, has made several edits to only three articles, and has minimal interaction with the community? I'm sorry, Cobi, but I don't think there's any bot that could allay those concerns. I would definitely support in the future if you continue on your track and interact more with the community. It wouldn't hurt in my opinion to maybe put some serious work into an article or two, in order to understand the encyclopedia-building aspect of the project. --JayHenry 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose you only have 12 mainspace edits that aren't reverting vandalism. T Rex | talk 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose - Per Miranda. Sorry buddy. Scarian^Talk 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I would support you becoming a WP:BAG member, but frankly, you have absolutely zero record of editing, no talk edits, minimal interaction, nothing that I see. Almost all of your edits are either editing your userspace, bot requests or reverting User:AlptaBot. In my mind, this is not even a situation of coming back in a few months. Despite the fact that you may be a good bot editor, you are far away from demonstrating the skill necessary to become an admin. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. With little evidence of encyclopedia building or of non-trivial interactions with other users, I can't evaluate this editor's suitability for adminship at this time. Espresso Addict 07:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose Your bot is good, but I really don't think that you have enough articlewriting experience. -Lemonflash_{(O_o)} 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose - I think a user who has been here for less than 6 months is too new to become an admon. Od Mishehu 21:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    With all due respect, Od Mishehu, don't you think that a person's experience and intentions should be based on the edits rather than the time he or she has been editing? *Cremepuff222* 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    What's an "admon"? --Agüeybaná 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    Lol, well the "o" key is right next to the "i" key... :) *Cremepuff222* 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    No, Admon! Dfrg.msc 23:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose should get more experience in the mainspace.Rlevse 18:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose way too little mainspace exposure.Sumoeagle179 21:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

    Reluctant oppose (changed to neutral below); I'm sorry, Cobi, but while ClueBot is an extremely valuable asset to the 'pedia, I'd really want to see a bit of participation in admin-related processes before you get the tools. Spend two months doing XfD work, for instance, or manual vandal/spammer hunting (for AIV experience), and I'll support you— you obviously got the right attitude, but basically no experience with admin processes; and at this time we have no way of really knowing how well you understand how policy is applied. — Coren ^(talk) 04:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose, bots are immune from having to understand principles that underpin Wikipedia, such as Assume good faith; we accept them because they do more good than bad. Without a broad range of experiences on Wikipedia, I cant gauge whether the administration tools are in the right hands. John Vandenberg 06:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    The applicant is the bot operator, not the bot. LessHeard vanU 09:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Thats right; Cobi has yet to display the characteristics of a good admin. John Vandenberg 10:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Fine. It wasn't clear from the initial comment. LessHeard vanU 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

20. Oppose Far too little experience, especially in article writing, to allow me to judge suitability for adminship. TigerShark 20:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose too little experience. Epbr123 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose probably won't misuse tools, but not enough mainspace editing to be sure. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose, doesn't write content. Everyking 07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Oppose. I'm perfectly willing to consider that a candidate with narrow experience of admin related areas could be given the tools on the basis that they would only exercise them in areas they feel confident. But it seems that Cobi lacks experience in all areas related to use of admin tools. He has not particpated in deletion discussions and hasn't tagged article for speedy deletion. There is no great involvement in article writting or editorial disputes to give other signs of good familiarity with content/deletion policies. I just don't feel able to judge Cobi's ability to apply Wikipedia policy were he an administrator. I think he's on the right course and a couple of months would allow him enough participation to judge whether or not he'd make a good admin, but this RfA seems premature. WjBscribe 12:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose While his efforts in reverting vandalism are much appreciated, I suggest that he takes some time to diversify his experience in other admin related areas of Wikipedia, as the users above have said. You're almost there, good luck.--Alasdair 12:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Not Yet Come back when you can refer to your own contributions as evidence that you will do well with the bot. Bot actions are necessarily without judgement, administrative actions require judgment. Until we can see your judgment in admin related activities, we can't trust what you will do with the tools. GRBerry 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Oppose (after closing time) I really think admins need more experience with content...that's the reason we're here. That's not to say he wouldn't be a good admin down the line, in fact he probably would be. But right now there's no way to judge and he certainly hasn't been active enough to gain the needed experience. RxS 14:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Oppose He seems to be big-headed (why did he ask someone else to make a request?). Only ~2000 edits? Not enough, up to 5000 edits earn a support. --Petar Marjanovic 17:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    I take it you didn't notice it was his own bot account that nominated him? In other words it was a self nom in a lightly humorous way and he didn't ask someone else to nominate, from what I can tell. - Taxman ^Talk 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Comment That is one of the worst opposes I've heard. After all, adminship is no big deal. Edit counts also mean absolutely nothing and accusing him of being big-headed is what dicks do--Phoenix 15 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Note: Peter Marjanovic has only 16 edits at this time. Acalamari 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

29. Oppose - Far too little experience. you don not write articles.--[[User:Syrcro|sугсго . PEDIA 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    In deciding whether to give Wikipe-tan a mop, our question should be whether she can clean stuff up, not whether she is a published novelist

    — WP:AAAD -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 18:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

30. Oppose. You have done a lot of great work and please keep it up. But way too little participation in what we are really here for, particularly writing articles. Too little experience outside narrow areas doesn't give enough information on which to judge your abilities enough to support. I and many others feel that until you have experience writing articles you cannot make proper decisions about things that affect content creation which is the only thing we do here that is important. - Taxman ^Talk 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Reluctant oppose. As great as your bot is, have our standards went this low? I don't really see any non-bot experience present, I'd prefer to see some of that in either main or wikispace before I can support. Wizardman 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
32. weakly oppose —DerHexer (Talk) 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose Cobi has done some xcellent work with ClueBot, but I must regrettably oppose this RfA at the current time. Personally, I feel that an RfA candidate should have experience in mainspace contributions/discussions. Whether you agree with me or not, admins will definitely have to involve themselves in dispute resolution or mediation. If a candidate has a history of discussion over articles and participating in collective editing with others, then he/she has some background and experience that can help them handle future matters properly (like mediating an edit war). You don't necessarily need this experience to handle all of these type of issues, but you will need some background for some matters. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Netural Cobi's a good user, but still a bit new, I suggest you diversify a bit more. -Chris  G  06:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral You have my trust, but you don't have enough experience in other aspects of the encyclopedia. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral ClueBot certainly is a most valuable addition for Wikipedia, but I feel that you've concentrated on that area specifically, and have not really had a chance yet to dig into some of the most fundamental areas that you'd need to be familiar with to be an effective administrator. (And if you are familiar with those areas, I apologize, but going from your edits, there is little or no history of AIV, UAA, AFD, XfD, participation, etc.) I'm sure this will come with time, but at this point, with less than 300 mainspace edits, I just don't feel that you're fully aware of the entire scope of the project and the depth of the areas an administrator would be dealing with. All that being said, I would like to thank you for your creation of ClueBot, as I've been beaten by the bot too many times to count, he's quick on that trigger! Good job! And in the future, if you diversify as suggested, I'm sure you'll be ready for another RfA. Cheers, ^Ariel♥Gold 07:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   My bot reports to AIV quite often, I also know about WP:UAA, but I have not contributed there often because other users tend to beat me when reporting inappropriate usernames. It is true that I have not contributed at WP:AFD and the other "for deletion" areas. This is because most of the articles I come upon which should be deleted are candidates for speedy deletion. I don't vote on them often, but I do read them. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes I figured that there's no way you could create your bot without fully understanding AIV, and the reporting process. :o) Your answer to question #3 is short and succinct, but administrators are often called upon to resolve disputes, or end up in conflict simply due to the nature of their mop duties, and I just wasn't able to find much interaction between you and other editors outside of RC patrol, or coding and bot issues. I'm not saying you don't know what you're doing, but merely that your focus seems (by your contribution history) to be quite confined. I'll dig deeper into contributions, and please know that I in no way think you'd abuse the tools, and I think you'd be effective with AIV, but Wikipedia is so much more than that, I'd just personally like to see a bit more diversity, for instance, WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, WP:AER, or WP:SSP, I'm unsure how familiar you are with these areas, as your contribution history shows no activity there. ^Ariel♥Gold 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral. Good user, but his bot violates point 1 of the bot policy – the bot must be "harmless"; it may well do more harm than good, but since it has reverted many legitimate edits and continues to do so, it can hardly be called "harmless". I can't support someone who so willingly violates official policy :) – – Gurch 09:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral I don't know. I know he's made several bots, but at around 1,100 edits and only a few months at wikipedia.... try again in six months and I might support. (And I saw nothing wrong with the nomination). —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 14:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral Great work on WP and you have some good experience... but a little more experience, in areas such as WP:AIV, will benefit your next RfA. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral for now, per above. However, Great ClueBot operator. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)changed to support NHRHS2010 ^Talk 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Neutral leaning towards support I usually ask myself would I trust this user with the ability to block, delete, protect, as well as can they handle the usual "Why did you block me, you suck", "Why did you delete my article, you penis, etc, etc, that admins that are vandal fighters have to deal with. If I answer yes I usually support. However, this is an encyclopedia built by volunteers, and I would like to see some significant article building. Now since we are nearly all volunteers, I have no problem with people who spend the majority of their time reverting and fighting vandals, trolls, and other disruptive users. With that being said, the only thing keeping this from a full support is the lack of article writing. If Cobi can show some examples of creating/expanding an article then I will fully support. KOS | talk 08:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral leaning towards support - I second the above. All you'd need to do to satisfy me is at least a little bit of article writing - a GA?, some DYK? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Without more substantive edits or talk, I can not evaluate this user. Sorry. Good work on reverting vandalism, e.g., RuPaul. Bearian 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   Ranging between neutral and oppose. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

10. Neutral; (changed from oppose above) after reconsideration, I feel that my hesitation due to your inexperience with admin processes may not be worth a full oppose. I'd still prefer it if you were a little drier behind the ears, but I'm also not worried you'll go on a rampage. — Coren ^(talk) 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Neutral - The candidate is obviously knowledgeable in technical aspects of running a wiki, but his contributions offer no evidence relating to his abilities in dealing with editorial conflicts. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

---

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

AA

Final (42/7/1); Originally scheduled to end 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AA (talk · contribs) - A cool head, a clam heart and a helping hand are some of the stuff that defines AA. Always a perfectionist, his passion for quality, neutrality and credibility is hard to match. Very active in a quite a number of areas, interacting with editors who represent a wide spectrum of attitudes and dispositions. Has a fine command of wikicodes, and is innovative enough to already contribute a good deal to that end. He may be especially important when mediation is needed between editors of South Asian origin, as he'll become the second editor from Bangladesh if found worthy. In the 7 months he has been working on WP, he has handled conflicts like a wizard of peace and consistently made amazingly positive contributions to every place he's been to. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. → AA ^(talk) — 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been an editor since March 2007 and in the 7+ months of my tenure, I have edited a wide variety of articles, been involved in a few conflicts, done many vandalism reversions and nominated many articles for deletion (via CSD, PROD, XfD processes).

I am somewhat of a perfectionist and aim to follow the GA/FA criterias in all of my edits which hopefully makes the end result easier to get through the GA/FA process. I have also met some wonderful editors along the way and helped where I can to the best of my abilities.

I have tried to contribute widely and gain experience in multiple areas and think I have developed a fairly comprehensive understanding of policies and guidelines to make best use of the admin tools. → AA ^(talk) — 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would like to assist mainly with CSD & PROD. As an editor I have tagged many articles which have been deleted and it would be much more efficient to be able to tackle the task myself instead of adding to the burden of existing admins. On a related note, I would also assist in AfDs (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) - initially focusing on ones where the outcome is clear-cut.

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

A: I would consider sourcing to be one of my key traits; to push Wikipedia towards becoming a reliable source. Article wise, Biman Bangladesh Airlines is undoubtedly my best contribution. It was the first article I gave my full attention to which enabled me to aquire a broad range of experiences as an editor since the article went through GA review (ando became GA) followed by A-Class review, Peer Review, FAC and is now FA. Fatimah is another article which was a highly biased non-neutral article when I encountered it. I spent considerable time using resources at the library to source and rewrite the article to meet NPOV and verifiability policies. I hope to take this towards GA/FA in the next few months. On the template front, {{cite quran}} is one of my creations which sought to combine multiple individual templates into one standardised citation template for Qur'anic quotations. I also made some useful changes to the League of CopyEditors project when I sought their help with the Biman article.

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: Only one noteworthy incident with an editor engaged in disruptive editing. The editing patterns of the editor was predominantly to revert other's changes and on the whole did not provide many "encyclopedia building" edits. I tried to reason with the editor and coax him into collaborating constructively so that we could collectively enhance the article. However, it did not prove fruitful as his revert-warring and incivility continued extending to uninvolved admins who eventually indef blocked him for making personal attacks. Reviewers may wish to see the following diffs/links for further history A, B, C. Personal attacks and userpage vandalism has also been directed at me at times in response to my RC patrolling but this has never caused by any upsets and I take this as part of the "job" (see D).

Question by Archtransit

4. Do you see a potential conflict of interest or ethical violation in your username? AA is a common abbreviation for American Airlines. You note an airline article as one of your proud contributions as well as being a member of Wikiproject Airlines. WP policy says "Usernames that match the name of a company or group" are inappropriate user names. Yet, as an administrator, you will be tasked to enforce wikipedia policy, including indefinite blocking of people who use inappropriate user names. What is your solution? Grant yourself an exemption? Change your name? Pledge not to enforce wikipedia rules in certain areas? Place a disclaimer on your userpage that you have no affiliation with American Airlines? Good luck in your RFA! Archtransit 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I do realise that AA is a common abbreviation, not only of American Airlines, but Alcoholics Anonymous and many others. The username was usurped and therefore I did not consider it to be inappropriate since a bureaucrat fulfilled my request. I am not promoting any organisation or product who's abbreviation is AA nor am I editing any American Airlines related articles and as such believe the statement, "usernames satisfying one or more examples are not necessarily inappropriate", applies. However, as with all issues on Wikipedia, if there is consensus the username is inappropriate, I have no issues with picking another one. Thanks for the concern (It actually hadn't even crossed my mind). → AA ^(talk) — 16:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Question by Septentrionalis

5. So what experience with dispute resolution do you have? Your efforts to settle disputes would be more persuasive than your own disputes with others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I would say being able to deal with your own disputes in a civil manner is more important for an admin than being able to mediate others' disputes (unless one is joining the mediation committee or ArbCom). As an admin, it is a given fact that one's actions will be questioned by editors and admins alike and being able to justify your actions and settle them in a civil manner is a key trait that we should look for in an admin. You have a choice whether to get involved in dispute resolution between other editors. You have no choice when the dispute involves you. Nevertheless, I do have some minimal experience and will look to build upon this over time. → AA ^(talk) — 09:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Question by Arrow740

6. Given your past history with him (however one views it), would you be willing to recuse yourself from decisions to use admin tools in situations involving User:Prester John? Arrow740 06:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Thank you for your question. I'd just like to say that I do not have a "history" with User:Prester John. I did not revert any of his edits which would not have been an unreasonable action for someone acting in bad faith towards him. Had I not come across this edit summary which was a striking resemblance to this and this from a DY sock, I would not have given it a second look. Until Prester's comments on this page, I had not had any other noteworthy interactions with him. I fully respect his comments (as I do everyone elses) on this page and hope to be able to work together if the situation arises in future. → AA ^(talk) — 14:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See AA's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for AA: AA (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/AA before commenting.

Discussion

• Only 9 edits to AIV. That shouldn't be too much of a problem if you use the block button correctly, but if you are in doubt, please be a little hesitant during the first few days of your adminship (if you are promoted). Melsaran (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly continue to use existing methods to start with (i.e. reporting to AIV/RFPP etc.) until I am proficient in the relevant area. I believe having the tools places extra responsibility to ensure their correct use and therefore it's preferable to tread cautiously and if in doubt leave it for a more experienced admin to deal with while watching the outcome from behind the scenes as part of the learning experience. → AA ^(talk) — 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned about having an admin with "a clam heart". That sounds worryingly invertebrate to me. Can you confirm you are warm-blooded and have an internal skeleton? --John 05:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have a fully-functioning heart - although I've not seen it and can't cite any sources :) → AA ^(talk) — 08:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

May be we can apply WP:CK here.^{Sorry for the typo, though.} :) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As Radiant!'s admin classification page shows us, though, we have long since gone down the road of sysop(p)ing various amphibians, reptiles, and fish, but AA would, I think, be our first two-letter admin; perhaps we need to get a WP:DLG going... Joe 03:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Well, that should be apparent. I was the nominator, right? I have already wrote a good deal about the reasons to support him while nominating (and also at his editor review). Never mind the flowery language. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support A review of the last 1500 contributions shows nothing but good work. In addition your deleted edits show a raft of accurate CSD tags, so I have no concerns on your policy knowledge. You answers are clear cut. Basically ticks all the boxes for me. Pedro :  Chat  15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   How do you check deleted edits? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Deleted edits for a user are listed at Special:DeletedContributions, which is limited to administrators. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Support Glad to give my support. I am confident that this candidate would not abuse the added tools given to him as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Seems to be a solid editor. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Nothing to suggest this editor will do anything but good with the tools. Phgao 17:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Sure, looks good. A great variety of contributions in many places, would do fine with the tools. Melsaran (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support No reason not to. I looked through some of your contributions from March, and they were all really good. I did notice, however, that you maybe made some typo's (Please don't bite my head off for writing this! It's only constructive criticism - and I hope it will be treated as such :-), e.g. "existance" instead of "existence". I honestly don't mean to be nasty or picky about it... Okay, I'll stop. I'm scared that people will interpret it wrong :-( But anyway! You have my full and complete, unwavering support! Scarian^Talk 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   I do appreciate constructive criticism and appreciate your efforts in reviewing my contribs. I do try to be vigilent and double check my work a few times - even after submission but, unfortunately, some errors do get through and this is where the collaboration element of Wikipedia is so beneficial. Having observed the League of Copyeditors in action, I have great admiration for their work. → AA ^(talk) — 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for the reply! I thought I was out of place with my comments. All the best! Scarian^Talk 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Support No reason to oppose, no concerns with him/her having the tools. east.718 at 19:34, October 2, 2007
9. Support had a look at your edit account and your most recent edits. You've got edits across the namespaces and according to Pedro (I'm not an admin) you know how to Speedy delete. All in all, a good user and you'll make a great admin--Phoenix 15 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Well-balanced and experienced editor. Seems to know what he is doing and I trust he will do well with the tools. Useight 21:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support User has plenty of experience, and demonstrates an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia. Good Luck!--bobsmith319 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Too few MediaWiki edits for my liking, but o well. CO₂ 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Only administrators can edit MediaWiki pages, because the whole MediaWiki namespace is protected. ~ Sebi _[talk] 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    I believe that was a joke. AntiVMan 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Oh I see. ~ Sebi _[talk] 05:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed :) Carbon Monoxide 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

13. Support No reason to oppose. Not very many reports to AIV, but like he said, he's done a lot of deletion work. —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 23:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Qualified, and wants to help out in areas that need it. Hell yes! :) Jmlk17 00:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Seems like a reasonable, well-balanced individual who learns from mistakes and is unlikely to misuse the tools. Ronnotel 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Fine with me. — aldebaer⁠ 01:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
17. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support looks fine - good luck :) --Ben^chat 05:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Good examples that show the kind of spirit we need here in our admins. I'm a bit concerned about the "perfectionist" stance, I hope the candidate won't go so far as to discourage the typically not-perfect contributions of newbs and occasional editors, and I do hope that I don't vote for a delitionist here. Also, more experience would be nice. However, I don't see facts seriously supporting my doubts, and the work done so far speaks for the candidate. Keep it up, and good luck, AA! Gray62 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you for your support. Just wanted to comment on your concerns on the "perfectionist" stance. I enjoy working with new editors and helping them "learn the ropes".[2], [3]. The comment applies to my own work and is not meant for judging others' contributions. I remember distinctly how it felt when I was new and did not know much about WP:AGF and therefore try to put that experience to good use. → AA ^(talk) — 13:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

20. Support. Majoreditor 13:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. No problems that I can see. --John 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support A good editor worthy of becoming administrator. We all have flaws but AA's don't seem notable. Archtransit 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - Achieved a good lot since starting here, well done. :-) Lradrama 17:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - Even inspired me to joing Leeg of Copietidorz. Hiberniantears 19:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Good editor that is very unlikely to abuse admin tools. (AA is also the initials of one of my friends) NHRHS2010 ^Talk 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Article work looks pretty darn decent, and this fella appears to be a reasonable person who I can work with. That's all that's necessary. Moreschi ^Talk 23:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Purely based on my personal experience of interaction with this user. On several occassions I requested help from him and got immediate assistance. This is the right kind of attitude I'd expect from an admin. Arman ^(Talk) 02:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - Seen his name frequently on my watchlist probably due to some common watchlisted articles. He'll do good — Lost^(talk) 08:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. Administrators who will make a close in favor of consensus despite their own disagreement are in just as short a supply as administrators who will perform unpopular actions that need to be done. Dekimasuよ! 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. Good all round contributor with a variety of excellent contributions. Respectfully with regard to the "oppose" section below, I think the reading of WP:V is too strict, since the word is "verifiable", not "verified". "Unsourced" is not the same as "unverifiable", although it can be a serious indication. In many cases, the problem unsourced articles can and should be solved by sourcing them. The fact that AA has contributed to the Biman Bangladesh's promotion to featured status is a far more reliable measure that the user "gets" the core content policies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. Lots of good edits - seems very competent and positive. Good luck! Folic^Acid 03:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. conducive to 'pedia building. I like people erring on the side of keeping rather than deleting in AfD debates. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Won't abuse the tools. Plus, seems to have a good sense of humor, which is always (well, usually) a good thing. нмŵוτнτ 17:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Great user with lots of experience in all areas of the project. --Kudret abi^Talk 05:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. He did good work on the article at Biman Bangladesh Airlines, and his ability to deal reasonably with content disputes is seen at Talk:Fatimah. I looked at the AfDs mentioned below, including this one, and I do agree that you should not close a debate you have also voted in. In the discussion about Template:Islam mentioned by Yahel Guhan, I think AA's demeanor was quite reasonable. In general AA seems patient and civil. EdJohnston 15:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. Great work on FAs, and level-headed user. Recurring dreams 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Great edits, cool temper, lots of experience, a fine wikipedian. AA has my confidence.Bless sins 04:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Good "clam" editor. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Seems to have a good grasp on policy and a very even keel (as evidenced by response to criticism below). Good reason to have the tools, very low risk to abuse them, and has made a positive difference on Wikipedia, so user has my support. Plus, we could definitely use more clams as admins. Ashdog137 05:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support An experienced, civil and level-headed editor. --Aminz 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support See nothing that persuades me this user will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for apparently insufficient knowledge of core policies. On two current AfDs (1, 2) the nominee recommended to keep two articles on reasonable notability grounds, which is fine – but he did not notice or care that the articles utterly fail WP:V, an overriding core policy. One article (now deleted) was not sourced at all, and the other is currently sourced to the article subject's website and to Wikipedia itself. I have not reviewed the nominee beyond these AfDs, so feel free to take this vote with a grain of salt. Sandstein 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you for you comments and, although I do not wish to discuss a closed AfD here, I feel I should clarify for the reviewers since my knowledge of policies has been brought up. I believe your arguments are that the articles were not sourced - which I believe is not a reason for deletion. My comments on the AfD were based on the potential verifiability. To this end, I gave a few examples where the article in question (Airpoints) was the subject of non-trivial news coverage ([4], [5], [6], [7]). At worst, it was borderline and I respect your closure of the AfDs. → AA ^(talk) — 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   I disagree. If challenged material is not being sourced, that very much is a reason for deletion. This is the core meaning of WP:V, and admins must be able to apply it. I've elaborated more in responding to your comment on my talk. Sandstein 05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   While I won't pass judgment here, the information in the sources you mention bears little resemblance to the actual contents of the (now-deleted) article, which was mostly a link repository and list of rules. If you felt the news coverage showed notability, why didn't you incorporate it into the article? Dekimasuよ! 07:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Please see my comments and discuss further on Sandstein's talk page. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 08:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough, but I hope you don't mind if I ask for a little more clarification. If you were happening upon the Airpoints AfD for the first time and decided to close it after reading through the same discussion Sandstein did, would you have deleted the article? Dekimasuよ! 13:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   As I mentioned, I fully respect the closure and there was consensus to delete and I would've done the same. I had provided the links on the basis that others might agree on the notability based on the news refs and add references from primary and secondary sources. I did not have any strong opinions on the article either way and, with hindsight, it would've been better for me to have suggested it as a "comment" rather than !vote "keep". → AA ^(talk) — 14:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose in my many revert conflicts with AA, I can say I have concerns about WP:CIVIL from this user. Based on some of his edits, he/she probably will use his admin tools in articles he/she is actively editing. I find it ironic User:AA use as examples of afd's he/she'd close are on topics he/she normally edits. Yahel Guhan 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   Can you provide some diffs to support your concerns? Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 17:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Certianly. For example, AA is actively involved in Islam related articles, pushing his/her bias on the articles, and has closed this AFD debate only recently, dispite involvement on the topic. He/she closed this merge discussion in which he/she is an active participant in. Other than that, my main recent contact with this user was a dispute on Template:Islam, where this user, rather than providing reasons for why a certian article shouldn't be included, argued it shouldn't because there wasn't consensus, demanding removial.[8] Then stated I was being uncivil for pointing out this demand. [9] Here are examples of this user edit warring (on a dispute which involved many users): [10][11] (enough to get a page protected) More to come later. Yahel Guhan 00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

   I leave it up to reviewers to judge if my two closes were wrong (and if necessary to review the ratio of AfD noms from Yahel which were kept). Also, see this comment regarding the particular AfD which was closed by me on the grounds of WP:SNOW and unanimous consensus. Regarding the discussion on Template:Islam, I was just trying to highlight the process for building consensus and that my comments (interpreted as a demand by Yahel) were not "pure nonsense" as I followed up with the link to the relevant guideline (note I did not join in the edit war unlike Yahel). On the subject of the other one, I refer reviewers to the article history (showing my one edit) and the talk page discussions (NB: Yahel was previously Sefringle). → AA ^(talk) — 09:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

   Can't locate the reason for concern along the lines of WP:CIVIL in the given examples. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Weak oppose I deny, as the principal author of today's featured article, that getting an article to FA shows anything much about knowledge of policy, especially this one, which had a softball review even by the current standards of that overburdened page; the chief FAC commentator was the nominator for this RfA. I do not think that handling your own CSD's is desirable; CSD's really should be reviewed by two people. There are no signs of knowledge or ability to handle dispute resolution, which every admin will be expected to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose This user has shown a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia guidelines here. The user has stated that in arguing that a source is unreliable for articles relating to Islam, one must adhere to guidelines for editing articles. Arrow740 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Asking for a verified RS before declaring an RS sanctioned by the policies unreliable, and commenting that without such a citation we can't declare a source unreliable (especially on grounds of OR) doesn't look like a misunderstanding of the policies. On the contrary it looks very much like an example of thorough understanding. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   WP:RS is not a policy, and does not apply to discussion about sources. It applies to sources. Arrow740 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   But, WP:V and WP:OR are, and the discussion was about an RS. All I can see is AA raising a question about a claim about a certain historian's authority, and reminding that such claims may be supported by appropriate sources (especially if there is evidence in contradiction to the claim), and he didn't even pass a conclusive statement. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Yahel Guhan -- Karl Meier 11:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I have no faith in the ability of AA to follow basic wikipedia admin procedures or to follow elementary manual of style rules. My first experience with him was when I noticed he was mass reverting articles in direct contradiction to the manual of style (Islam related). See this, this, and this. Upon taking it upon myself to rectify the encyclopedia AA, without bothering to talk to me about it, then filed a bogus sock report. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   Regarding the reverts, as the edit summaries indicate, I was simply enforcing the ban on confirmed socks of a banned user without looking at the merits of the edit per WP:BAN. Regarding the checkuser, I did not revert any of your own edits (as far as I remember) - even ones where the edit summary could easily have been mistaken for one written by DY71 (e.g. [12]) and in the ANI discussion at least one other editor mentioned that there had been confusion previously between User:DavidYork71 and yourself, so it was in your best interests to clear the confusion. However, following this incident, I thought it best to leave this aspect to experienced editors and have not sought to pursue this further nor do I intend to do so in the future. → AA ^(talk) — 23:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   If you wish to become an admin, you are saying you are an experienced enough editor to make important admin decisions. If you don't think you are an experienced enough editor to make a decision about sockpuppetry, you certianly can't be trusted with the tools at this time; you simply can't handle the decision making. Yahel Guhan 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   And now we see the web starting to unravel. Your claim of "at least one editor" is in fact confined to a single editor, User:Merbabu. He claimed to have held a private suspicion about DYK and myself, yet made no formal announcements of it. This makes your claim of "previous confusion" patently false and a deliberate misrepresentation that disqualifies you from this post. I must add AA's assertion that "it was in your best interests to clear the confusion", both now and at the bogus checkuser show a stunning disregard for the process of checkuser and it's declared intent. Checkuser states quite clearly, warning everyone before posting, that checkuser is NOT for "fishing", and that unfounded requests to "clear confusion" are dismissed. His reply above doesn't really install any confidence in his ability. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   For the record, I never supported the DY71 = PJ suggestion or held any "private suspicions" about it (much less commented publically) as has just been suggested. What I did say was that said this suggestion had been made before (by another unrelated editor), but that I doubted it. In fact, when the RFCU was filed by AA, I promptly expressed my doubts. I did support the request for check user to confirm those doubts, which indeed were confirmed. kind regards --Merbabu 01:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Based on your edit summary usage (as shown above) and editing patterns, there was a possibility of User:Prester John being a sock of User:Ultrabias (aka User:DavidYork71) which is why the RFCU was filed. It was not a fishing exercise. I shall leave it to the community to judge for themselves. → AA ^(talk) — 01:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Had you even bothered to do a cursory background check on my history, it might have come to your attention that I began editing a full 6 months before DY71. That fact might have piqued your curiosity to given that DY was indef blocked, how was it possible that I was able to continue editing? No you decided that someone adhering to wikipedia's manual of style (of which there are many) was indication of a sockpuppet needing a block. It is this abuse of process and lack of basic checking skills which prove you do not have the abilities to hold admin tools for this project. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Is there a possibility that the "bogus" checkuser may be referred to as a "mistaken" checkuser? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Like I said, you have got wonder why an editor with thousands of more edits and many many more months of service would not have been picked up and indentified when DY71 was fully investigated and banned. Even a basic check of our histories would have revealed I was editing long before DY71, not to mention our two totally different editing histories. The fact is that AA ignored this, failed to discuss or interact with me, and went straight to checkuser. Not really assuming good faith there is it? He has already admitted that he was reverting the edits of a banned user. Was he even looking to see if those edits were valid or not? Even when I reverted them back to conform to the Manual of Style, did he notice they were valid then? Why would he just jump to the checkuser page? All sounds very suspect to me. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed, this is just the way an admin should never act. Arrow740 05:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose Per Yahel Guhan and Arrow740's points.--C.Logan 00:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, AA, but some of the above opposes have provided reasonable evidence that you become a little more experienced when interacting with others. I really hate to oppose you just for that because you've made some very important contributions, but I'm afraid I can't give you my full support. *Cremepuff222* 14:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

---

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

Siva1979

Final (25/39/9); Originally scheduled to end 08:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Siva1979 (talk · contribs) - This is my second self-nomination and my fifth overall nomination. I have over 28 000 edits ranging from various namespaces. I would like to have the additional tools of adminship to broaden my scope of edits of this project. I have been editing since January of 2006. However, during the months of March, April and May of 2007, I did not have any contributions to this project as I was in hospital --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would like to have the additional tools of an admin to speedy delete test and attack pages. I would also like to increase my involvement in AfD articles by closing AfD's. Admin powers would also help me to delete redirects with history that block a move, or to merge histories of pages moved by cut and paste. These powers would also help me to fight vandalism with a server-based rollbock, blocking persistent vandals and protecting pages that have undergone frequent vandalism. I would also like to help with WP:AIV. I would also like to help out in protecting pages which are prone to vandalism.

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

A: I am pleased to be able to remove all the red-links of English soccer clubs in the English football league system from step 1 to 6. I have also created links for all the English soccer leagues from step 1 to 7. Although most of the articles I have created are just stubs, I have recently began to add images to these articles. I have also incresed the content for some of these articles. I also wish to give credit to other users who were able to expand some of these articles into having a more encyclopedic content. I also welcome new IP addresses and users and added signatures for comments that lack proper signatures. I have also taken the initiative to start articles on all the football seasons within the English football league and Scottish football league. I also enjoy welcoming old and new unregistered users to encourage them to sign in to Wikipedia as registered users as well.

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: Yes, there was a minor conflict over the usage of British English in the Manchester United article. I respected the consensus of the community in the end. Other than this, I have not been in any conflicts over editing in the recent past. I have always been civil in my conversations with other users.

Optional question by Chaser

4. Why did your previous RFA fail? What has happened since?

A: Firstly. I was relying too much on google to determine notability for the vast majority of my AfD comments. Moreover, I asked someone to nominate me just after returning from a long Wikibreak. However, since then, I was making more original comments (by being the first to make comments on AfD) on AfDs and relying less on google to gauge notability as well as verifiability.

Optional question by Daniel

5. What is your response/rebuttal to the comments made by TigerShark (#14), cholmes75 (#20), Michael Snow (#21), *drew (#27) and NSR77 (#28) in your previous RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Siva1979 4? 10:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A: TigerShark (#14) - Tigershark claims that I am obsessed with becoming an admin which is not entirely true. I left my comments to this comment in my last RfA. Micheal Snow (#21) - He claimed that I could not grasp the nature and extent of previous concerns with making me an administrator. Although I admit that I did not make significant improvements in the nature of my edits since my last RfA to aid me in becoming an admin, I did help to improve the nature of this project by making minor helpful edits to articles especially dealing with soccer. Drew (#27) - Is it morally incorrect to be eager in becoming an admin? I have a sincere desire to improve the quality of this project and the added tools which I would receive once I become an admin would allow me to improve the quality of this project. I love editing in Wikipedia and the added buttons would further allow me to improve the quality of this project. In fact, I have been editing extensively since January 2006. NSR77 (#28) - This user claimed that I was power hungry which I feel that it was a harsh comment. However, I agree with him that the history of my RfAs have been a bit comical to say the least. I wonder how many RfAs I must go through before being given the added tools to be an admin, so that I can give a helping hand to improve the quality of this project further.

6. I see that there are some articles with backlogs. Although there are many admins, there does not seem to be any action to repair them. Will you as an admin, try to:

1. Improve the situation (as in improve the situation among admins)
2. Review all articles with backlogs?

(''Shokwaav'' 11:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

A: Yes, I would most definitely try to improve the situation and review all the articles with backlogs. I personally dislike backlogs and would most definitely help out in this area as well.

Optional question by Ronnotel

7. You are quite active in RfA's although some have characterized your participation style as drive-by. Can you show us a couple of your most substantial RfA comments and describe your thought process that led up to them? Ronnotel 13:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I have to admit that most of my RfA comments are not substantial in nature. Other more wonderful users have most of the time made all the necessary important observations. However, please allow me to descibe my thought process that led to my decisions in these RfAs. I give the benefit of the doubt to most of the RfA nominations because being an admin is no big deal. (Jimbo Wales made that comment). However, if a candidate is clearly not suitable to be given the mop, I would usually oppose the RfA nomination. However, in my early participations on RfAs (that is last year), I gave some unsuitable candidates a Moral support statement, so as not to discourage them. But, I have stopped doing this as well.

Optional question by Dweller

8. I'm intrigued. How on earth did you do those dozens and dozens and dozens of welcome messages on 18th September ([13])? --Dweller 13:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, there were 673 such messages over one 8 1/2 hour stretch, about 1 every 45 seconds. Ronnotel 13:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Well, those IP addresses made at least one edit to the Manchester United article (a team which I support). I guess that by welcoming them, they would in the future be registered users of this project. It was also to influence these IPs to be registered users of this project in the future. It is my belief that once an IP address makes an edit, it would most likely not be his/her last edit to this project. By welcoming and encouraging them as IP users, they would in the future register themselves as proper users of this project. In fact, I am also planning to do this again with other articles as well, meaning IP edits. It is very unlikely that an IP user would make only one edit to this project as well.

Please note that my question was how, not why you welcomed them. Welcoming people is generally laudable, and I'm not too bothered about "inappropriate" welcomings. I want to know how you did 673 welcome messages in about 8.5 hours. --Dweller 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Well, thank you for rephrasing your question. Well, there is usually a red-link in the talk pages of IP users. This means that no one has made a welcome (or a warning message for that matter) to the IP user's talk page. If the edit is not clearly a vandalism act, I would just follow the red link and welcome the user. However, I must admit that I sometimes made a mistake in welcoming vandal edits! I will most certainly be more careful in welcoming legitimate IP users in the future. And finally, I wish to thank you for pointing out that I did 673 welcoming messages in about 8.5 hours. I was not working at that day and I just listened to some music and made those edits. I dislike any type of red-links and my aim was to remove them. Is that a record? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But you're still saying you posted all those welcomes yourself, no bot involved? 8.5 hours, every 45 seconds? Gray62 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly physically possible; even without using AWB or similar, the process is just click-paste-click. (When I manually added 84 thankspams after my RFA it took exactly 1 hour.) Not something I'd want to do for eight hours, though — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is physically possible!. My edits were a proof to that! I wonder if anyone would follow my example and try that in the future? It seems like kind of a therapy for me to do that, welcoming IP users new and old!! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Siva1979's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Siva1979
• Requests for adminship/Siva1979 2
• Requests for adminship/Siva1979 3
• Requests for adminship/Siva1979 4
• Requests for adminship/Siva1979 5

• Links for Siva1979: Siva1979 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Siva1979 before commenting.

Discussion

• A question: Why is copying and pasting your answers from your past RfA a bad thing? His responses to Q1-3 were perfectly acceptable in his last RfA (he was even lauded for his answer to Q1), so I don't see why he would need to change his answers in any way. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Walton^One 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Ral315 » 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I also agree. Thedreamdied 16:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Agreed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I would also like to say, that I am in mind with the previous statements, of agreement. Dfrg.msc 00:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. First Support! I've seen you around, and, I think you'd make a great admin! You seem smart, and, civil, everywhere I've seen you. I can't see a reason to oppose at this time. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
2. It's time already! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)`
3. Strong Support As last time. Cummon guys let's get real. This guy is totally commited to Wikipedia. Let's not slag him of with "wanabee an admin" criticsm yet again. As a recent admin I've realised that what's needed above all else is commitment and energy - which Siva has in spades. The backlogs are growing (just look at the image stuff at C:CSD for a start), and Siva has been here long enough to know what to do, and not to go heavy with a delete button. Sure, hitting welcome templates doesn't require much brain power but frankly neither does 90% of the dross at CSD. In addition we can see the excllent article building and AfD comments, that show this guy is not just here for a medal but believe in Wikipedia. He works damn hard at this project, and I see no reason whatsoever not to trust him to keep up that hard work with a couple of extra buttons. Pedro :  Chat  09:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   There really isn't much effort involved here by copying and pasting answers from their last rfa, what tremendous effort has this user put in here? --Ben^chat 10:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, please take note that my answers to questions 2 and 3 were not entirely just copy and paste. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Pedro, well said. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Support Yeah. Sure. I can't see any reason to oppose. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I sometimes Welcome anons who may just be testing too. (If they persist in making unconstructive edits, then I persist in coaching them.) It's gentler than a warning and can have the same effect-- to let them know the Wikipedia community wants to encourage constructive edits, that it is watching for unconstructive edits, and that there are guidelines they need to follow. Some new editors are so thunderstruck by the Wiki concept that they make dumb, lame, unconstructive or vandalistic edits for the lack of anything useful to write. This is Siva's 6 5th try. Maybe he's just out of fresh ways to request the mop. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Do you welcome anons whose last edit has been a year before the welcome? Kusma (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Lord no, I hope I haven't. I haven't made 28,000 edits yet, but I've made some that I find embarrassing. Hopefully, if I ever seek the mop, they won't sink me. No disrespect, Kusma, but I think you're reaching a bit. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   I am not opposing based on a single edit. My point is that I can find hundreds of poorly thought out edits in just a few minutes, and it is too depressing to list them all. Kusma (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Support Oh come on... Siva's been around a long time (in Wikipedia terms), if he was going to snap and become a problem, years of random conflicts and four stressful RFAs would have brought that out by now. This just seems like someone at minimal risk to misuse the tools. While it's easy to construct a reason why Siva shouldn't pass an RFA, I don't see any more compelling reasons why Siva would actually make a bad admin. --W.marsh 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Support (changed to neutral, see below) I see nothing wrong with welcoming new IP users. Yes, Siva wants the mop, but he seems like he's actually done some productive work to get there. He appears somewhat sane and therefore gets my !vote (providing no one digs up some sort of unforgivable incivility bones in his closet). Ronnotel 12:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Welcoming new IP editors is great. Siva1979 is welcoming old editors, many of whom have not edited for months or have been indefinitely blocked already. I can't imagine any other reason to do this other than further inflating his edit count. Kusma (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Not sure I buy it, even old editors can be revived and turned into good ones. And it's not as if Siva wasn't aware this his history was going to be reviewed at an upcoming RfA. While it may be a bit , er, odd, I see nothing inherently devious in his behavior. Ronnotel 15:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Support - this looks good (apart from the fact this is the 5th request, but hey...) Your time has come my friend. Lradrama 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I do not think so. It looks like yet another failed nomination for me. Well, anyway, thanks for your encouragement. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Support - Because I have seen you around in many RFAs, other discussions in the past and you have demonstrated the crystal clear understanding of wiki policies and consensus building. Admin position to you will be an asset to Wikipedia. Taprobanus 14:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Weak Support. Siva is an experienced Wikipedian (he welcomed me originally, when I joined in February 2006, and I remember him helping me out when I got IP-autoblocked due to editing from school). Yes, like everyone else, he makes mistakes; if you're welcoming hundreds of new users, it's easy to accidentally welcome a few who've been blocked. But his answer to Q1 displays a clear knowledge of policy and understanding of the admin tools, and he has experience in a wide range of areas. I think it's time to trust him with the mop; he may not be perfect, but I don't think he would misuse the admin tools. Walton^One 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Weak Support. I must admit to having a few reservations about this user's suitability as a sysop, but overall I don't see anything bad about this candidate. He's put in a lot of work here and clearly has a dedication to the project, and the majority of his edits demonstrate understanding of policy and guidelines. Any lapses in judgement will be minor and easy to correct, and I believe the net effect of sysopping this candidate will be positive. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Nothing at all to suggest that Siva1979 will be abusive with the tools. Acalamari 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Partial Support While I realise that this user will be able to clearup backlog and generally do good with the tools, the concerns of the opposers do worry me as to whether this user is in fact suitable. Phgao 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong support. Experienced user who does a lot of hard work around the wiki, and who clearly won't abuse the tools. The reasons cited by the opposers are ludicrous. Melsaran (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. A good editor who knows Wikipedia well. Zaxem 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Won't abuse the tools, why the hell not? Ral315 » 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Oh well, how often do I wish to have this absolute confidence about other people that Ral315 displays here! Ral, would you pls lend me your crystal ball? This would make voting here so much easier! Ok, only joking, no insult intended. Gray62 14:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    I understand you're not poking here Gray and that it's a good natured comment, but I've yet to see any evidence from a year and a half and 28,000 edits as to why Siva would abuse the tools. Sure, he's made mistakes. He obviously rushes things when there's no need to. But will he delete the main page, block dozens of editors on a whim or protect pages he's editing warring over? I doubt it. Pedro :  Chat  14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Pedro, admins that have a meltdown and delete the main page or block dozens of editors are not to be feared. They are quickly identified and desysopped fast. The actual damage they do is minimal. But well-intentioned admins that make mistakes and rush things when there's no need to? Now that is the prototypical nightmare admin. I know you meant that comment in support of Siva but you're not really helping his cause. Pascal.Tesson 14:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Pascal, let's not play semantics on the word "abuse" via Siva's RfA. My further comments in "support" or "defence" are hardly relevant anyway, as this RfA is going to fail. Pedro :  Chat  15:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think I'm playing semantics, I just don't understand why you'd be inclined to support someone who "obviously rushes things when there's no need to". This is the core of the opposes below: rushing to welcome users without actually checking if it makes sense, rushing to add a Google test to an AfD or rushing to support an RfA without taking the time to dig any deeper. Pascal.Tesson 16:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    We'll have to agree to disagree on Siva's fitness for a couple of buttons my friend. I keenly understand the concerns by opposers, and I hope Siva will work towards rectifying them for a future RFA. However I must also give weight to Siva's undoubted and relentless dedication to this work when making my contribution to the discussion. I just hope he will, yet again, be resillient when this RfA fails (as it seems sure to) and continue to help. Best. Pedro :  Chat  07:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, I will yet again be resillient when this RfA fails. I love to help out in making this project better. I also wish to state that I enjoy welcoming old as well as new IP and registered users to this project. But I admit that I have made some mistakes in welcoming some questionable users. I assure the community that this will never happen again. But I will continue to welcome old IP and registered users who have made some good contributions to this project in the future as well. I just personally hate to see those red-links in their talkpages when they have made some good contributions. Will these future edits be seen as a mistake by the community? Especially if those edits are more than a year old? I hope someone can give his/her opinion on this matter. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

16. This RfA is not going to succeed regardless of my input, so I'll give a heartfelt moral support. The comments here address a number of relatively small issues that can definitely be resolved. Heed the advice provided on this page and you will become an even more productive editor, regardless of the user rights of your account. — aldebaer⁠ 02:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    I second that - don't read the opposes as "we don't want you", but as "sort these problems out and we'll want you". — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

17. Support - No reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Tarragon-Support The dedication shown by this user, far outweighs ans minor flaws. Best of luck, Dfrg.msc 21:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support wants to help and would be an asset in plowing through backlogs (which can be as much of an exercise in banality as welcoming IP's for 8 hours). And he's a nice guy. We need more Siva's as admins. -- Samir 04:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Strongest possible support.  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Has done nothing in the interim to make me change my previous support. LessHeard vanU 22:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Good user. May have made some mistakes, especially during that welcoming spree, but is an excellent contributor. Please keep good faith on him. Also, nothing wrong in copy-pasting answers from previous RfAs. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Tim Q. Wells 05:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Do you have a reason for your support? Ανέκδοτο 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

24. Weak Support. This user definitely seems devoted to the project and has a prodigious number of edits, including almost 7,00 in the mainspace. I see reasons to be concerned, but that he has welcomed vandals in the past does not mean he will abuse the admin tools. Overall, I think the benefits of promoting him outweigh the costs. However, he should definitely heed the issues raised by the oppose voters and try to avoid rushing to do things in the future.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support, as per Dwaipayan. Very dedicated user. --Carioca 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, virtually no change since the last RfA, no evidence that Siva even understood why it failed. For instance, he apparently copy-pasted the answers from last time without even correcting the typos ("rollbock"). Sorry, but Siva1979 does not seem to have the judgment skills an admin should have. Kusma (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Changing to strong oppose as Siva seems to think it is useful to welcome IPs and thank them for their one-year old vandalism. (Similar behaviour was brought up by Tigershark in the last RfA, but Siva's edit is just two weeks old). Kusma (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I have to agree with Kusma here. I admit that I have made a mistake in welcoming this particular IP address. In fact, there are also some similar mistakes as well. Well, we all learn from mistakes and it would be very unlikely that I would make this mistake again in the future. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose take heed that this user has in fact copied answers from their last rfa, and doesn't seem to have improved or taken heed to issues raised in this short time either. I mean seriously 5 times applying? I'm not saying that wanting to be an admin is a bad thing, but you think Siva1979 would have figured out improvements they need to make. Sorry - I just don't think you're ready for the mop at this time. --Ben^chat 10:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose Per this. Spent days on end welcoming IPs... * Aillema 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, is there anything wrong in welcoming IP users? (old as well as new) I feel that most IP users would not make only a single edit and they would come back in making edits in the near as well as far future. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Question: How does this affect Siva's ability to be an administrator? Melsaran (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Answer: It doesn't. What it shows is that Siva doesn't demonstrate how he'd be better off with admin tools. Welcoming editors is one thing; page tagging, vandal reporting, AFD discussion are quite different, and Siva does not demonstrate he has this experience. 28,000 edits - I wonder how many of them are rather useless IP spam welcomes? * Aillema 20:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   That's bullshit and you know it, Aillema. How are they useless welcomes - we need those editors! If you hate IP welcomming so much, go TfD the templates, don't take it out on those who appreciate where most of our contributions come from.  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   They are useless because the IPs were welcomed weeks, months, years, after the last edit--weeks, months, years, after the person who used Wikipedia had that IP. If we want to put a welcome message for every anonymous user regardless of whether they have edited Wikipedia, we would do it in the Sitenotice, but we do not because it would be obnoxious, which this RfA is. —Centrx→talk • 02:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose, per Aillema and Kusma, looking through those welcome messages the majority were not recent editors, and I saw numerous from 2005. To give a welcome message to User:Mattdonsisgay1 (blocked 15 months previously) instead of taking it to WP:UAA, shows a distinct lack of judgement, in my opinion, especially for someone with intentions of becoming an admin. Even though you do alot of good work for the project, I certainly would not be comfortable with you using the buttons at this time. Sorry ^Khukri 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Kusma and Khukri. I am also puzzled by your answer to question 4: you say you have learned to rely on more than Google searches for participating in AfD. Yet I go and check and just over the last two days you made these comments to AfD [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. I don't doubt your good intentions but I'm not comfortable supporting. Pascal.Tesson 15:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, please allow me to rephrase my answer. I do not rely 100% on google to gauge whether an article should or should not be kept. I also explore other concerns as well such as verifiability and notability. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   As far as I understand, your test for notability and verifiability is the Google search. So I'm not sure that's much of an improvement. Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   To be fair, I would say that Google searches can, at times, be a useful tool in AfDs; while a search certainly doesn't prove or disprove notability, it can (particularly for media-related or current affairs topics) provide verification of a topic's existence, and may produce some sources which can be used to save a poorly-written article. Obviously, though, a Google search should never be used as the sole determinant of notability, nor does a lack of ghits necessarily indicate non-notability (especially for obscure historical, scientific, or non-Western cultural topics), so I would never encourage excessive reliance on Google in place of reason, logic or research. If this RfA passes, I urge Siva not to evaluate the arguments on a superficial level when closing AfDs. Walton^One 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I am aware of this. I myself do not excessively rely on Google hits alone in place of reason, logic or research. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Walton, I know that Google can be useful but look at those diffs! This is precisely the kind of superficial Google test that Siva was criticized for in previous RfAs. Pascal.Tesson 12:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Placeholder oppose pending answers to non compulsory questions. Will replace this comment and possibly amend !vote on basis of what if anything is said in answers. While you can of course choose to ignore them, I currently have no trust in you as an admin and while you'll be hard-pressed to convince me, I am flexible enough to read any answers with an open mind. --Dweller 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose even though I supported last time. The candidate's contributions have always been minor edits, and that seems unlikely to change. I checked the recent log: fixing talk page Wikiproject templates, voting on AFDs and RFAs, fixing soccer-related wikilinks, and so forth. This is all valuable work, and I hope he continues to do it, but it's not the kind of approach I'd like to see in an admin. The problem is that being an admin requires a person to think on their feet and not just to act automatically. This is why we don't allow bots to be admins (with one or two known exceptions), and one user has been desysopped for running an unauthorized bot on an admin account. Welcoming 600 IPs is a bot-like task, even if he didn't use a bot to do it. What would happen if the candidate became an admin? Probably he would start attacking the speedy deletion candidates, knocking off broken redirects and undocumented images by the hundreds. But would these all be correct decisions? In every large batch of deletion candidates, there are always a couple of outliers that don't belong there and can be salvaged, and a good admin can see these outliers and fix the problem instead of blindly deleting everything. I don't see that judiciousness from the editing pattern of Siva1979. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose This user's certainly been around long enough to have picked up policy by osmosis, but I can't really see any evidence of it. Shalom puts it perfectly; this is a user who's main admin area is likely to be deletion, but doesn't demonstrate any ability to tell an unsaveable article from one that just needs cleanup. Aside from cut-and-paste templating of talk pages I can see only two talk edits since January and, while the user talk edits are hard to pick out of the flood of cut-and-paste welcome messages, I can only see around six user talk posts in the same period. Despite your claims in the answers to the questions, you seem just as willing as ever to confuse google hits with notability and equate "sources aren't online" with "sources don't exist" ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25] for example in the last three days alone), and I don't think it's appropriate giving someone with this attitude deletion powers. You also either don't understand the username policy at all, or don't pay attention to what you're editing - neither of which is a good thing - if you really didn't see any problem with posting welcome messages to User:Vaginal discharge (total contribution history:[26], [27], [28]) and User:Mattdonsisgay1 (sole contribution; to move Cristiano Ronaldo to Cristiano 'The Gay Wanker' Ronaldo) — both on 18 September, so not in the dim-and-distant past). — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Change to Strong oppose. You specifically say you want admin powers to be able to speedy-delete pages and close AfDs - however, having looked at your deleted edits you have only (successfully) nominated one article for speedy deletion and four articles for AfD in the last 12 months. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose per Iridescent; when someone wants to do CSD's I look for deleted edits as evidence of familiarity with the process and criteria, and found little. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose Thank you, Iridescent, I've had much fun reading your comment. Beit Or 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
10. I'm sorry, but welcoming such an obviously bad-faith user like User:Vaginal discharge is a deal-breaker to me. They should have been reported to UAA the moment the name was seen, or to AIV the moment the edits were seen. Given a general "welcome to Wikipedia" message suggests you're not paying attention to what you're doing, which is not a quality an admin should have. We don't need human/bot hybrids. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Well you are right! What was I thinking!?! I offer no excuse here for my total lack of judgement. It could be due to way too much editing. Moreover, referring to me as a human/bot hybrid is very comical to say the least!! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

11. Does not have any Wikipedia Project space other than all of these RFA's. Evethough this user has been a member for than 1.5 years, they still need a lot more to learn. The fact that you have not been succesful with all of those other RFAs worries me. You need a lot more experience, good luck next time! --bobsmith319 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Other than RfAs? Well, I also made quite a lot of edits to AfD pages as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    According to Siva1979's archived edit count, he's got 117 edits on the past four RfAs, out of 3,397 edits in the project namespace (that's 3,280 edits to Wikipedia namespace pages that aren't his RfAs). To say he hasn't done anything there except work on his own RfAs is ridiculous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose - This is an easy decision for me, but one which troubles me. In your last RFA, I based my oppose on the Google test issue, and that remains a strong foundation for my opposition now. Plenty of difs have been provided above to this point (Pascal in particular). What troubles me is opposing you when you are clearly a dedicated, motivated editor, who has been here long enough to know how things work. In this case, I'm breaking "trust" into two parts; trust in technical matters, and trust in judgment. You have my trust in technical matters, but you still have not convinced me to trust your judgment. Your response to Question 8 above could actually represent this lack of judgment. The question is clearly asking you how you could physically spend nearly 9 hours making almost 700 manual edits. The hidden question is how could you make a rational decision on each of those edits. Your responses then fail to take the question very seriously, and in fact appear to brag about your ability to edit at a speed so rapid that it eliminates any possibility for well reasoned thought. If this RfA fails, I really want to see from you a greater application of rational thought. You knew from the last RfA what you were doing that prevented many respected editors from supporting you. This time around, your best chance of success would have been not to enter this RfA with hundreds of edits that suggest you have not grown since the last time through. I think there are many people who would like to see someone as dedicated as you (and I count myself amongst the many) pass through an RfA with flying colors. To that end, I am encouraging you to simply slow down you editing, and demonstrate a more thoughtful process. Hiberniantears 23:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose, this user doesn't use enough discretion in normal editing for me to trust their judgemental ability if they were to become an administrator, and the comment "I wonder how many RfAs I must go through before being given the added tools to be an admin" didn't impress me at all. Daniel 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
14. I'm sorry Siva but you don't seem to be learning anything from your failed nominations. I'm quite concerned with whether you will be careful enough around AFDs and speedy deletions. Many of the concerns above -- but also at your previous 4 RFAs -- have been about the need for more care, and yet this problem continues. --JayHenry 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose I'm sorry, but I honestly see no improvement from the last Rfa. Jmlk17 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose. After reading the reasoning of the opposers and the answers to the questions, I believe that there is a substantial chance of misuse (not abuse) of admin tools. There are just too many examples of acting without thinking things through. Chaz ^Beckett 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Neutral leaning oppose. The issues brought up by the opposers concern me, though I'm withholding opposition until additional questions are answered. RfA comments such as this, this and this are verging on votes and aren't very helpful to candidates. Combined with the tendency to welcome users whose contributions are mostly vandalism, I'm wondering how much effort is put into each edit. I'd prefer to see quality over quantity. Chaz ^Beckett 11:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Could you please explain how you see those three examples verging on votes and why they aren't helpful? To me they look like modification of the tally counter, followed by support/oppose, with what seems to me, acceptable commentary. ^Khukri 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    They're verging on votes because the "commentary" is so minimal. A comment like "Glad to give my support to a very experience user" is about as generic as it gets and isn't helpful in a controversial RfA like Kelly Martin's. Same with "User needs to have more experience. Try again after a few months and you may have my support." and "I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after a few months". These comments don't demonstrate much thought or effort, in my opinion. Chaz ^Beckett 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    FWIW, I agree with you that his comment on Kelly Martin's RfA - "glad to give my support to a very experienced user" - looks somewhat trite and superficial in the light of later developments. However, bear in mind that he participated in that RfA during its first stages, as did several other editors; many of them later changed their minds when I and a few others presented them with the evidence of Ms. Martin's aggressive and unpleasant behaviour (most of which was detailed in her fourth user conduct RfC, later deleted). There was no way Siva could have known the background to the situation. Further, there were several experienced admins who supported that RfA; while this makes me doubt their judgment, I don't think they all need to be desysopped. So I don't think this is a compelling reason to deny Siva the tools. Walton^One 15:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    That demonstrates what I'm concerned about, that it appears that little thought or effort is being put into edits. A slight bit of research would have immediately revealed a great about Kelly's background and the controversy surrounding her. Perhaps Siva would still have supported her RfA, but at least then he would have been making an informed choice. I want admins who assess each situation fully before making decisions. I'm just not confident that Siva will do this. Chaz ^Beckett 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Can I suggest we hold judgment on this issue until we see an answer to Q.7 above? Ronnotel 15:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Well, I did mention I was remaining neutral until questions are answered However, I would like to see evidence that such minimal comments are the exception, rather than the rule. Chaz ^Beckett 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose per above users' reasoning, and as demonstrated by your replies to some of the comments left here, the fact that you can't determine the difference between the quality of edits, and the quantity of edits. ~ Sebi _[talk] 01:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Sorry, but I cannot support you due to issues raised by above users, especially Aillema, Kusma, Khukri, and iridescent. You still show a lack of comprehension about WP:PG. Try to work more on WP:AFD, that is a good place to gain experience. Good luck. Carlosguitar 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Major judgment issues. Mattdonsisgay1 and Vaginal Discharge? Wow... -- Y not? 04:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose. This "power-hungry" user devotes most of his edits on welcoming inactive anon IPs and making useless edits on updating his signatures. Furthermore, as mentioned by Kusma, this user did not even correct the "rollbock" typo from his copy-pasted RFA answers. Keb25 05:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    "Power-hungry" is rather harsh, and verges on a personal attack. Nor are inadvertent typos a particularly good reason to oppose IMO. I can understand some of the other reasons for opposing Siva, but not these. Walton^One 07:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    As regards the typos, it's worth pointing out that Siva's from Singapore and (I assume) English isn't his first language - I'm sure any of us would make more mistakes in Malay than Siva makes in English. — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    (I presume you meant Tamil?) Orderinchaos 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

21. Oppose. I'm sorry, Siva, I appreciate your enthuasiasm to help out, but I don't think the problems I perceived at the last RfA in judgement regarding AfD have yet improved sufficiently for me to be comfortable supporting your promotion. Espresso Addict 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose, sry. I like the enthusiasm of the candidate, and the civility in discussons. However, I'm deeply disturbed by this statement: "I give the benefit of the doubt to most of the RfA nominations because being an admin is no big deal." Sry, but the power that comes with admin tools is a big deal, imho. This requires trust, that has to be earned, this isn't something to take on the light side. The points made by other users here, as well as the candidate's own statments, supports the view that Siva isn't taking the matter serious enough. If there would be other rules here, say, a "sunset clause" thazt required another vote after a probation time of six months, I would perhaps support this nomination. But not under these circumstances. Gray62 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Thinking more about this, "being an admin is no big deal. (Jimbo Wales made that comment)", my doubts about Siva's good judgment are even growing. Look that quote up, what Jimbo said in this context is that admins shouldn't regard themselves as special or even more important than other editors. Jimbo didn't say the community shouldn't take the AfA vote for serious, nor did he say that being a good admin is easy! Siva, do you really think Jimbo meant it the way you stated it here? Gray62 14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

23. Oppose Per Kusma and Aillemma. I think that IP welcomes are just to rack up edits. Judging from his last 5000 edits, he just seems to be doing minor edits like welcomes, adding templates or wikification.--WriterListener 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Fair enough, but welcomes, adding templates or wikification are some of them most important roles around. Dfrg.msc 21:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

24. Strong Oppose per all the above concerns. Changed to strong: per User:Rackabello's oppose. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 22:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose This is your fifth nomination, and your second self nomination. I think that shows that the community has big concerns about you becomming an admin. Yahel Guhan 01:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, but the community aside, what do you think, and why? ^Khukri 06:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    I voted oppose. I think anyone who applies for adminship this many times this close together is a disrupting wikipedia. I certianly wouldn't trust a user who did this. The last RFA was just 3 months ago! Wait a year, and maybe I'll reconsider. This seems a little power hungry. Probably once he is an admin his editing pattens will change. Besides, it seems the other oppose votes make good points. Yahel Guhan 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

26. Oppose I have doubt in this user's judgement (vaginal discharge?). Two self nominations in as many months after three failed noms also makes me concerned about power hunger. east.718 at 02:47, October 4, 2007
27. Strong Oppose Completely unqualified to be a sysop as far as I can tell. Answers to questions, as well as four previously failed RfAs show immaturity and a serious lack of judgement. I think a one year ArbCom ban from applying to be a sysop might be in order, to give Siva the chance he needs to mature and improve his Wiki-attitude. Rackabello 18:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    ArbCom? Don't you think that's extremely excessive? Acalamari 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    No, but I think five failed RfA nominations in such a short time is, and I feel it requires further attention. Rackabello 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    I fail to see why ArbCom would need to get involved. There's no formal rule stating how frequently an editor may apply to RfA, and as long as a candidate has addressed the concerns of their previous attempts, why should we hold a grudge against them? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

28. Oppose Answer to question number six shows that he's no willing to spend much time on backlogs at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose Per above reasoning. --Folic Acid 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Oppose I don't feel that this person necessarily has the judgement to be a good admin. Being an admin involves making good calls in difficult situations. The Google hits reliance at AfDs is of concern to me. Additionally, a rather odd flurry of activity in late July just days after the last RfA, after a proposal still in development at Template:Football (some of the changes were not even 2 days old) was pushed heavily on a selection of random WikiProject templates (Australia, Japan, Africa) on the basis that all WikiProject banners should look the same. While everyone is entitled to an opinion and I can see some merit in the suggestion, the only non-protected template of the three, Africa, was changed by Siva despite a lack of consensus and had to be reverted (it should be observed that if the 4th RfA had have passed, all three templates would have been open for the candidate to edit), and of particular concern was the attempt to solicit unrelated editors into the discussions on the various WP talk pages. [29] [30] Both diffs were almost straight after the creation of the suggestions on the respective pages, and it should be noted neither editor entered the discussions. The end result was a discussion at Village Pump archiving diff where a consensus otherwise was resolved. Siva did respect the consensus once established, but the conduct throughout the whole incident, while showing perfect good faith, unfortunately demonstrated a lack of judgement in my view. I would suggest the candidate wait six months and then try again, as I believe that people can make mistakes and errors and learn from them. Orderinchaos 14:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose I dont normally like to participate in these things, but... why do you need to be an admin to do thousands of welcome messages? Or have discussions about templates? Sure, everyone would like to be an admin, but unless there's a decent reason... Thedreamdied 16:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    To be fair, I think most admins don't start getting really involved in admin-only areas until they become admins. I know I certainly didn't spend much time editing high-risk pages, or tagging pages for deletion, or anything like that; that didn't happen until after I got the mop. Just because they don't spend all day reporting people to AIV doesn't mean they'll be any less diligent about disposing of those reported. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

32. OpposeI don't normally like to participate in these things either, but I recall a user (Raina?) once joking that this candidate is everywhere, all the time, and should be put on list so that she could be reminded he is not an admin. (or something to that effect). I fully agree with the views expressed by the "opposers" above and feel that this candidate lacks the maturity to be a good admin.Ivygohnair 11:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose per Orderinchaos' reasoning. The candidate also still relies on google hits in most Afd debates that he participated. *drew 12:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Oppose Has not improved since last RfA, lack of judgement as shown by Orderinchaos. T Rex | talk 17:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Oppose, for the perennial reasons. —freak(talk) 19:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Strong oppose; I've looked through the candidate's contribution and I am worried. I see a lot of busywork that looks like it is meant to just blindly increase edit count and "visibility". Even if we presume that every one of those edits was made in good faith no no aim to look good for yet another RfA, the candidate is obviously going for quantity over quality— which would be disastrous with a mop. I would not support unless he gets several months of more deliberate editing under his belt. — Coren ^(talk) 22:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. I think the candidate blindly tries to increase his edit count. Keb25 01:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    That is pretty much what I was talking about in my earlier comment about a bot/human hybrid (though the mental picture of that is rather amusing...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

37. Strong oppose I have taken a brief look through contribs and even that (mainly concerning issues raised above) is enough to make me believe you are not ready for the mop. --Pumpmeup 22:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Oppose - After looking through the above reasons for oppose and the new answers for Siva's questions (especially #7), I'm changing to oppose. I don't feel this user is ready for the mop, not even after the fifth time. Regards, Ανέκδοτο 00:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Strong Oppose For the same reasons that I gave in his previous nomination, none of which have changed. In fact the user failed to even acknowledge the majority of my detailed reasoning in his answer to question 5. The user is still racking up quick edits in the apparent hope that it will secure him adminship. I hope that the clear message regarding the need for quality over quantity will have some effect, however I fear that he will be back here in a few months, with a few thousand more minor edits under his belt and with these fundamental issues still unaddressed. The candidate is entitled to keep applying, but almost seems determined to not address the issues that have been raised, and this is wasting community time. Siva, please understand that you will almost certainly never gain the required community trust to be given the admin tools, not even with a million edits, unless you address the very valid concerns raised above. TigerShark 19:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I can't really decide. Your number of edits are phenomenal, but you seem to be quite new compared to other admins. And reading some of the oppose comments, I neither support or oppose. (''Shokwaav'' 11:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
2. Was originally Support, but answer to Q.7 makes me a little uneasy. RfA's deserve attention from each participant. I won't oppose because of the decidedly strong contributions. But I detect a lack of good judgment in some of Siva's actions. Sorry. Ronnotel 16:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral - The concerns raised by Kusma and Aillema are kind of concerning. Sure, it's nice to welcome IPs and new users, but the number of welcomes you have done is staggering. I'm not sure if you should be spending all that time welcoming new users and IPs. Then again, you do have more than 7000 mainspace edits as per this, so I'm not worried about having too little edits outside of talk pages. Also, may I ask a question here instead of in the dedicated section for sake of speed? Why, after five RFAs, do you feel that the time is ripe for another go? Regards, Ανέκδοτο 01:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose Ανέκδοτο 00:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral to avoid pile-on, largely per HibernianTears (oppose 13). Also, I would expect more effort at winning trust with a more thorough self-nomination for a fifth RFA. It correlates with HibernianTears' observations about not addressing editing problems from previous RFAs.--chaser - t 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral changed from oppose. I cannot support your nomination as you're a weak candidate on so many grounds, particularly judgement and deletion processes. However, you remain steadfastly good-humoured and are an absolute work-horse. I wish that you could find a slightly more worthy outlet for your energy that welcoming dud IPs, but I'd not oppose you for your clearly laudable intentions. The fact that all those edits weren't automated (which I suspected, but I'm happy to trust your answer) is astonishing. All in all, I wish you well, but cannot in good faith support you for the mop. I'll drop you a line at your talk page if this RfA fails, with some advice. --Dweller 09:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral, which I've tried to post twice, but I've been blocked by edit conflicts. Typos are not a huge deal, if you attempt to fix them. Spending a whole day welcoming SPA's is a tad much. I understand and agree with many of the comments on both sides. Better luck next time! Bearian 16:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral I do think you're a well-meaning, civil and hardworking contributor. But two of the issues raised by iridescent give me pause: (1) Missing some obviously inappropriate names. I can kind of understand this though, since I'd presume that doing welcome messages for 8 hours would make most people trance-y. (2) The dealbreaker is the lack of evidence for understanding of deletion policy. (Although since I'm not an admin, I'm relying on iridescent's honesty here). Low contribs in this area makes me slightly nervous. Best though, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, you are right!! I was in some kind of a mysterious trance which is hard to explain! Will I ever do that again in the future? It depends, but I must admit that I actually enjoyed welcoming those users for a period of 8 hours!!! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Neutral - I was tempted to support and then tempted to oppose. I finally succumbed to the convienience of the Neutral section, which is just as well. I've seen this user around everywhere and he generally tends not to make a complete fool of himself. Although the edits links provided above by various users are concerning, I don't think Siva would abuse the tools and I think all the problems pointed out above were in good faith and simply bad mistakes. I think we can all agree that Siva is an asset to the community, but for now, I think you need to work on your admin skills a bit more before you're granted the tools. Cheers, Spawn Man 10:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, that is true Spawn Man. The problems pointed above were just some terrible bad mistakes (what was I thinking welcoming Vaginal Discharge?!). However, I will in the future strive to improve on the quality of my edits. And I will assure the community that I will not repeat these mistakes again. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   I feel 6 months would be sufficiant time after this RfA, if you don't make any mistakes like this again that is. My philosophy is that if you're in doubt, don't comment on it; all it's going to do is piss someone off who's on the side you're not on. Unless you have an absolute must tell opinion, it's better to save yourself the trouble and stick to the ones you know 100%. But of course, be bold. :) Cheers Siva. Spawn Man 04:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Neutral After reading through this entire RfA, I'll have to say neutral. Has he done positive things? Of course. Do some of his actions make me doubt his judgment-making abilities? Possibly. I know this is generic, but I truly think that, after this RfA, Siva, you should give it about 6 months. Work very hard to make educated judgments, make strong contributions in the mainspace, try to participate throughout the namespace with comments that are backed up by policy, and make user/article talk page edits in an attempt to collaborate/better articles here. I think that you do have a great deal of potential. You simply need to back away from RfA's a bit, and focus on becoming a trusted member of the community. I am positive that, in time, you can become an admin if you put the work into it. The issues that have been presented are easily corrected. Cheers, нмŵוτнτ 16:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral. What a puzzling user. His actions could be laudable, or they might simply reflect poor judgment. More substantive activity is necessary for me to make up my mind. Cool Hand Luke 07:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

---

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

Aarktica

Final (44/1/1); Originally scheduled to end 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Aarktica (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate Aarktica (talk · contribs) for adminship. Aarktica is a dedicated, helpful, civil editor with over six months of experience and 4000 edits. You'll find that this editor has broad contributions that display a knowledge of policy (AIV, XfD, etc.) and a willingness to collaborate. Aarktica has been especially proficient with work at the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests desk, assisting new editors in a wide array of activities. I am confident that Aarktica—a cooperative editor always looking to improve Wikipedia, and ever-willing to accept constructive criticism—can be trusted and will not abuse the tools. — Scientizzle 22:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Aarktica 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I have experience participating in various XfDs and tagging articles for speedy deletion, so I intend to work with on AFD, CFD, RFD and CSD. I've also done a fair amount of vandal fighting, so I think I could be useful at AIV. I'm interested in learning the ropes at IfD, and would like to help out with copyright violations at WP:CP. Seeing that many of these areas are prone to backlogs, having the additional access will make it possible to participate more effectively there.

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

A: As the ninth editor to sign up for WP:EA (shortly after it was created), I have participated extensively over at WP:EAR, often following up to confirm resolution of requests for assistance. I have created a few articles (Mae West hold, Namdroling Monastery, World Eskimo Indian Olympics) but have also spent a fair amount of time copyediting the work of others (101 Battalion). As part of WP:WWF, I have helped improve articles upon request (Haleigh Poutre, List of Japanese Army Military Engineer Vehicles (WW2)).

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 don't know if it qualifies as a "conflict," but I was threatened with a block for my efforts to volunteer with WP:UAA. I simply found other places to participate. I don't know that I would have done anything differently, either.

4. Question by Miranda. I have noticed that you have created articles upon request, but what is your interpretation of BLP?

A: Given the ethical and legal responsibilities, all such articles must be treated with care, adhere to standards of verifiability and reliable sources. As an admin, I will be sure to delete any article which qualifies as an attack page or happens to run afoul of OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarktica (talk • contribs) 10:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question by Nick

5. Given your history of making inaccurate username reports, do you feel that you can now be trusted to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable usernames, and deal with unacceptable usernames that have been chosen in good faith in such a way that you don't alienate potentially good editors ?

A: My brief foray to WP:UAA (over the course of a week, about three months ago) involved the submission of 45 names in total. Of those submissions, about a third were reverted -- these include submissions that I _voluntarily_ retracted after conversing with other editors. This shows (I hope) that I can admit when I err and dutifully attempt to rectify mistakes.

As I see it, participating at UAA is more of an art than a science. There was at least one instance where other participants reverted each other over a submission that I made. I did my best to follow the Wikipedia:Username policy with each name I submitted, providing rationales derived from policy, but now realize that some were perhaps not sufficiently blatantly inappropriate and may have been more appropriate for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Usernames. I have since better familiarized myself with the relevant policy, but may not, as an admin, participate much in that realm. If I do, rest assured that I will avoid alienating potentially good editors by exercising judicious restraint in doling out username blocks as prescribed by policy; I will also work to avoid alienating already good editors that make good-faith mistakes in UAA submissions by offering assistance and advice, rather than brusque block warnings. --Aarktica 04:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Question by User:Rspeer

6. I want to know more about your approach to the username policy. Can you give examples of cases where you would (a) ask the user to change their name, (b) report the user to UAA or indefinitely softblock them, and (c) hardblock the user, preventing them from creating another account? As many users have many different interpretations of the word "blatant", what criteria would you use in deciding whether to block?

First, let me re-iterate that I intend to be of service to the community elsewhere -- away from UAA. Administrative activities will most likely be conducted at the areas mentioned in the first question. That said, here are responses to the questions you asked:

a) An example of an instance where I would ask the user to consider a change is user:pradeepshitole. While some might [understandably] find it vile, its meaning open to interpretation, and depends on parsing. As such, it would be proper to assume good faith here.

b) An example of a UAA-worthy report would be Mesohornyfordick, a nomination of mine.

c) Hard blocks are extremely heavy-handed in my opinion. However, according to the wikipedia:username policy, such blocks are permissible for cases of "bad faith", such as attack usernames (see Rspeer drinks the haterade.)

As for blocking criteria related to the subject matter, I refer to the wikipedia:username policy: Blocks may be used for inappropriate handles (i.e. Confusing, Misleading, Disruptive, Promotional, or Offensive.) Therefore, I think that a block may be appropriate where a handle's meaning is devoid of any plausible, good-faith, alternative interpretation. Finally (and perhaps most importantly,) when in doubt, refrain from blocking. Instead, reach out to the account holder in question, and make an effort to congenially enlighten said holder of relevant policy. --Aarktica 00:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

_{(For the record, I had to work at a remote location today. The question was posed yesterday, and while I had prepared a response, I was without the means of posting a reply. --Aarktica 01:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC))}

General comments

• See Aarktica's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Aarktica
• Requests for adminship/Aarktica 2

• Links for Aarktica: Aarktica (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Aarktica before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator. — Scientizzle 03:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. My experience of this editor has always been very positive. He seems to have a good knowledge of policy and spread of experience. Should make a good admin. WjBscribe 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Good candidate. Daniel 03:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Daniel-supported :p --D_arkF_alls ^talk 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Comments at Wikipedia:Editor assistance demonstrate good willingness to help users and an awareness of policy. A review of deleted edits shows good tagging of speedy-deletable material. The conflict at WP:UAA could have been handled better if someone had patiently explained the username policy, rather than threatening a block, which was excessively heavy-handed. I think this user would make a fine admin. Aarktica would no doubt be near the top of the list (well, this list of admins sorted alphabetically.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   See the discussion that ensued after this incident. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Confident that Aarktica will do well with administrative abilities. ~ Sebi _[talk] 04:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. This editor is experienced, aware of policy, and I believe he'll do well with the extra tools. No reason not to trust. Useight 06:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support With full confidence. Excellent and diverse editing, and your deleted edits show good knowledge of policy. I was also disapointed by the reaction at UAA by Nick, but respect that you just left it alone - which shows a good temprament, and a willingness to "rise above it" - vital for an admin. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  08:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Glad to give my support. This user will definitely make an excellent admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support per nom. nat^tang 10:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I believe you have bettered your editing since your last Rfa, and my gut feeling says "support", so here it is! Jmlk17 11:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
12. support per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - far from the best RfA I've seen, but still worthy of a support I think. Lradrama 13:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support with a good number and high quality of edits, willing to withdraw from an RfA before, and no problems. Bearian 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Per all of the above, this user is trustable with the tools. Phgao 17:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong Support. I work with this editor at WP:EAR (without Aarktica, would anything get archived? :)). User remains cool, helpful, and never bites newbies. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Particularly impressed with the way you handle abusive comments and question in stride ;) Ronnotel 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support although forgetting to sign an answer to a question is silly, good luck and I hope you get the mop, you deserve it :) --Ben^chat 05:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support- Miranda 10:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support A good editor. You'll do well as an admin. ;) -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. That an editor I like to support becoming admin! Honest answers to the nomination questions, not holding back anything. No reasons for any concerns about him in his diffs, as far as I can see, but lots of examples of helpful responses and support. Keep up the great work, Aantarktica! Gray62 13:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support- Hard-working contributor wanting to make Wikipedia live forever. And about the critics- when reporting massive amounts of usernames, sometimes there is mistakes - I'm sure he learnt from that, too. I didn't find the misses I found to be disqualifyingly silly. Greswik 22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Understands the policies. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Plenty of xfd experience, definetly nows what they are doing. Without a doubt, I support this user. --bobsmith319 00:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support east.718 at 02:49, October 4, 2007
27. Support: Answer to my optional question has reassured me and there was literally nothing else that concerned me with Aarktica. Good luck. Nick 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support: Your answers on your failed RfA helped convince me you have a more holistic view on 'pedia building than this RfA suggests. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Weak Support per answer to nick's question. --WriterListener 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - Most admins don't participate much in WP:UAA. As the user denies herself any right to be active there, I see no reason why her bad reports there should be a problem. Od Mishehu 21:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support your answers are OK to me, you have my trust. Good Luck. Carlosguitar 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - Definitely looks like an excellent candidate! Folic^Acid 03:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Everything seems fine. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support The WP:UAA thing bothers me a bit, but not enough to oppose. The pros definitely weigh out the cons. Good luck! нмŵוτнτ 16:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Any mistakes should be forgiven if the editor listens to advice, and makes the necessary adjustments. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Will make a great admin. STORMTRACKER 94 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    Support Good candidate. AS 001 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Note: User registered today and has very few edits. Miranda 22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:AS 001 is a sock puppet of the blocked User:Bill Ayer. Corvus cornix 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

37. Support Should be able to handle the tools well, although my only concern was the a bit-low mainspace contributions.--JForget 00:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
38. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support although I'm sure I speak for a few of us here as I say you might want to hold off on acting on UAAs and the like until you get a bit more acquainted with the guidelines there --Pumpmeup 22:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support; Low mainspace contributions do not worry me— I'm mostly a metapedian myself and I can understand why someone would feel more confortable doing the behind-the-scenes work. Given that the janitorial work you've done is good, the mop seems very adequate at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 04:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support John254 21:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. This editor gets extra credit for a posting at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests which appears to be a grand tour of most of the Wikipedia policies. Evidently his policy knowledge is good. I went through his work at Editor assistance back to mid-August and I liked all his responses. EdJohnston 00:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Not every admin is an expert everywhere... I've never done any SSP work and I don't intend to do it for a rather long time. Aarktica seems to me like a mature and responsible user and able to help the project with some extra buttons. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Support, as per nominator. Good editor. --Carioca 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose 15 out of 45 UAA reversions is unacceptable as a potential sysop. I want to see a better track record here before I'll be convinced to support. Rackabello 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose. The last thing we need is another admin who enjoys playing Whack-A-Noob on UAA. I'm not sure that's how he would turn out, of course, especially since he didn't answer the question, but his track record on UAA implies to me that he would be overzealous with blocking. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to neutral. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

#I will stay neutral for now, pending my question. Miranda05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

#Pending answer to Nick's question. Sounds pretty serious. --WriterListener 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral (moved from oppose). I'm somewhat reassured by his response to Q6, mostly by the fact that UAA isn't where he plans to use his admin powers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

---

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

Samulili

(75/18/4); Originally scheduled to end 07:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Samulili (talk · contribs) - I've been a Wikipedian since 2004. I'm an admin on a couple of projects, mostly in the Finnish Wikipedia and Commons. I only have some 1000+ edits in en-wiki (including my now abandoned username EnSamulili).

I request adminship so that I could better check and fix images that have been transferred to Commons. I'd rather do checking and fixing than putting images for deletion because they lack a proper source. [31] Samulili 07:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that I admit that I don't have much experience of the English Wikipedia nor will I ever have, and I confess that I would not be a very productive admin. On the other hand, I definitely would not be in anyway a disturbance. But for the kind of janitorial work that I'd like to help with, admin tools are necessary. Samulili 11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

For what is is worth, I have today been elected as a member of the Arbitration Committee in fi:WP. Another thing I'd like to say (and I'm sorry if this all goes in a wrong place) that I understand those people who ask me to try again after a month or a few months. That is exaclty what I would do if I came across and RfA of someone who seems like a good candidate but who has little experience. However, I have been around for three years and gained only ca. 1100 edits. I don't see myself speeding up and I don't see myself getting that much more involved with en:WP. This is not out of disrespect towards the project. On the contrary, I believe that en:WP is the most important single project and that is exaclty why I would like to be able to operate better between en:WP and Commons. Samulili 17:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Fixing image transfers from en-wiki to Commons.

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

A: Say's law for which I had good source material. Not being an economist, however, I could only do so much. Other than that, I have been asking some good questions.

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 can't remember any serious conflicts nor stress. Recently there was a nasty "pest" at bureaucracy and I had to revert him a couple of times. I wasn't the only one reverting him and eventually the page was semi-protected by admins. On en-wiki, I rely on the latin phrase "festina lente" when I'm in a dispute.

4. You say I request adminship so that I could better check and fix images that have been transferred to Commons. Please explain how en:WP's administrators' superpowers (or janitorial powers) help them do this. (Hoary 08:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

A: That is a good question and I'm glad to elaborate. En-wiki is the largest receiver of new images and later many of those images are moved to Commons. Moving to Commons is often done in a wrong way by those who are not familiar with copyright issues or with Commons. The link above shows one example where there is no proper source. I believe that the proper source is Image:Chrysalis5504.jpg but without being an admin I have no way to check that. It is possible that "someone else" will fix the sourcing before the image is deleted - but with 2,000,000 images on Commons and a handful of admins, that is not likely. In short, between saving and deleting a file, I'd rather save. As things are now, I'm sometimes only able to delete. Samulili 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps merely because I'm sleepy, I don't understand. this tells us that at 07:08, 16 April 2005 Fanghong uploaded it to Commons with the comment "from en wiki Taken by Pollinator". This tells us that at 07:08, 16 April 2005 Fanghong uploaded it with the comment "from en wiki Taken by Pollinator". It's certainly odd that a file at en:WP attributes the file to en:WP. That aside, let's imagine for a moment that this wasn't en:WP but instead was fi:WP: that a file at Commons was claimed to be from fi:WP and that the same file at fi:WP was claimed to be from fi:WP [huh?] -- and at the same time, to the minute. As an administrator of fi:WP, what would you do (or what additional information would you examine)? -- Hoary 14:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The file is not on en:WP anymore, what you are seeing at en:WP is an image on Commons (on en:WP the "File" text at the top of the page is red). It may have been here with the same name and it may have been uploaded originally by Pollinator and be his original work, but I'd like to check that by checking the history of the deleted file. Samulili 18:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from nat^tang

4. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?

A: I would. I don't know the details of this procedure but it seems obvious to me that "a sufficient number of editors in good standing" with "good faith" can question whether someone can continue as an admin. Samulili 09:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

5. If you ran into an editor, who had an extreme POV, and yet this individual was not committing vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this editor?

A: If there is no vandalism and no revert warring, I would either a) raise some questions on the talk page, b) edit the article towards a NPOV (preferably with sources), c) revert their edits, or d) a combination of the three—in this order. These are things I would do anyway and doing them doesn't require adminship.

If the editors in question are not registered and there is more reverting than discussion, I might semi-protect the article to the m:wrong version for a short period of time with automatic expiration.

All of the above is something I would only do if the article is one that gets little attention. I would leave articles like George W. Bush and Western-Sahara alone. I know that the good admins do a lot more than what I have said, but what I mostly want is to be able to save images from unnecessary deletion and for that I need to able to see their deleted history. Samulili 09:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Samulili's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Samulili: Samulili (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Links for EnSamulili: EnSamulili (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Samulili before commenting.

Discussion

• I understand that some are concerned that Samulili does not have enough experience to be an administrator. One person notes below that if this RfA passes, he or she will need to gather his or her thoughts. (I don't mean to single anyone out.) I agree with that. But contrary to his or her opinion (opposing this RfA), I support it. Adminship does not always require extensive project-specific experience, nor is it a big deal. I seriously doubt that we will see anything bad come of this if we give Samulili the mop. Even further, we probably won't see anything good either. But he will do good, working to keep our free image repository free, and lessening the burden on admins here at en.WP whom he would otherwise have to ask to do investigations for him. Thus I strongly support Samulili's request for adminship. Indeed, if this doesn't pass, I will require time to gather my thoughts. --Iamunknown 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was me you were referring to in you're comment (not that I'm bothered by it, no worries at all). It's just there will always be that element of risk with a passing RfA in this condition. That's what I'm worried about. But, seen as this one looks set to pass anyway, we'll just have to wait and see. No real concerns though, because he's an admin on Finnish Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, so I'm sure all will be fine in the end. Lradrama 13:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's cool. I'm fine with disagreement, and in retrospect I could have made my comment less dramatic (i.e. the "Indeed , if this doesn't pass ... gather my thoughts" stuff ;-). Glad to see discussion happening, though! That's what my ideal RfA includes.  :-) --Iamunknown 05:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The experience needed to be an admin is not solely based on one's experience in the English Wikipedia. Samulili's multiple Wiki experiences should all be judged, and that experience, along with his stated reason for wanting admin powers, show that in this case a mere 1000 edits should not disqualify him. In fact, Samulili has presented some of the clearest reasons I've seen in quite a while for wanting the mop.--Alabamaboy 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - question comes down to; can they be trusted with the admin bit? They're already trusted with it, both on commons and on fiwiki (I verified both), and have been for some time. As far as I'm concerned, it's procedural and No Big Deal - Alison ^❤ 07:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support As per Alison. This user can be trusted with the tools. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
3. No big deal. Rettetast 09:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, very good reason for the tools, trusted elsewhere and not gone mental, don't see any problems here. I don't envisage Samulili would even want to get involved in areas such as blocking or ANI disputes, so his lack of experience in such areas is irrelevant. Neil ム 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, very good reason for the tools, trusted elsewhere and not gone mental. Thanks for Q4 answer. Good luck and Godspeed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Sounds sensible enough; a quick glance through the contributions didn't show anything really significant enough for me to oppose. - TwoOars (Rev) 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support per Neil, editor is trusted on the commons and has a valid requirement. Addhoc 12:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support I know this user from Commons, and I'm confident that he would use his tools to the benefit of this project. In my experience Samulili is a polite, careful and professional editor, who would not misuse sysop-tools. Finn Rindahl 12:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - a reasonable amount of experience on en, but this user has been trusted as an administrator on the Finnish Wikipedia and on Commons. The user's proposed work would be beneficial to both en and to Commons. Warofdreams talk 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - Demonstrates a request for very specific tools to carry out a worthy function few others will help with. Hiberniantears 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Suomi sisu. No reason not too. Ronnotel 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. Already trusted with tools. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 14:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - It's about trust. He's gained the trust elsewhere. There's no reason to assume he'd go rogue here. He lacks experience, yes, but he's got one administrative task in mind, which he is experienced in. The work he'll do with images will decrease the work load on existing admins. Lack of experience won't play a role in his adminship as long as he's not working in areas he doesn't know. LaraLove 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

    Well said! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

14. Hmn. Candidate has been editing since February 2006 without any incidents, and that puts him/her in my good book. I'm an oftentimes enthusiastic supporter, and I'll stick to my default support in this case. But even if we're strictly going to apply the only relevant criterion of trustability, I can understand people opposing you on the grounds of too low editing experience. Strike that BS. You're doing valuable work and I absolutely trust you're not going to abuse the tools in any way. — aldebaer⁠ 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
15. No convincing reason to oppose. If he rarely uses the tools, that's fine. Acalamari 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support; he has already shown he knows the tools, and there is no reason to mistrust him. The fact that the tools will be used for exactly one purpose, or infrequently, does not mean he has no use for them. — Coren ^(talk) 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - Yeah, sure, no problem! Editor is trusted and respected. Doesn't need 436498 edits to make him a good editor. Take care. Scarian^Talk 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support, editor seems trustworthy enough. May not be the most active here on enwiki but the question not if I think they would be a big asset but whether they've earned trust - and I'll say sure. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Although not much experience on the en-wiki, has a good reason, and is trusted elsewhere. Lemonflash_{(O_o)} 22:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Doesn't have a great amount of experience in en:WP and doesn't need it: he's proved his stuff at fi:WP and at Commons. Being an administrator here may help him do some good work here and will certainly be of great help to him in his laudable work at Commons. -- Hoary 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Being an administrator on other Wikipedias is good enough for me. Captain panda 02:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Kannatan. A trusted editor wants to check deleted images here so that they can be retained on Commons, benefiting en.wiki and all other WMF wikis? I don't see where this would be such a bad idea. No, Samulili may not have enough experience here to deal with all of the complex administrative issues, but I trust that xe will not be involved in any of those issues and will use the permission only to do the image work outlined above. WODUP 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support per User:Alison. We need more people willing to do unglamorous work. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. He's already a trusted administrator on two other Wikimedia projects, and is experienced in and willing to work on our perennially backlogged image categories -- his help is definitely welcome. --krimpet⟲ 20:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. His rationale makes sense. My limited research on other Wikipedias shows that 1. He's very productive over at Commons, about 500 edits per month, 2. He's an established contributor on the Finnish Wikipedia, though edits less often there. He hasn't been blocked in either place. He has what appear to be the Finnish equivalent of barnstars on his user page. If he were a holy terror at Commons I assume that would show up on his Commons user talk, which seems rather peaceful. Someone who knows Finnish and can read his Finnish User talk might enlighten us further. EdJohnston 21:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support per Alison and per Bobet (comment below in response to an oppose). Seems like he might make very good use of the tools. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support per Alison. nat^tang 01:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Absolutely. A commons admin who wants to work with images being moved to commons...how the hell with that hurt the project? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
29. If the user has already been trusted in commons and fiwiki, I see no reason not to trust them here. Has the need for the tools and the trust. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 01:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Support from oppose. I have re-evaluated. See below. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - per LaraLove, who I think put it very well. Into The Fray ^T/C 02:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support You really need the tools and are honest about why. Never made trouble, so I trust you will not start now. Brusegadi 03:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Question answers make perfect sense to me. Dedication to other wikis is enough to pass the trust test. CitiCat ^♫ 04:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Support We desperately need more admins who understand image policy. The lack of experience isn't really an issue since they're not planning to work in mainspace, and seems to be someone who won't try to get involve in anything they're not sure of. — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Aye. Jon Harald Søby 13:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Support - Being a admin on two other projects, at least shows to a degree he can be trusted and is respected. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Deb 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support per Alison et al. above. Also seems to be one of the most competent and levelheaded admins on the Finnish Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support　The regular "edit count, lack of experience etc." sort of objections are invalid for this particular RfA. The user is already an admin on Commons and Finnish wiki which proves he can be trusted with the tools. He intends to use these for only a specific task so there is no potential for abuse. --Kudret abi^Talk 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support I have hesitated due to the fact you have little contributions in the English Wiki so far, but however since you are already an admin in the Finnish Wiki, I would think you will be able to operate the tools fine just as in the other one.--JForget 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support, we need more crosswiki admins. I'm pretty sure he knows that things are different here and on fiwiki and won't jump into things he doesn't know about. Kusma (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. The tools will make Samulili more productive. With regard to the disputed edit summary, I would suggest that Samulili should try to ensure that he doesn't use offensive language when it isn't necessary. Axl 11:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Support Clearly can be trusted with adminship and will do a good job with image work. Phgao 16:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Support -- I don't think a lot of en.wikipedia experience is critical for this sort of image work -- it's mostly about mechanics and copyright, not the cultural differences between Wikipedia communities. I am sometimes wary of giving admin support to someone with specialized goals since there's nothing to stop them from immediately working in all sorts of other sensitive areas such as WP:ANI or AfD; however, in this case I'm confident Samulili won't stray into other areas without good reason and preparation. Thanks for taking on this task (... and watch out for the bollocks-word). --A. B. ^(talk) 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Support An excellent example of why editcountitis is a very poor parameter on which to work. This user clearly needs the tools if he is to do what he wants to do in enwiki, and equally clearly will not abuse them. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. Been here a while, made a bunch of contributions, doesn't seem to have gotten into any trouble. Why not? --Carnildo 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
47. Support No evidence that he will abuse the tools. Jbeach56 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
48. Support can be trusted with the tools; more multilingual admins is a +, too. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support, has all the experience needed for what he's planning to do here and the rationale given is extremely persuasive. Opposition is unconvincing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
50. Strong Support per my comments in the discussion section above.--Alabamaboy 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
51. Support This is a fascinating case, and I can see it both ways. I have supported at least one request for a cross-project administrator (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eukesh), and I feel that if an editor is familiar with the technical quirks of adminship and is trusted by a foreign language community, and knows when to ask questions instead of acting outside policy, they will be successful at en.wiki. This candidate has made it clear that he's primarily interested in language-neutral image issues. I see no problem with that. Good luck to him. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
52. Support per Laralove and others above.--Chaser - T 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
53. Adminship is about having a clue, not about having a high edit count. Adminship is about having a deft touch, not about having deftly touched pages in many name spaces. Adminship is about not blowing up the wiki, not about blowing up your own reputation politically. Wikipedia is "not like the other wikis", to be sure. But that's not necessarily a good thing. Commons is "not like the other wikis" either, and Samulili has been a great admin there. We need some new thinking from some old experienced folk. Adminship should be no big deal. Samulili earned my trust some time ago. Support. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
54. Support- Need for tools, why not? It is no big deal right. Dureo 05:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
55. Support, I poked thu your contribs, and, I don't see anything that would cause concern. As a note, however, I'd like to see you use edit summaries more in the future. That's hardly significant enough for me not to support, however :) Good luck! SQL^{(Query Me!)} 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
56. Support - Clearly explained why the admin bit is needed, and already being an admin on commons and fi means that it is highly unlikely that this user would abuse the tools on en. henrik•talk 11:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
57. Support - He has clearly explained why having the mop would be helpful, and I don't see anything to suggest he'd abuse the other functions. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 19:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
58. Support. In my mind the absolute perfect example of why relying on edit count is a total irrelevance. Has experience here and on other wikis and clearly states which areas he intends to contribute in, as well as his intention to avoid areas he is not so familiar with. Absolutely. Will (aka Wimt) 02:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
59. Strong support responsible editor who definitely could make good use of the tools. I urge opposers to reconsider: in the end we want to know if Samulili's adminship would benefit the en.wiki and I don't think there can be much doubt on that issue. This is really a case where a strict focus on editcount is threatening to result in a silly mistake. Pascal.Tesson 11:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
60. Support known & trusted on Commons. This user will not break anything and has valid reasons for the request. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
61. Support As per Alison.Greswik 14:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
62. Support. This is one of those cases where editcountitis is directly at odds with good sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
63. Support. If it's no big deal, and there's a consensus he's very unlikely to misuse the tools, I don't see why one should oppose based on limited experience, when he doesn't plan to be active in those areas. Ensuring valid information for the images on commons is important. Rigadoun (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
64. Support Per Allison. Not a major concern over the use of bollocks or slight incivility.--WriterListener 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
65. Strong support per Alison. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
66. Support Trusted and experienced user, nothing suggest any future abuse. Pax:Vobiscum 02:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
67. Support. As someone who spends a bit of time on Commons and has actually used his en wiki adminship to double-check pre-transfer-and-deletion sourcing, the candidate's rationale is thoroughly reasonable. Seems reasonably sane, besides the contrary evidence of seeking a third adminship, and unlikely to delete the Main Page. - BanyanTree 07:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. Appears to be trusted in the larger scheme of things, thus conducive to 'pedia building (yes we are little fish in bigger ponds...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
69. Support Having confirmed on his commons talk page that he is the same user, I am willing to support this whole heartedly. I anticipate that his primary use of the tools will leave no traces in the logs, because reviewing deleted revisions doesn't leave a trace. He does have a need for the tools, isn't likely to use them in areas where his lack of en.Wikipedia experience matters, and has said that he'll be open to recall if experienced users here feel he has gone astray. GRBerry 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
70. Support 24,000 edits and 3 years of service at Fin wiki definitely counts for an awful lot in my book. Wants tools here for a reasonable and useful purpose. --JayHenry 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
71. Support On the basis of the aspiration for commons work alone - and any perceived problems do not prevent a sense of being able to work through the issues -- SatuSuro 23:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
72. Is Samulili a trusted user on other wikimedia projects? Yes. Will Samulili delete the Main Page? No. Block Jimbo? No. Be an abusive admin? No. Work other areas requiring more experience? No for now, of course with more experience equals different work. Will Samulili do a useful chore with the sysop bit? Yes. Therefore there little reason to oppose. Editcount's highly decieving here, and I do have to mention I have to firmly disagree with the opposers as well. Strong support. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
73. Support per Alison and LaraLove. Seems to be a very trustworthy editor. Dreadstar † 04:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
74. Weak support I think it clear that Samulili intends to partake regularly of only of a part of the sysop toolbox, and I trust his representation that he will act qua sysop only whereof he is sure he knows and, in part in view of his contributions elsewhere, have confidence in his judgment and, in particular, his ability to appreciate well that he is unfamiliar with, and ought not to act (at least at present) in, certain areas—he will not, that is, misuse the tools avolitionally by acting in areas with the policy and practice relevant to which he is unfamiliar (especially, I imagine, because many of those opposing and supporting here have counseled that he act, at least initially, quite circumspectly)—and so I feel relatively comfortable concluding that the net effect on the project (and, I suppose, on commons, although that's essentially entirely irrelevant here) of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 05:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
75. Support. I am unconvinced that policy on other projects is so alien that experience there should not count here. Samulili is an Arb on a Wikimedia project and a good admin on Commons. I can see it being an advantage to a Commons admin to be able to see deleted content on en.wiki as so much is uploaded from here to there that must be verified post deletion. His having adminship here will be benefit the wider project and may have occasional benefits locally. So although he's unlikely to log many admin actions, adminship isn't a big deal - right? I can't imagine he'd misuse the tools. WjBscribe 08:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry. Allthough you've been here a while sub 500 sub 1100 edits(between the two user names) doesn't cut it barely cuts it - I have little positive to judge you on. Also your answers to the questions are very weak, an I.P. translcuded this which I find....odd, you didn't even leave edit summaries when creating the RfA and assuming the I.P. is you no edit summary on transclusion, but mostly the moment I looked at your contributions I saw this Putting "bollocks" in an edit summary is a big no-way for an administrator. Pedro :  Chat  07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   I've heard far worse terms than that, to be honest. Given the British English usage of that word meaning 'nonsense', it's not all that bad - Alison ^❤ 07:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (doesn't use it herself!)

   I also checked[32] the IP transclude before I gave my support; it's in Turku, Finland - Alison ^❤ 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   (ec'd) I know Alison, given I live there! I take note of your support above, and whilst that did make me think positive thoughts I still found the tone of the edit summary overly harsh. And I think we've had precedent that just because someone is an admin on another wiki(s) that doesn't really make it procedural to be an admin on en. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed, which is why I said, "As far as I'm concerned ..."; there's no consensus on that and it's down to individuals to comment and judge accordingly. As both of us have :) - Alison ^❤ 08:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   Considering we've got admins cussing like drunk sailors unprovoked in very uncivil edit summaries, I don't think "bullocks" is something to hold against anyone. LaraLove 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   The post above made my day (in the given context!) On a more serious note, I find nothing uncivil about the edit summary in question. Brusegadi 03:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

   With respect the actions of others has no bearing on this RfA. Edit summaries are a place to summarise edits. Not complex. Using them for swearing / blasphemy / incivilty / taking a swipe at other editors etc. are not what I want to see in an administrator of this project, and I'm disapointed in the editor concerned in the examples you have given. However the relevant thing here is that I was less than pleased to see that in this candidates contribution history. This RfA will pass anyway for sure, but I'm not prepared to offer support to someone who feels the need to take that tone. I might go Neutral after reflecting further, in view of his expanded reasoning in Q4 and the undoubted good work he intends to use the buttons for, but at the moment I'm afraid it still riles me. Pedro :  Chat  14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   NB he doesn't say that an edit was bollocks, he says that an infobox is bollocks. Further, this is a bonus addition to his main description, which, after minor editing, is: I want a SOURCE for this. All this as an edit summary for an edit consisting of the addition of a single SOURCE tag. Never mind the bollocks, I say. -- Hoary 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   Exactly. As above, it was not just the use of the word bollocks, it was the overall tone implied in the edit summary that was particularly jarring. Pedro :  Chat  15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   It didn't jar with me. Actually I didn't fully understand it, but if he's suggesting that the "need" for biographical gimmickboxes is bollocks, he has my full agreement. -- Hoary 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per the above concern. I feel that you lack experience in this project. I suggest you try again after a few months and you will definitely have my support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. This editor has been around a long time, but is not active enough for my taste. Only 132 edits in the last 6 months (between the two accounts). While is is definitely true that we could use some more admins who want to deal with images, making someone who is only semi-active an admin doesn't sit right with me. Useight 14:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Not enough experience.--MONGO 14:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose A good editor but not a particularly active one. -Icewedge 16:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose Around 1000 edits--not enough. Not very well thought out answers to questions. More interested in deleting images than actually building the project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

   I see no sign that he wants to delete images willy nilly. He has a very commendable desire to delete images of fictional provenance or with spurious licensing, and more power to him. -- Hoary 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

   He states in his answer he's more interested in saving images than deleting them. A lot of admins here aren't too familiar with the commons policies or anything related to commons (as shown by the followup question by Hoary in Q4, who didn't at first notice that the image description page on en-wiki is just a mirror of the commons description page), and therefore images that are moved to commons improperly and tagged with csd-i8 sometimes get deleted too hastily. In those cases, having someone who's an admin both in here and in commons can check the deleted history here and see how the original upload was tagged and see if it really is suitable for commons. If not, he might still restore the image here, if it would qualify under some fair use criteria. - Bobet 11:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, well said. -- Hoary 12:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose per Useight. With such a small level of activity as of late, the candidate doesn't have the experience required for me to trust them with the tools. Adminship on other sites is a moot point, as is all off-wiki activity. VanTucky ^Talk 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

   "Per Useight"? Useight says that Samulili is not active enough for my taste. This is the edit count that matters for Samulili, and if you want reassurance that he knows his way around a Wikipedia, try this one, combined with his obvious ability in English. (He's commendably multilingual for somebody concerned with image use, also editing in other languages.) Ah, but you say "Adminship on other sites is a moot point", whatever that might mean. Samulili has written his purpose: that he can better check and fix images that have been transferred to Commons. Seems an admirable purpose to me, but perhaps it "doesn't sit right with" other people. -- Hoary 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, hurray! An ad hominem attack on Useight was just the kind of reason I was looking for to switch to support. On the second issue, we are directly admonished to avoid arguing for or against candidates based on outside events, which is reasonable advice. Both the duties, strictures and culture of adminship are disparate between sites (even Wikimedia projects), so a comparison is not usually helpful (except perhaps in proving good faith, which doesn't need any proof). Your rude, combative attitude in responding doesn't exactly help the candidate. VanTucky ^Talk 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

   Please try to avoid personal attacks. I don't think Samulili is active enough on English Wikipedia to become an admin. Perhaps others do, but that's my opinion on the matter. Useight 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

   I don't necessarily condone the tone of Hoary's comments, but I must ask: How are they "an ad hominem attack" or a "personal attack"? All I see is Hoary addressing Useight's arguments to oppose Samulili's RfA ... nothing about him attacking Useight's person in order to discredit his arguments... Am I missing something? --Iamunknown 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry, I should've actually used WP:BITE instead of WP:NPA. Perhaps it was actually an innocent comment, in which case I apologize, but they way it was phrased "Per Useight?" just seemed to say to me, "Why are you listening to Useight?" Useight 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Okay. I can agree with that. --Iamunknown 00:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   VanTucky, to me experience on other wikis isn't inherently relevant to showing that an administrator can do a good job on ENWP due to policy differences. However, it does demonstrate trustworthiness, and the important aspect of that here is that we can trust Samulili to judiciously use information from image deletion logs and not get in over his head with something particular to ENWP, like deletion review.--Chaser - T 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose Just not enough experience yet. Jmlk17 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose No, sorry, but I don't feel you have enough experience at this time, as many of the above opposes note. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

   I have felt the need to re-evaluate, and I have concluded that, despite lack of experience here, that an experience on commons is enough when the user wants to work with images here. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

   It's a point, but not an especially strong one. Check the diffs, the image work seems to be the smaller part of his contributions. And in one of his answers he said he would occasionally go beyond that. Imho it would be a much easier decison if there would be a way to limit admin rights to the image job. But there isn't, and we have to be aware of mission creep. I remain sceptical. Gray62 17:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose - I'd never feel comfortable supporting an RfA like this. 19 edits to Wikipedia - if this passes I going to have to seriously gather my thoughts, for obvious reasons. :-S Lradrama 10:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose, low level of edits to Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. I understand that you want to only work with images, but giving you adminship includes all the functions, not just image restoration (etc.) I would encourage you to work on them as much as you can as a regular user and get some all-round experience before coming back here in a few months. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose due to lack of experience in English wiki. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose, sry. I appreciate Samulili's language skills and his friendly and respectful way in treating other users. I also understand what he wants admin rights for. However, I checked his diffs, and I don't see that much of image work there. I saw a handful of talk contributions, too, but, going back to the start of 2007, only a single one was really about discussing a problem. Sry, but as I already stated at candidate Aktron, imho mediation skills are very important for an admin. And I don't think his image work will succeed without the occasional need to argue the changes. I'm quite certain Samulili has those skills, but so far, he hasn't shown them here. I will probably support this candidate at a later point, when we have seen more of his work, but not yet. Gray62 17:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose due to answers to questions one and two. Sorry.  Mirandargh  23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. The candidate just has too little experience on this wiki to evaluate their contributions. Sorry. Espresso Addict 08:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Lack of experience and contributions - both overall and in admin-type areas on this Wiki. Zaxem 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose Usually I'm not fussed if a user is inexperienced but has a quality contribution list (as is the case here) but I'm sorry, 678 total edits isn't enough to properly evaluate you yet. However it would be great to see you back here in a month or so, and if you keep up the good work, I would be happy to support. But in the meantime focus on spreading your name around on more page's history. --Ben^chat 05:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Hi Ben, just a note: you seem to have missed the part where Samulili mentions his other (abandoned) en wiki account, EnSamulili. - TwoOars (Rev) 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Weak oppose. I don't have any issues related to trust here, but I don't see a net gain for the project. Without more experience on the English Wikipedia, I anticipate more good-faith mistakes with the tools than I'd want to see in an administrator. Dekimasuよ! 07:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    No? How about the second paragraph of the original self-nomination, and the answers to question 4? -- Hoary 07:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    I admit that he seems to have expertise in this area and that doing such work would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. On reflection, my concern that there should be demonstrated evidence of EN policy doesn't seem appropriate in this case and, not inconsequentially, I respect your judgment. I'll strike my oppose. Dekimasuよ! 12:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose The user only cares about work relating to images, I was hoping for some more plans other than that. Does not have much xfd stuff either. --bobsmith319 00:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    Well he plans to work mostly on images because of his vast experience on Commons. The image backlogs are among the most time consuming for admins and I often wish I had admin access on Commons to do a better job of tidying things up. Even if he works only on images, his impact will be more than welcome by everyone there. Most admins, over time, tend to specialize on a certain area of work and there's nothing wrong with that: it just means they work where they can help out the most. Pascal.Tesson 01:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

18. Strong Oppose per lack of Wiki experience. Rackabello 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    Hmm, am I just imagining this? -- Hoary 00:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    Let alone this! Experience on en.wiki is perhaps limited (though perhaps not as dramatically as some suggest) but Wiki experience is clearly not a problem. Pascal.Tesson 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I reckon I could trust this user, although I do hold reservations given English Wikipedia is so vastly different to other Wikipedias (one only has to look at some of the more notable ANI debates - IRC, civility blocks, deletion process, Arbitration Committee, etc.) that your inexperience may cause some issues. A generic sitting-on-the-fence comment here. Daniel 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
2. I'd prefer that you spend a month or so getting to know en.wiki a bit better, as it does vary from other wikis, being particularly larger than other wikis. ~ Sebi _[talk] 01:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose due to lack of experience, and not using appopriate edit summaries, although work on images can be helpful. Will you try in another few months, and get the red out of your edit summaries, so we can evaluate you better? Bearian 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Neutral changed from Oppose. After prodding by another user, I found the List of Finnish sysops on my own, and he's there, so my concerns are minimized somewhat. This is a change of "vote". Bearian 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral: Obviously he is trusted on the fi Wiki, and people get promoted here with fewer credentials. That being the case, especially when nom says repeatedly that his activity here would be extremely limited in scope and sporadic, and given the comments of some others above, I just don't see a compelling case to give him the mop here beyond "Eh, he won't do any harm." That could be said about tens of thousands of editors here, and I'm perplexed that many of the Support voters making that argument would be -- and have been -- all over other candidates like white on rice for lack of experience or provable command of policy far less evident than in this case.  RGTraynor  08:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Personally I think if it can be said about anyone "Eh, he won't do any harm", they should be made an admin. If there are tens of thousands of such people, all the better. But that's just my opinion. :) - TwoOars (Rev) 08:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   His stated main reason for nominating himself is that being able to see deleted image histories here on enwiki would make his work as a Commons admin much more efficient, and allow him to fix badly transwikied images that might otherwise end up deleted needlessly. Would that qualify as a compelling enough reason, given that we do benefit here indirectly from the work done on Commons? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral pending confirmation that this is the same user as on commons. (Question asked on common's talk page.) I can respect becoming an admin primarily to review deleted versions, as that was my primary reason, and an active commons admin would have plenty of occasion to review deleted image versions here without ever making an edit that the database records. GRBerry 17:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Now confirmed; now supporting. GRBerry 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

---

About RfB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Currently none.

Related requests

• Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
• Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
• A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship