Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2

Biruitorul

Voice your opinion (talk page) (55/21/9); Scheduled to end 22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Biruitorul (talk · contribs) - is a good example for Wikipedians to follow: he has displayed encyclopedic depth of knowledge about a broad variety of topics, his writing is succinct, informative, and in plain English, he seeks out a wide range of sources, and he develops articles in a manner worthy of a professional writer and scholar. His manner of contributing attracts other editors, and his example tacitly urges that their contributions be of equally high quality. He is knowledgeable of WP tools, procedures, conventions, and is very open to lend a helping hand, even if that means days of work on an article the original creator did not think much about.

Biruitorul's article Barthélemy Boganda will shortly be considered for WP:FA. He wrote numerous WP:DYKs, has a record of 31,000 edits, including 26,000 in the mainspace. Among these are many articles about the broad area of Central and Eastern Europe, a topic area that has generated many heated debates over the years. He has earned a reputation there as a person who has brought consensus, an outstanding example of professionalism, dedication, and focus on matters of encyclopedic importance, as opposed to superficiality, partisanship, and ephemeral interest. Without putting on a mask of false neutrality, his edits are a formidable example how a informative neutral tone and proper sourcing for the views of both—or even more—sides in a disagreement can accommodate conflicting opinions, without imposing upon the reader any favoritism towards one side.

Biruitorul demonstrates an openness to hear all arguments, meaning that when you get an admonishment from him, it is a fair bet that you are way out of line. Yet a simple warning, when disposed of with good judgment and restraint, usually has a greater effect than a more ferocious threat. This is especially so when that warning comes from a person who patiently bore all rudeness to sort through to the smallest grain of substance that a user might be bringing. This openness of his to hear 99% rubbish in order to earn the 1% of information in order to enrich WP caused Biruitorul to receive some criticism 15 months ago, when he was first proposed for sysop. Biruitorul said then he would follow through on giving more warnings to vandals, and more readily. The other criticism of his at the time was lack of experience as a registered user (just under a year back then), something long since met, as his record shows.

This is a joint proposal by several users who sign in a random order. Dc76\^talk 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC), Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To this I would like to add: my politics are almost diametrically opposed to Biruitorul's, but his edits are so evenhanded that I known only because we got into an explicitly political discussion on the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. It speaks volumes when you can read the writing on controversial topics by a person with whom you would personally disagree (strongly) about those topics, and find nothing to criticize (and much to praise) in those edits. I cannot think of a contributor to Wikipedia I would more expect to "do the right thing" at all times. I cannot think of a contributor I would more trust with the responsibilities of an administrator. - Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The issues raised at the previous RFA have been resolved by now. This user shows remarkable restraint in controversial topics and does not let his POV interfere with his edits. I may disagree with him on certain issues, but I do not believe that he will abuse administrator privileges, once granted them. In fact, considering the vast number of useful edits he has made, I think he should've been granted adminship a long time ago. Additional responsibility will only do him good. Therefore, I join Dc76 and Jmabel in this proposal. --Illythr (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I was going to delay until mid-April, but the crush of support has induced me, like my equally-unwilling predecessor, to humbly accept the poisoned chalice of power. Biruitorul (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional statement: (I'll use this space to address some of the concerns raised by opposing voters.) 1. Yes, I did take a break in February, which is why this RfA should have waited a bit, but I am back in action, and usually am. 2. Since my previous RfA (November 2006), I have used edit summaries for probably 99.5% of my non-minor mainspace edits (the other 0.5% being due to hitting "save page" too early). I simply do not consider it necessary to write "removed stray comma" or "added diacritic" but if that is the petty criterion that keeps me off the admin team, then so be it. I have now committed to using summaries for all edits. 3. I admit to being a nationalist, but I challenge users to bring forward a single example of where that has coloured my mainspace edits (those that really matter). Biruitorul (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (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: Closing AfDs (I do lean in the deletionist direction but, ceteris paribus, intend to respect consensus in discussions), carefully applying WP:CSD to new pages that deserve it, taking care of prods. Moreover, almost two years into my wiki-career, I find there's stuff I want to do quickly but ends up being an inconvenience because I don't have the tools - moving pages that can't normally be moved, making minor edits to protected pages, deleting orphaned images... Sure, one can always bother administrators to do the job, but by now I think I know what I'm doing and can be trusted. Of course, I'd also be glad to help with such tasks should users ask. In sum: I'm not dying for this position, but I can be of some use in it, and there's no real question of my acting erratically in it. Biruitorul (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

A: Well, aside from the above-mentioned Boganda piece, this stuff is pretty good: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, plus an FL. I'm glad to have been able to take part in improving our coverage of Romania with such varied articles as Dealul Mitropoliei, Union Monument, Iaşi and July Theses. (All articles here.) I enjoy translating well-written articles from French and Romanian (translation is something we should be doing more of), as well as constructing articles on my own. I try and make sure my contributions aren't repetitive, boring, or transitory in nature, but instead add some lasting value to the encyclopedia. Biruitorul (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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 was involved in a long and bitter dispute with User:Anonimu. He was banned by the ArbCom and indefinitely blocked, while I was found to have committed no wrongdoing. As a rule, when I do enter into an editing dispute, I reason over the matter until some acceptable solution is found - sometimes quite congenially, other times more robustly. Biruitorul (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!) Partially lifted from Wisdom89, Dlohcierekim, Tawker, Benon, Tiptoey, and everyone else.

4. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A: This isn't a massive change like banning IP editors would be (though on balance that should continue to at least be discussed), and wouldn't have a dramatic impact, but I think making new users wait 4 days before allowing them to create a page (like we make them wait to edit semi-protected pages) would be a common-sense step that would help cut down substantially on the number of junk & advertising pages being uploaded here. Biruitorul (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

5. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? When would the "snowball clause" apply to an AFD or a RFA, if at all?

A: I'm an enormous supporter of WP:IAR - I think Wikipedia is becoming more and more bogged down by patently pettifogging pedants who revel in the minutiae of guidelines while easily losing sight of the big picture, and who dismiss IAR whenever it is brought up (which is, sadly, with increasing rarity). Rules are important, but it's important not to lose sight of the big picture that building an encyclopedia is, and to be relaxed, to have fun doing it - there's altogether too much stringency and lack of camaraderie these days. WP:SNOW can often be useful, but there's always the Twelve Angry Men possibility - the chance that the one dogged opponent has the correct argument and might be able to bring the others to his side. Biruitorul (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

6. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behavior?

A: Yes, I think I have generally shown myself to be quite level-headed under pressure. Biruitorul (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Will you list yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open for recall?

A: I intend to. I'd ask for serious reasons for recall, but if there were consensus in its favour, I would not stand in the way. To be precise, a written paragraph (no more than 3-4 sentences would suffice) from five users explaining their demand for a recall would trigger one for me. Biruitorul (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from Malinaccier (talk)

8. Should there be an age limit for editing Wikipedia? For requesting adminship? Bureaucratship?

A. I think 10, 12 and 16 respectively would be appropriate limits; however, given the nature of the Internet, "emotional maturity" can and should suffice as limits. Biruitorul (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from Argyriou (talk)

9. Several editors have brought up your support for Romanian nationalism. Nationalists from southeast Europe have been one of the worst plagues of Wikipedia, and many (inluding me) are justifiably concerned that you might place your POV over the interests of creating a high-quality article, despite the assurance by your co-nom Illythr that you don't. Can you show cases of "editing against interest" - places where you've made edits which have the effect of weakening the case for your political views or strengthening the case for your political opponents, where the edit was not undoing crudely obvious spam/vandalism/POV ?

A: By all means: see my votes here, here, here and here. Rest assured, I have always sought to apply Wikipedia policy, not my personal views. Biruitorul (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly

10. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A. No. Biruitorul (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

11. Why do you think that?

A. No question is stupid. Biruitorul (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

12. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A. Never mind. Biruitorul (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorly (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from OhanaUnited Inspired by optional RfA questions on Chinese Wikipedia

13. What are your views on admins who are not of legal age?

A. I believe User:Anonymous Dissident became an administrator at 12, and he's been superb, and if I recall correctly, the excellent User:Nishkid64 was 17 when promoted. So I would say that adolescents can make great administrators, provided they show emotional and intellectual maturity prior to promotion. Biruitorul (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

14. Should a mentally ill editor become an admin? Why? Do you think this would affect the creditability of Wikipedia?

A. I think a lot of that depends on the mental illness in question. For instance, if the person has bipolar disorder but is regularly taking medication, I would support such a candidate, provided his editing behaviour had been consistent with that of what I would expect from any potential admin. On the other hand, a user who had schizophrenia and was untreated at the time of his RfA would probably not make a suitable candidate, given that adminship really does require sound judgment. In sum: I judge these matters on a case-by-case basis and cannot make a blanket pronouncement. If the illness allowed the individual to perform admin duties reasonably well, then I do not believe it should be a bar to holding the position, given that such individuals can still make positive contributions here. No, I don't think this would impact our credibility: procedures are in place to sack rogue admins, and if a mentally ill admin were doing her job responsibly, I think that would actually be a testament to our open-mindedness, to our enriching human knowledge through people of all sorts of backgrounds. Biruitorul (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Relata refero

15 Would you think it wise to recuse yourself from performing administrative functions in any areas of the encyclopaedia? If so, which areas would those be and why?

A. Yes, if I had a conflict of interest. For instance, if someone nominated an article of mine for deletion, I would not be the one to close the AfD on it. The rationale behind this is WP:COI. Biruitorul (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Dweller

16. For the sake of those (like me) who might be curious but lacking time to trawl your contrib history, could you please list links to the last five XfDs you made significant contributions to before this RfA began. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A. Yes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Illythr

17. What do you think about the vote in support of your adminship by a banned user via a sockpuppet account? :-) --Illythr (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A. I presume innocence, but in case guilt is found, I would sadly call for that vote to be struck. Biruitorul (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18. to quote yourself: "I admit to being a nationalist, but I challenge users to bring forward a single example of where that has coloured my mainspace edits (those that really matter).", which edits don't really matter, and why is it ok then? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A. Sorry, that statement of mine was slightly off. XfD & RM votes also matter, as they affect the mainspace, and serious talk page discussions that end up in mainspace changes also matter. Other stuff, like this edit helpfully supplied by Illythr, is merely incidental. Of course, WP:FORUM, and I think you'll see the great majority of my edits are serious contributions, but if I throw out some talk-page or noticeboard comments every once in a while that reflect my personal opinions, as long as it's done in a tasteful, restrained and putatively erudite manner, I think that's quite inoffensive. Biruitorul (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Biruitorul
• Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Biruitorul before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support -- Contributor of encyclopedic breadth, shown good judgement, good person to collaborate with. AdrianTM (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - as nom. Illythr (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I supported the previous time and it was not a "weak" support. This time he has improved in all aspects, but adjectives in votes work like advertisements, so I'll refrain. NikoSilver 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
4. I have had the pleasure of editing alongside Biruitorul for a long while now. He is a highly competent, highly intelligent, and unmistakably gentlemanly contributor, who has the rare trait of actively seeking to build bridges between editors of all nationalities, creeds, and mainstream political opinions, with the evident goal of generating superior and well-balanced content. I, like others who have expressed support for him, share little of his views on politics, but I have never seen him seeping in any content that would have been solely favored by his political opinions (or any political opinions for that matter), and I have witnessed him actively collecting and introducing reliable sources of all colors and presenting them neutrally and informatively. I have also seen him removing content that did not fit with wikipedia's policies, regardless of its political POV (or of his supposed one). Whenever we did elaborate on our respective political options (which is how I got to know his), it was amiably, and only around the various topics we discussed on our talk pages (or a select few other talk pages), and certainly not in mainspace. In the process, I had the pleasure to discover that, although we could never agree on political issues, his opinions are by no means extreme (under any definition of the term), and his outlook on life is more tolerant than that of many users who declare themselves more to the center. Dahn (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Now, I am saddened by the number of voters so far who have rejected this candidate based solely or mostly on his political preferences, especially given that those political preferences are speculated, and, as stated, have nothing to do with his or their task of writing an encyclopedia. Biruitorul and all other users should not be rejected because of what they believe in, but because of how they act, and act where it matters. Furthermore, aside from a couple of political choices I imagine exclude themselves (such as being a racist, a fascist or a self-declared supporter of Hamas), no ideology should be invoked in rejecting a candidature. There are many ideologies I do not agree with (and with which few others do) who are nonetheless represented in the admin community, and wo do not interfere with the way wikipedia works.

   With due apologies for taking up this much space here, allow me to note two other things. One is that being "a nationalist" is not a problematic stance in itself, and may even place that person in a middle-of-the-road position (depending on what accompanies it). The other is that perhaps most Romanian wikpedians would state they are nationalists, and would therefore be "excluded" from being elected - but, in my opinion, none but Biruitorul have the competences required or implied. Aside from being competent, Biruitorul is a welcoming, neutral editor who masters the English language to perfection. In my view, he is one of the less tan a dozen Romanian editors who display all these traits together. Dahn (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Dahn, I thought I made it clear in my comment that what concerns me is not Biru's political preferences but their effect on his Wikipedia actions. I saw him acting upon his beliefs rather than the spirit of WP policies. That's not uncommon among the editors and, as an editor he does not raise my concerns. Please allow for the possibility that my objections are honest, well considered and not at all adversary to Biru. Thanks, --Irpen 02:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Irpen, I never meant to imply you're dishonest, ill-considered, or a man with an agenda. It was clear to me you meant to say that these supposed opinions of his had a consequence on the project. But I do believe you're wrong, and that no such conclusion could be drawn from Biruitorul's actions. Dahn (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Whoever added this comment needs to sign it or it may be discarded. !votes need to signed.Balloonman (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Support Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Just out of curiosity, why is no one giving a reason for support? Not that its a big deal... Tiptoety ^talk 01:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC) looks like someone expanded upon their support. Tiptoety ^talk 02:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   • Don't know about the others, but I made my comments above, where I nominated him. - Jmabel | Talk 07:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

6. Support Strong opinions (in and of themselves) do nothing to harm the credibility of an admin candidate. These are the stuff of Dragons, and with a level head make for great admins. I have minor reservations about edit summaries (sure you know why you made the edit, but what about the editor tracking down vandalism?) but it's not exactly disqualification material. Adam McCormick (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Support. This was an RfA I was disappointed to see fail last time, I would support enthusiastically now. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 02:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Weak Support. Good user, good contribs, not 100% confident though. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Dlohcierekim 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support --Hillock65 (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong Support. Biruitorul is one of the finest Wikipedians I've had the pleasure to work with in my year and a half on this project. He is a gentleman of exceptional intelligence, breadth of knowledge, integrity, honesty and diligence. His contributions are of a consistently high quality and his seriousness and dedication to this project can hardly be called into question. The complaints that his strong political opinions would be a detriment to his skill as an admin are ludicrous: in all the time I have known Biru, well over a year, I have always been struck by his ability to keep his personal views and his mainspace contributions separate. From the first time I encountered him (killing time by reading a freewheeling political discussion on the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board) to our tentative early association (mostly bickering amicably about Székely autonomy at two in the morning) through various slings and arrows of Wikipedian drama and the arrival at our current status as trusted colleagues and close comrades-in-arms, I have never known him to be anything but civil, articulate and professional; the very few times he has lost his temper were only after significant provocation. Let me stress this again: in all the time I have known him, I have never seen any compelling evidence to suggest that his personal opinions will in any way impair his effectiveness and trustworthiness as an administrator. (Indeed, I dare say he, the conservative nationalist, is a good deal more open-minded than many self-described liberal internationalists I know.) Those who oppose this exemplary contributor's candidacy for adminship based solely on his political opinions, I challenge you to present any evidence that a Romanian nationalist, and specifically this Romanian nationalist, is incapable of seeing far enough beyond his own proudly Dacian nose to be a successful admin. I think that, once you actually look beyond his userboxes and look at his contributions to this project, you'll have trouble justifying your fears. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Support: We need more administrators from this part of the world. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Support, as my experiences with him are always pleasent. However, this RFA is sadly going to fail, because that's the way RFAs on CE/EE editors end out - ethnic bickering. Will ^(talk) 08:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. Great editor who are personally responsible for many awesome articles. I will always support good candidates who create articles, not permanent opposers who didn't created single thing. - Darwinek (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Weak Support, edit summary usage (or lack thereof) is worrying, however there is no reason to believe this user would intentionally misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC).
17. Support Comprehensive experience, admirable even-handedness, very unlikely to abuse tools. I find the oppose !votes based on a user's personal beliefs absolutely reprehensible. скоморохъ 14:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Support as per K.Lásztocska. I have worked with Biru on many occasions and speak from firsthand experience. Biru's ethnicity has demonstrably NOT hindered the quality of his contribution. Biru has always offered up and been persuaded by reason. Despite (per Sceptre) the notorious difficulty of Central European editors to avoid overheated debate (EE/CE is a very noisy pub), there are some very good Central European editors and this is one of them.István (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Support per above and even more due to my personal experience. This mop shall not be abused :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - good user, good contrib, fights vandals...what more could one want? Good luck --Camaeron (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak support - accidentally added the above to the wrong Rfa! ONly a weak support for this user sorry. Good contribs but not 100 convinced! --Camaeron (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Support.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Support a great mainspace editor, my interactions with him have been constantly positive. He has made many small edits and many important ones, showing that he his far from monothematic like quite a lot of Balkan-oriented editors. Personally, I also find him very polite, which is all the more remarkable in an area where uncivility tends to be pervasive.--Aldux (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Support A fine editor, with vast knowledge, capability, a good attitude and experience. - Modernist (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Support I feel he would use the tools correctly and responsibly. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Support as nom. Dc76\^talk 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Wow. Lastochka wrote such a good support that anything I can say would be redundant. Support per her. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:57 8 March, 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Given the transparency of his political views, I doubt that as an admin, Biruitorul would abuse the tools to further his own personal agenda. Also, I have put up Barthélemy Boganda for FA consideration now. Excellent work there, Biruitorul. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 03:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Support After perusing your contributions and seeing your involvement with not only editing to Wikipedia but participating in Wikipedia related areas I feel comfortable supporting you and your use for the tools despite some of the concerns raised by the opposes below. --Ozgod (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Still have some reservations, but Joe as nominator and candidate's commitment toward edit summary usage persuades me. Hopefully, this will also underscore to some of his compatriots that I am not out to get them (EE is a minor area of editing for me, at any rate). El_C 07:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

    Nice to see that true neutrality gets a fair vote. Dpotop (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, what are you trying to say? I don't understand what you mean. El_C 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

30. Weak support - seems OK... —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Support A neutral editor on subjects that badly need neutrality. Dpotop (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Support. I have found Biruitorul to be well-informed, open-minded and courteous. He will be a still greater asset to Wikipedia in an administrative capacity. Nihil novi (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Strong support – for similar reasons to my support for his previous candidacy. Although my political opinions are almost diametrically-opposing to his, I have found Biruitorul to be highly professional when it comes to editing articles in the main namespace. Furthermore, his emphasis on dialogue and co-operation represents a core competence required by admins. Ronline ✉ 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Strong support – as per Nihil novi, K. Lásztocska and Ronline. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  13:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Strong support. per Nihil novi, K. Lásztocska. With regards to some of the "oppose" votes concerned over "natonalism", Biru's editorial conduct is always courteous, inclusive, and informed and is one of the finest examples of "nationalism" meaning: motivated, informed, and informing through reputable sources and edits and letting those sources do the speaking. Not "nationalism" meaning slanted, twisted, disreputable POV pushing of agendas that have their basis only in opinion. Let's stop using "nationalism" as if it's a dirty word. On concerns over admin tool abuse, as he has indicated he is open to recall, the editorial community does have recourse should his use of tools reflect bias. (I agree with Illythr.) —PētersV (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)—PētersV (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Support – Great contributor - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Sorry about that...that hadn't crossed my mind. Anyway, I'm glad we got that cleared up. (Just in case anyone asks, I'm discussing the comment on my userpage. Spencer^T♦C 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
38. Support as per nom and Vecrumba Horlo (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Strong support To reject a user with a record as good as this, who has hewed immaculately to NPOV while holding such strong opinions, would send an unmistakable message that some personal views are disallowed within the Wikipedia community, regardless of how a user conducts himself. I recently left a question on his talk page, regarding a view he held, and received a prompt, polite, reasoned response within minutes. A clear model of the type of editor whose personal passions drive him toward a greater respect and understanding for NPOV than most will ever possess. Mr. IP (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
40. support answer to Q9 has satisfied me that he will not abuse the tools to advance his POV; everything else satisfies me that he will not abuse the tools for the sake of being an asshole. Argyriou (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
41. strong support Biruitorul has proven time and time again that he has all the qualities required for a good administrator. He has encyclopedic knowledge. He has experience with Wikipedia and has demonstrated that he understands the spirit of Wikipedia as well as the rules. He has a sound judgement and was able to use it in discussing delicate issues, showing that he can keep a balance. I admire him, not only because he has strong views but because those views do not prevent him from using his reason. Wikipedia has nothing but to gain by having such administrators. I hope he is successful in his bid for a position for which he is overqualified and which he fully deserves. Afil (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
42. Support You won this vote for your answers to Q13 and 14. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
43. support on the basis of support given by others more involved in these topics whose judgments I trust here, especially Piotrus. DGG (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. I had a couple of arguments with Biruitorul in the past. He was reasonable, fair and ready to listen.Biophys (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. Imho the central issues are: (i) Will he use the tools wisely and (ii), is there any danger he might abuse the tools. My answer: (i): yes, (ii): no. Therefore I support. --Abrech (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
46. Strong support. Abrech said what I was going to say, no fair! Seriously, this editor in good standing may have a strong POV, but then so do most of us. He has shown for years that he is not an abusive POV pusher. Good faith doesn't even need to be assumed here; it has been amply demonstrated. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
47. Support per my stricken !vote below. Húsönd 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Support good user. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
49. Support. I believe the ideal NPOV is achieved within each editor, rather than through negotiation, and Biruitorul is one of the very few able to do that, despite having his personal political views. This ability to judge things impartially is --- or should be --- a highly valued quality for any editor and even more so for the admins. I read all the oppose comments and couldn't find any argument against giving Biruitorul the mop. He's is one of the finest editors I crossed paths with, he's knowledgeable and polite, he's admirably capable to work with others towards reaching consensus as well as accept a consensus he doesn't entirely agree with. He will certainly be a good admin, a model for other admins to follow, and an asset to Wikipedia. — AdiJapan ☎ 09:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: That, more or less, is the plan. --Illythr (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

50. Support. A competent and courteous editor with a good sense of judgement and always ready to listen, he gets my full support. Martintg (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Nothing wrong with having strong opinions as long as you don't transfer that into the article space, and I haven't seen any evidence of Biruitorul doing that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - I like his answers, he appears to be a strong editor. I do, however, recommend that you set edit summary usage in your preferences, so that it alerts you when you've forgotten to place one. Edit summaries should always be used as a courtesy. Lara❤Love 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    "Can she play the balalaika? She's an artist!" (I re-watched last night the DVD.) :-) I suppose you are well aware that Zhiv means alive, and Biruitorul means the winner. Dc76\^talk 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Support --AtomAtom (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Sock of banned user:Bonaparte. 21:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

53. Support - per Vecrumba. And all the others also. He would be a good admin. Ostap 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. Wow, this one took a long time to research. Had to come and go to read more and think about it. While some concerns are semi-valid, I kept coming back to a support opinion. I made my decision when I read Pedro's observation: "Categorical evidence that he is likely to be over zealous with admin tools in his prefered editing arena has not been demonstrated.". I believe this is true. Just keep vigilent about those edit summaries (even if you don't agree, be a good sport and humor the rest of us who do find them important) and you'll be a fine admin. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
55. Support - main reason for oppose seems to be "user is Romanian". I really, really hope the closing bureaucrat takes this into account. Neıl ☎ 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose strongly despite I like the guy. We worked amicably on topics where the candidate's views were not involved but when the topics did touch his personal views, and those are pretty strong, they always came before the commitment to neutrality. I hope we will still get around all right when editing together but I can't trust that his strong opinions in certain content topics would not affect his use of tools. --Irpen 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment - I actually believe the opposite - he has already shown restraint in his wikiactivity, and seeing as how anyone can instantly throw his POV against him, should his admin actions become suspect, I do not think he will even consider employing them where he may have a conflict of interest. I think that becoming an admin will have a positive influence on him. --Illythr (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose - 5% minor edit summary usage in the last 150 edits, plus a MAJOR dropoff in activity from January to February. Only 790 Wiki edits doesn't make me comfortable either. I feel admins need to have near perfect edit summary usage since edit summaries are a VERY important aspect of being an admin. ArcAngel (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Edit summary is erratic. I don't mind lulls in activity on Wikipedia - people are busy in real life - but, your Wikispace edits are weak. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose, sorry. Biruitorul is a good contributor, but I must say I'm not very comfortable with such a staunch Romanian nationalist becoming administrator. Or any other staunch nationalist for that matter. Also, edit summary usage for minor editors far below the least acceptable. Húsönd 00:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to support. Some comments by Biruitorul and some other users made me think this over. I think that Biruitorul should be given the benefit of the doubt, since he has shown many times that he is mature enough to refrain from letting his nationalistic views interfere with the project in a negative way. I also think that it is not fair for Biruitorul to be opposed below for his deletionist views regarding schools. Myself, I couldn't agree more with them and it's not like I've caused any harm to the army of non-notable high schools. Húsönd 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment sorry, but since when are someone's personal political opinions a valid reason to oppose their candidacy for adminship (or any other office, on-Wiki or in real life?) The only thing that is important in this case is his work on Wikipedia, not how many patriotic tears well up in his eyes upon hearing the Romanian national anthem or what icons of which saints he has in his house. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Political opinions only matter if they affect the on-wiki actions of the editors strongly enough. --Irpen 05:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   OK, granted, but my point is that Biru's on-wiki actions are not strongly affected by his political opinions. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Well, this is where we differ. I hope it is allowed. As I said, I have nothing against the fellow personally. And I can name Romanian editors who I would support without doubt, so I hope we can avoid the charges of "Anti-Romanianism", a funny term invented by Bonny, if I am not mistaken. --Irpen 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Husond. Try again in a few months and I may support. NHRHS2010 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps the word "Nationalist" conveys different meanings. One type (A) of nationalism merits its own ethnicity/nation, and another (B) seeks to offend other's ethnicity/nation (esp. the immediate neighbors'). (of course A and B can co-exist) My experience puts Biru as a type-(A) not (B); and the record bears this out (believe me, I would have noticed if it weren't so). Opposing (B) is of course proper, opposing (A) perhaps begs reconsideration.István (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose I oppose even though it means to pile on. I think you should withdraw. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

5. A fi de acord cu Husond. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Well...Sunt de acord cu Husond is the correct grammar, actually. Anyways, I agree with Husond, at the moment. And I fail Romanian. :( dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Like Mikka, I will reconsider if he promises not to use the tools in the Romania-Moldova-Transnistria-Hungary area, and if he places himself open to recall. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC) - Not anymore. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   I have placed myself open to recall, as I have nothing to be afraid of. On the other issue, though, see my response to Mikkalai. Biruitorul (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose-> changed to Strong Oppose (see below). Biruitorul I think it's fair to say "loves Romania a bit too much" for some users. Nothing wrong with patriotism, but in eastern European articles there are a large number of different areas where different patriotisms encounter each other in ways that often conflict. The question though is, would giving Biruitorui mopship be a responsible thing to do in this context? Well, I've found low comprehension of wikipedia naming conventions and false accusations of incivility evidenced here. The latter comment by Biruitorul nearly two months ago makes it difficult to have the faith that he could be trusted to interpret policy and guidelines objectively, or that he would be trusted by a significant proportion of the community. His comments there at Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive provide strong evidence that patriotism will at least sometimes get the better of him. I really hate to vote against him, as he has a decent record as a contributor and usually comes across as a likable guy, but I don't think it would be responsible to award him that role. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment I don't want to seem like I'm campaigning here (though, yes, I do support the candidate), but I think it is telling that Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, the one supposed sample of his supposed bias to have been indicated so far, saw Biruitorul debating his stance with a user who is now one of his nominators. I'm referring to Illythr, who has apparently not seen this incident as a cumbersome one. I do believe this is more telling of the level of trust and respect enjoyed by Biruitorul than any disagreement he may have been involved in. In reference to the diff: I can find any number of admins who have made more serious and less substantiated accusations in their capacity, and simply saying that you interpret accusations aimed at you as uncivil is, at most, a victimless crime (plus, afaik, no admin has the power to block editors for what they said about him or her - which means that even if he would intend to abuse his powers, he would have to be oblivious of all checks and balances). If you actually look at that very diff, you'll see Biruitorul agreeing that the other side also has a point, and even indicating that he is open to reexamination of the issue in the future. What more can you ask from a user who exercises his right to an opinion? Dahn (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you, Dahn, and let me just add two points. First, kindly assume good faith: I stated that my vote was based on policy (incidentally, my side carried the day, so I wasn't alone in that argument), and my "love of Romania" had zero to do with it. (I don't go into conniptions when I see Treaty of Jassy, for instance - that is a proper title for that particular article.) Second, this, this and this I did find incivil, and while it wasn't the main reason for my vote, it didn't help sway me to the other side, either. However, if you believe those three quite rational, quite civil sentences should bar me from adminship, that is your prerogative. Biruitorul (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Dan, false accusations of incivility I see all the time on eastern European articles talk pages and user pages, and they are characteristic of the kind of attitude that have caused so many problems. At Biruitorul, your compatitiveness here doesn't make me any less worried about the possibility of you obtaining mopship. Events such as this make me worry that you'd use your adminship to increase the power of the Romanian patriotic line over neighbouring patriotic lines, creating more discord on wikipedia. You clearly deserve the mop in many ways, but there are more implications granting an editor in this area mopship than elsewhere. Anyways, you know this operation is predominantly called Jassy-Kishinev or (transliteration) variations thereof, and those diffs are nothing like incivility. Your assertion that it was incivility can only lead to a number of conclusions: 1) you're being disingenuous for the purposes of forwarding a name you like; 2) You have bad judgment in general about an offense you might block someone for; or 3) the patriotically related topic made the room too heated for you to think straight. None of these possibilities suggest a safe vote for me. You even say I seriously considered supporting the proposal before adding However, Pmanderson has needlessly raised hackles with his incivility, so that for the time being I believe the article should remain where it is now. Your use of so here does not suggest the concern was as peripheral as you are now making out. It's not even true that PMAnderson was non-civil, yet even if he were, what can you inform me would that have to do with anything? Where's the rationality there? It's not like this kind of thing is a one off for you; e.g. in the middle of last year you left this comment on a WP:RM:

   Fântâna Albă incident → Fântâna Albă massacre — historical evidence, as well as historiography, points to this having been a massacre. Nine users (see here and here) agree with the move, while its only opponent is an avowed Communist who says the victims got what they deserved. [1]

   I notice there was no diff there. Of the many opponents, none (including anonimu) appear to have said such a thing. Very distasteful. A little later in the year you can be found Lastochka's talk page launching multiple assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks against User:Irpen and User:anonimu behind their backs in a little short story where you murder anonimu. That latter stuff is among the most horrendous material I've seen on wikipedia (I encourage all to read it), all the worse because of the number of people endorsing it as good humor. What's that supposed to say about how you'd perform as an admin in the heated world of eastern European articles, or about the kind of leadership you'd consequently have among Romanian editors during disputes? I'm afraid to say that the material above seems to encapsulate the spirit of combative and nasty partisanship wikipedia doesn't need in its editors let alone its admins. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   1. I'm sorry, there was no canvassing on Fântâna Albă. I informed several trusted colleagues that a vote of interest to them was going on, which is perfectly acceptable per WP:CANVASS. I had no idea how they would vote, and in no way attempted to influence their vote. Moreover, no administrator accused me of wrongdoing, despite at least two watching that page.

   2. Kindly do not assume what "I know". "I know" that, based on my weighing of the evidence, the article should be at "Iaşi-Chişinău", and this has zero to do with my ethnicity (indeed, the implication that it does is a form of personal attack). For the last time: I (not unreasonably) saw PMAnderson's comments as incivil (which doesn't really have wider implications, as WP:CIV is rarely enforced), and his comments did not have significant bearing on my vote. Please assume good faith and take my word for it.

   3. I am not about to re-fight the Anonimu war, but let me note two things. One: he did say it, in so many words. Two: about that infamous story - what you fail to note is that within a couple of days of writing it, I apologised profusely and was warned for it. I have continued to issue apologies since then at various occasions. Yes, it was a dreadful mistake for me to use on-wiki fiction (note: fiction, and very obviously so) to drain away the passions stirred by Anonimu, I realised that very quickly, and I regret it. However, in my defence: a) I was not even blocked for the affair, while Anonimu resides under a permaban-indef block status at present; b) I learned my lesson, and have not written fiction here since (or before), and moreover have striven to avoid such discourse. Surely redemption is possible, and I believe that, on balance, I behaved quite reasonably in the incidents you have dredged up; I don't see them as detracting from my neutrality as a potential admin. Biruitorul (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   1. Of course, that's always the way it is.

   2. You see, this is the kind of combatitiveness that just gets me more worried. PMAnderson's comments weren't in the least uncivil. One of those three diffs approaches robustness, a quality you yourself approach claiming to be a virtue in question 3, but nothing like incivility. Your profile says you're a native speaker of English, so I absolutely can't understand this other than by the possible explanations I outlined above.

   3. Your little story bashes a number of users, including Dr Dan and Irpen, as well as Anonimu, and contains sentiment crossing the line into racism with regard to Russians and Bulgarians. You don't really seem that sorry. Most of your comments here are you trying to justify the story! That kind of dark sentiment is too extreme to let an apology you were forced to issue to avoid a ban force it into amnesia. It's very obvious that you are smarter than Anonimu, but just because you are smart enough to dress vitriolic material like that in fiction isn't going to make me feel any more comfortable giving you the mop. You're clearly a productive user, but I'm sorry, too much about you scares me. That said, it looks like you have a good chance of succeeding in this, so if you do I hope you prove me wrong. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   1. Well, I violated no policy, was sanctioned for no policy violations...where's the crime?

   2. Incivility is in the eye of the beholder, and in making a policy-based vote, I was perfectly within my limits to express what I saw. I did not denounce him to any official fora (like ANI) for dealing with incivility, so I believe I acted quite reasonably.

   3. I say nothing about Dr Dan there (I think you mean Dahn, one of my most ardent supporters), and as I am of the same race (Caucasian) as Russians and Bulgarians, I need not defend the absurd claim that I was "racist" toward those groups. How would you like me to prove I am more sorry than I have stated? Shall I produce a video with a tearful apology while I wear sackcloth? I was not "forced" into anything; I could have stood by the thing, but I actually realised it was a mistake - please do assume good faith every now and then. Anonimu's profession requires him to be quite intelligent, so I won't agree I'm smarter than he, but if I "scare" you (as you have a number of people, then so be it. Biruitorul (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   1.You may wish to review why I brought that up in the first place. ;)

   2. Incivility is indeed to some extent in the eye of the beholder, but your accusations of it to PMAnderson were unreasonable, leading to the doubts I gave above.

   3. If your best defense for that story is attempting to narrow the meaning of the word "Racism" so that your xenophobic comments about Russians and Bulgarians don't count as "racist", then I'm even less convinced than I was before. My worries about you are not that you'll offend people with robustness [I'm sure Ghirla, Dr Dan and Irpen if not Anonimu can all handle that sort of thing pretty easily] but what such things suggest about your future activities as an admin. Moreover, apologizing for it just tells me you have enough brains to respond to the pressure that results from such comments, not that the sentiments and tendencies which produced those comments have disappeared. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   Just to wrap up (as it looks I'm moving you in the opposite direction of where I'd like you to go): xenophobia is not the same as racism; you could accuse me of the former, but given the thing was fiction and has been repeatedly apologised for (plus the fact I don't normally go around attacking people on the basis of their ethnicity), that would be rather a breach of AGF. My sentiments at the time were overwhelmingly in regard to Anonimu, a fellow Romanian, and I believe the record has quite consistently shown my even-handedness toward editors of all nationalities. Biruitorul (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose I've looked hard at this and tried to be as dispassionate as I can be. I've not had the pleasure of interacting with Biruitorul, and certainly his work here is excellent. However on reviewing his contributions against the backdrop of the concern from Husond I find myself in agreeance that his strongly held views maybe incompatible with the extra technical abilities that admins have. I'm sorry, this oppose may well seem pretty faithless, and for that I apologise. Oppose indented. Categorical evidence that he is likely to be over zealous with admin tools in his prefered editing arena has not been demonstrated. Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose - an indirect evidence that this admin is expected to "defend" certain areas from "bad guys" like User:El C, User:Mikkalai, user:Irpen. While I don't deny the feedom of Romanian editors to hate my guts and love their Motherland beyond rational bounds, I will change my vote if user:Biruitorul explicitely pledges that they will not use their administrative tools in the areas of potential conflict of interest: relations among Romania-Moldova-Transnistria-Hungary and the corresponding ethnic issues. If someone starts getting any ideas, please take a note that I demand nothing from him in the context of Russia. `'Míkka>t 17:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment -- using unilateral messages that people left on his page as an argument against him is bad form in my opinion, I see no evidence that he agrees with those comments, and people of other nationalities (that potentially have disputes with Romanians) such as Hungarians and Russians have vouched for him in this page. AdrianTM (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment to comment. I am not talking to you. You are cluttering my vote. I am expecting the comment of the discussed person. And his position, not your wikilawyering, may change my opinion and vote. `'Míkka>t 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   My comment: Everybody is allowed to voice himself here, and there is no such thing as "cluttering of vote", Mikka. Accusing a nominee of things he has not done is unfair. Accuse him of his own wrongdoings if there any. And I am afraid the reasoning of your vote promotes a notion of "collective responsibility". I hope I am wrong.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment to comment. I am not talking to you. You are cluttering my vote. I am expecting the comment of the discussed person. And his position, not your wikilawyering, may change my opinion and vote. `'Míkka>t 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Please assume good faith. Here, unlike in Lukashenka's paradise, we presume innocence. I for one never indicated that I hate you; indeed, as a Christian, hatred is not something I practice. I am not responsible for the messages placed on my talk page, and I have not yet had time to respond to the quite sensible request made by Dpotop (a user in good standing, I may add). (Incidentally, he posted the same message to Bogdangiusca and Ronline, both of whom are Romanians and admins.) Were I an admin, I would assuredly attempt to resolve the matter on the talk page rather than initiate a wheel war. I would always be cautious in my use of the tools, but unfortunately I cannot make the promise you request, for two reasons. First, those are among my areas of expertise: I know the terrain, so to speak, and the tactics used by trolls and vandals in those domains. Second, I find the request demeaning. I have never promoted the Romanian or Moldovan "line" for purely ethnic reasons, but always attempt to apply policy and ground my decisions in it. I have never (or hardly ever) edited on Transnistria-related matters because I'm not as well-read on the subject. As for Hungary, the only serious debate on Hungary-Romania issues was this one, where I (and most everyone) behaved with great civility. I disagree with the compromise reached, but it was reached by consensus, and I have never lifted a finger to try and undo it. Biruitorul (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   • An amazing pearl of level-headed adminship which expects us: "unlike in Lukashenka's paradise, we presume innocence." This allusion pretty well reminds me that I am anti-Romanian KGB spy and now I am Lukashenka's minion, too. Proposal to change my vote withdrawn. Please notice that I did not accuse the nominee of anyting. This response demonstrates not one but three potential problems: (2) jumping to conclusion and (3) lack of understnding what WP:COI means. "Conflict of interest" clause is a foward-looking preventive clause which actually would protect you from accusations in taking sides which will inevitably pop up in heated areas and evolve in unnecessary bickering. WO:COI is not a new wikipedologism. Exactly the same rule exists in American justice, you know, when 12 persons are selected for guess what? Since you declared yourself freely and prodly a nationalist, COI is clean and simple. Finally, for fighting trolls and vandals you dont need to be admin. you may be a wikipedia:Rollbacker `'Míkka>t 05:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   It's your prerogative to oppose, and I thank you for your input. I do not accuse you of being Lukashenka's minion, but the implication that I cannot be trusted to exercise impartiality in those areas is unsubstantiated. Biruitorul (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I notice you asked for Dpotop's input^[2] regarding this exchange (which, by extension, is likely to result in his support !vote, by making him privy to this RfA, do you think?), but not my own, so let me, in turn, ask: do you feel the formula I set out for Dpotop and his opponent is even one iota less than absolutely equable and even-handed? How do you feel about him having copied and pasted that "By El_C, of course" comment^{[3] [4] [5]} even though I asked him^[6] to please direct appeals "before other admins ^{[linking to WP:AE]} or the Arbitration Committee, rather than copy&paste comments across multiple pages ^{[emphasis added]} (please exercise restraint on this front, especially)" as a result of him having done so once before?^{[7] [8] [9]} Am I "a user in good standing," in your view? El_C 05:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Well, I suppose Dpotop's real mistake (and my own after that) was not having our little exchange by e-mail, which would have avoided quite a bit of righteous outrage, but anyway. I have no idea how (or if) Dpotop will react to my informing him of the response to his comment. Yes, of course you're in good standing - you're not under a block or ban. I think your warning was a fair attempt at defusing a potentially explosive situation, and I don't take issue with it. Moreover, I think Dpotop's reaction showed lack of judgment, and naming you sardonically may have breached WP:CIV... All right? Is there anything else I should clarify? Biruitorul (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, would you be willing to commit to fanatic (not as extreme as yours truly, but close enough) edit summary usage? El_C 06:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   El C, it was recommended to me that I inform users here about the discussion on this request's talk page regarding the use and limitations of edit summaries. Dahn (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not one to hold past-usage (or lack thereof) against anyone; future assurances would be good enough. El_C 06:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   That may well be, but my comments there are actually about whether edit summaries are really necessary, let alone compulsory. In oter words: is this a valid request from an admin? Dahn (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I really don't see how edit summaries bear on one's potential performance as administrator, and I do have a near-perfect record of edit summaries for non-minor mainspace edits, but I'm happy to commit to more thorough summary use. Biruitorul (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I am disappointed you entered the above response without an edit summary. It would have helped me, from my watchlist, to know whom you were responding to and... well, read WP:ES. I see too many admins that, like you, use a lot of blank edit summaries. I was considering supporting, but now, in light of that blank-edit-summary response to edit summary question (purposefully?), I am considering opposing. El_C 06:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry, it's not yet an ingrained habit, and was quite unintentional. Indeed, I hit edit too early, was just about to put in a summary. Biruitorul (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Okay, because I did ask you on your talk page to use edit summaries on this RfA. Would you be willing to temporarily change your preferences so as to force yourself to use edit summaries? El_C 06:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I've done just that (changed my prefs). Biruitorul (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Alright, I'm in. El_C 07:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   So, given that is is about my actions, why do you (Mikka, El_C) take it onto Biruitorul? Now, my posts have been to Biruitorul and Bogdangiusca, and Ronline, which I see as neutral editors, and role models as Romanian wikipedians. I have the habit of asking for oppinions when in delicate situations (I have done it in the past). Second: My action was informative, as Biruitorul, for instance, could not have helped me otherwise than by advice, because he is not an admin, and I had no idea this RfAdm exists. Third: My posts not only condemn what I see as biased actions of some admins and editors (El_C, Mikka, Irpen and Xasha), but also Romanian nationalist extremist editors, too (I am also questioning in my post the re-surfacing of an alleged Bonny sock). Now, if you would like to discuss the objectivity of my allegations, I invite you on my talk page. If I have the time I will make a WP:ANI post. But anyway, I suggest you don't try to put my words in the mouth of Biruitorul (for one, my first admin misconduct accusations against Mikka and probably ElC date back before Biruitorul was on wikipedia). Dpotop (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Ironically, I am supporting this nomination. But by all means, Dpotop, noticeboard-away. El_C 08:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, but again, this is not about Biruitorul. It's about me. Let's continue this on my page. Dpotop (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not the one who raised the issue. My name was mentioned. Your bad faith assumptions are without basis. El_C 08:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose -- per Mikkalai and Irpen. --Kuban Cossack 18:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose in the weight of those comments above me. Rudget (?) 10:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Per above. Majorly (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Mikka and Irpen also per WP:TIGER. With my occasional bumping into the Romanian topics I saw a lot of incivility and have not seen an effort to accommodate both points of view when there is editing of controversial material. Also the fact that I had to give him a 3RR block to stop an edit war does show that the user has a problem with his temper. I think that civiity, willingless to see both sides of the story and the self-restraint in editorial actions are essential for a wikiadmin Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

    Let's forget for a moment that my single block was given ten months ago in a dispute with banned user Anonimu. But let the record show that I am very careful about not violating 3RR - indeed, I try to hold myself to 1RR. In this particular conflict, though - please, please see this link - Anonimu was peddling an absurd POV, he made about 8 reverts in a day and made copious personal attacks in the edit summaries and on the talk page - in short, this was not a normal situation; I (along with other editors) was nearly (and justifiably) driven mad with his antics. Moreover, that fourth revert was made just under 24 hours after the first - this was not a case of me reverting over and over in a short space; what happened was failure to pay attention to the clock - I thought 24h had already elapsed. I am normally an eminently civil and even-tempered editor, as the record and my supporters attest. I always try to see both sides of the situation and be civil; I welcome diffs that show the contrary, rather than vague allegations. Biruitorul (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose, per above. Needs a bit more tempering before getting the mop. Dreadstar † 10:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose strongly. The exchange with Mikka above again proves that this is one of those editors who have come to Wikipedia to prove a point. Rid it of communist propaganda, rid it of Russian propaganda, rid it of Lukashenko propaganda or whatever. Too many of those already with too much power is precisely the reason why we now have special rules about any edit connected to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. So draconic that I have recently refrained myself from deleting absurd POV from a seemingly innocent page like List of countries by formation dates and I am probably not the only one, the problem being that this situation is leading to a) the serious hard-working to desist more and more and to disappear from Wikipedia b) the unserious to add even worse fringe theory entries, which means we need even more admin work (ergo, more admins) and even more draconic anti-(add your location in the world)-POV arbcom decisions. A self-feeding mechanism.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    Comment on above opposition - I took Biruitorul's response to Mikkalai as courteous and appropriate and that he has been forthcoming in all his explanations—in the face of Mikkalai portraying himself as being a hated individual. I would suggest that "barometer" in that whole exchange is that El_C is supporting Biruitorul.—PētersV (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    Perhaps you could phrase your concerns in the form of a pertinent question to Biruitorul. I took a look at the page you mention and certainly agree with your characterization of what some editors call "non-controversial" edits. It's an awfully wide brush you are using if you're using Vietnam founded ca. 3,000BC as an example of your concerns. —PētersV (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose, per above. Cxz111 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose — I feel must over-ride my Wikibreak to voice my opposition to this RfA. I do not believe that Biruitorul will use the delete function appropriately. Although I do not have any problem with deletionist administrators, even going through very recent AfDs, this user does not understand the notability guidelines; he believes that this school having won state championship multiple times in many different sports is not notable, despite the multitude of sources that are available; he claims this is trivial. As well as nominating the above mentioned high school for deletion, he also nominated another, which also has won multiple state championships in baseball guaranteeing multiple reliable sources. A reason for the deletion of both articles was "highly POV" and "absurdly POV", a problem which in the case of both these articles is easily surmountable. In this AfD also from today, I don't like it is given as the reason for deletion - indeed he says "the film is quite banal and, because its presence here detracts from the project's seriousness, we should invoke IAR to eliminate it". I would not trust any admin that would delete an article on that rationale. The point of ignore all rules is to improve the encyclopedia, not delete sourced encyclopedic information because we do not like it. At this AfD (although deletion may be the best solution) I am worried by his possible "delete first, ask questions later" attitude and combined with his interpretation of WP:IAR, I am concerned that he may use extrajudicial speedy deletion of articles that he does not like or think are encyclopedic, even if they do not quite meet the CSD criteria. I am worried that over-zealous application of his own deletion criteria may result in biting by deleting a newbie's article, without giving due consideration to wheter it meets CSD criteria or not. Given that these comments were made within the last 24 hours, makes me very uneasy and unable to support at this time. EJF (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    I guess doing nothing during one's RfA is safest, because my recent actions have just earned me another negative vote... All I can say is: I promised above that I "intend to respect consensus in [AfD] discussions", and that I will "carefully" review speedy deletion requests. As for the particulars: my comments at all those AfDs have been distorted by EJF. I nominated the two schools for deletion because they fail WP:N, merely noting their POV as an aside. I'm aware the way to clean up POV is not by deleting but by rewriting, but my chief claim was lack of notability, not POV (which is an invalid deletion rationale). As for the film: I have twice stated - you may wish to re-read my remarks there - that I don't like the trend of retaining articles on trivial films, not that I don't like the film itself - for the record, I have absolutely no feelings about the film either way. I invite readers to look at that deletion discussion and see my well-reasoned comments there; invoking IAR above FICT is not unusual and quite warranted under the circumstances - improving an encyclopedia entails pruning as well as adding new material. As for Eve Carson: well, again, I'm not thrilled by having transient news stories getting enshrined in an encyclopedia, and I'm not the only one. The point is that none of this really matters: arguing, as an editor, for deletion of articles is emphatically not the same as deleting them as an administrator following established policies, and given both my promise and record of following consensus, there is really nothing to fear here. Biruitorul (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    As a member of The Schools Project, we see a lot of these sorts of nominations and such AfD's (on high schools) tend to be very contetious. While I believe that the nominations will fail, they were not tagged with CSD, and the articles did not assert their notability so I see no particular harm (and I support this nomination). It is easy to see why they were nominated, but, having seen a lot of such nominations I have perhaps a bit more perspective on nominations of High Schools. Nothing about these nominations was against policy. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    The articles did assert notability - winning many state championships in different sports shows blatant notability and with reliable sources available, I wonder why he did not fix the NPOV problems and sourcing in the article instead. The old adage "AfD is not cleanup" sums it up. That said, Biruitorul had the right to put the articles up to AfD and that is his prerogative. Even so, I am still worried by the comments Biruitorul made here at this AfD after it had been proven that a music album had been certified platinum in Australia and notability had been satisfied. He supported deletion despite this, claiming Notability should be asserted within a particular article, not its deletion debate Clearly all that was needed was for a reference and a citation to be added. He then said The debate has been going on since February 29; isn't it high time someone did that? The fact that he would rather an article on a notable subject be deleted rather than spending a few minutes doing a {{cite web}} astounds me and makes me want to cry so fix it. I am sorry, but this combined with an extraordinary interpretation of "ignore all rules" means I cannot support at this time. EJF (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, please - that was some silly disc no one had ever heard of. If my arguing that maybe an encyclopedia shouldn't have that sort of stuff gets the "but it's notable!!" brigade up in arms, so be it, but let's not sanctimoniously pretend we'd have been worse off without it. Biruitorul (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    I didn't see maybe, I saw "delete". I am sorry to see that you have reinforced my oppose. I am afraid your disregard for sourcable articles on notable products which you find silly makes it impossible for my support this time around. EJF (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, I should have been clearer: maybe we shouldn't have such articles, thus I argued for deletion. Two further points. One (already enunciated twice): my opinions in deletion debates have no bearing on how I would act in an administrative capacity to close AfDs. Two: just because something can be an article doesn't mean it should be an article. Technically, perhaps, that silly disc (and I do stand by the description, even though failure to comply with WP:N was the actual reason for my vote, not, as you wrongly assert, WP:IDONTLIKEIT) may meet WP:N. But then the second question, the one that all too often fails to be asked, is: yes, but? But will its presence enhance the encyclopedia? And here I think the answer is a resounding no, which is why I oppose its presence (and, for that matter, that of many, many other albums). Which still says nothing about how I would act as an admin - that issue I answered in the questions posed to me, and let me repeat it: I "intend to respect consensus in discussions". Biruitorul (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    I did not wrongly assert that WP:IDONTLIKEIT was your only reason for your comment, I stated that the first reason for your comment was that you thought that there was no notability in the article (despite it being proven in the AfD) Also, regarding the comments above, I did not distort your comments at the other AfDs, I simply stated what your notability and POV concerns were and how you also backed them up. I have also provided several diffs so that any reader here is free to peruse them to see what was really said. I do not believe that I have misquoted you or taken any of your comments out of context. I feel that the subjective comments about what you believe "enhances the encyclopedia" combined with an over-eager delete first, prove notability later mentality, could result in the delete mechanism not being used entirely appropriately. I would like to see 3 more months of substantial activity at AfD to assuage my concerns. Regards, EJF (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Fair enough - I'll be back! Biruitorul (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose. Too problematic candidacy. --Greggerr (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose Yikes! I regretfully oppose, because while this user appears to do well in certain topics, the charges regarding nationalism in articles are scary. The contribs presented are scarier. --Sharkface217 02:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Per above (lame, I know). Tiptoety ^talk 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose Recent contributions to AFD indicate lack of clue. Catchpole (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Of course you may oppose me for whatever reason you choose, but isn't that a bit snide? Four or five well-argued votes with which you disagree shouldn't obscure the rest of my career here, and certainly say nothing about my potential ability to respect consensus (which I have pledged to do) in closing AfDs. Biruitorul (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Weak Oppose Changing to Neutral Whilst I'm 90% certain that you would be a good admin, there remains a niggle that you may have difficulty in certain areas, and I remain to be satisfied that you will keep strongly held views out of admin activities. I remain open to persuasion otherwise, and am convinced that should this RFA fail, addressing these concerns will ensure that the next one passes. Mayalld (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose per EJF. Please note that my oppose has absolutely nothing to do with nationalist concerns; I was ready to support before seeing the AfD links that EJF provided. I think it's quite impressive that this user has managed to conduct himself so well in an area that is known for its trolls and vandals. However, it's clear that there are policy knowledge gaps. GlassCobra 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    I fail to see how opinions held in a handful of deletion debates have any bearing what so ever on an individual's competency in adminship, particularly since we have a WP:Deletion review mechanism in place to address precisely EjF's concerns. Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia are two long standing philosophical standpoints, and many admins openly place themselves in either camp and even trumpet the fact, so I don't think it is sufficient reason to deny adminship in this case. Martintg (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

21. Oppose Too many concerns above about nominee's ability to remain neutral when applying policy. Need to err on the side of caution because recall and the other means to remove the admin tools sound far more accessible than they really are. TigerShark (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    You mean his answer to Q 7 was "throwing sand into eyes"? Apparently, people no longer believe in chivalry. Dc76\^talk 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - To avoid pile on. Tiptoety ^talk 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral Boy, Um wow. I don't know whether to trust my metasense or not. This is tough. I a swiss for a day. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral Doesn't seem to me that user is interested in wikispace things, and in general from talk I have read, he can come across immature amd overly pedantic in unbalanced ways on certain topics, his respone to admin age limits sums it up.--Dacium (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think Biruitorul is 10 years old, if that's what you mean :). Dahn (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral Though a good contributor, lack of edit summaries raise concerns. Changed to support. Spencer^T♦C 12:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Just a comment on this issue, wouldn't this be fixable? Writing edit summaries is not an innate characteristic of a person, this can change easily, he is a smart guy and if we require this from him, he can do it. But since his edits were in general good I don't think this was an issue before, if it's an issue now he can take note and change the behaviour as needed. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Kinda agree this isn't the fairest reason not to support or to oppose. All Biruitorul needs to do is go to "my preferences"/"editing" and tick "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

3. A very tricky one. I accept the points raised by Irpen and others, but without being an administrator I feel I must assume good faith that the candidate would use them appropriately (ie. probably not at all) in relation to eastern European articles. That being said, I'm very tentative about supporting this RfA overall. Daniel (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral RfA/B's are referendums on the community's trust that a particular candidate will use the tools appropriately and in accordance with wikipedia's policy's and guidelines. At this juncture, I cannot be certain that will occur, but I am not certain enough that it will not occur to oppose. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   You have a very interesting comment in here. The supportes/nominators wrote a lot, and their answer to your question of trust is lost in the context. They tell you that they have their domains with disagreement of opinion with Biruitorul (I for example, disagree with him on religion, yet I trust he can best edit that area). But they (including me) forget to tell you clearly how they arrived at such conclusion: they (at least I) saw Biruitorul diligently sourcing (for the opponent) opinions opposite to his. I wonder how many of those that spoke above source for the opponent. Dc76\^talk 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral I don't find the oppose reasons above compelling, but I don't feel comfortable supporting either.Balloonman (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral per Avi. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Placeholder neutral while I watch the diffs fly. --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral leaning towards oppose. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral (changed from weak oppose). I still have concerns, but I don't feel I should directly stand in the way of this candidate. Whilst I am not in favour of the seeming knee-jerk push for new admins to make themselves open to recall, I do think that there are some candidacies where a niggling doubt about a candidate could be ausaged by a promise to add to this category with a clear indication of the circumstances where the admin would put himself up for recall. At present, the candidate's answer to this question is far too vague. A promise to put yourself up for recall if you decide it is appropriate is no promise at all. If the candidate will promise to put himself up for recall upon request from any 5 users who supported his RfA, or any singe 'crat, I would move to support. Mayalld (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

   I have refined my promise - see question 9 above. Biruitorul (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)