Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abecedare

Abecedare

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (98/0/0); Scheduled to end 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Abecedare (talk · contribs) – I present Abecedare for consideration as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Abecedare has been on the English Wikipedia since October 2006 and his 12,000+ edits have spanned topics as diverse as Adam's Bridge and the latest incarnation of the swine flu. With over 5000 content edits and another 5000 article and user talk page edits that are mostly content related, his commitment to encyclopedia building is obvious but he also has over 1500 edits to projectspace and projectspace talk, where he has made many thoughtful comments on the reliable sources and other noticeboards, as well as on WP:ANI. The few examples of deletion tagging I've seen (312 deleted edits) show that not only does he understand speedy criteria but that he gives due consideration to the article before tagging it (cf. [1]). However, it is as the point person for managing and maintaining the various India related articles, where he is practically an ‘admin without the tools’, that he has really made his mark. On wikipedia's India related pages, he is the first person to go to for answering queries, helping and counseling new wikipedians, defusing conflicts, detecting socks, and gently battling the POV warriors who haunt those pages. A polite but firm individual, he commands the respect of most of us who have had the pleasure of working with him, and, as a review of his contributions will support, there is no doubt in my mind that making him an admin will benefit wikipedia. RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination from SpacemanSpiff: RegentsPark has already elaborated on why Abecedare would make a good admin, but I'd like to add a bit as well. I first encountered Abecedare on India related AfDs and was impressed by his arguments in many of those, both in favor of keeping and in favor of deleting and his ability to provide sources to support his keep !votes. My first major interaction with him was when Yadunath Thatte was tagged A-7 and I requested him to take a look as there was an assertion of importance. He contested the speedy by providing sources within and editing the article to establish notability, and not just simply declining the speedy based on the assertion of importance. During the process of contesting the speedy, he also created an article Sadhana (weekly), as the bio being speedied was that of an editor and more sources were available for the magazine. This attitude and behavior qualify him as a model editor, IMO. He is also a good resource on a variety of Wikipedia policies and I have used his assistance many times -copyrights, categories etc. His ability to have a civil discussion with controversial editors and show them the right approach - here is also a very good trait for an admin.

From what I've seen, Abecedare adheres to all policies while also applying common sense. As already mentioned by the nom, Abecedare is practically an admin without the tools, so giving him the tools will definitely benefit Wikipedia. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept, with thanks. Abecedare (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Initially I plan to be an "admin at large". Let me explain: Many editors (particularly new editors) are often more comfortable approaching a project noticeboard or an admin they have interacted with ("Can you take a look at the recent contribution history of User:Example ?"), rather than gathering diffs and summarizing the situation at one of the noticeboards. I have had the India project noticeboard and Hinduism project noticeboard on my watchlist for a long time, and have seen such queries there. Currently a few admins (User:YellowMonkey, User:Nishkid, User:DaGizza, User:RegentsPark etc) are carrying a large load of admin work attending to pages and users related to these projects, and I hope to lend a hand. I can also help out at ANI, since I have that on my watchlist too and have chimed in there a few times.

Secondly, I tend to flit around in my editing, and from time to time I have become a "regular" at AFDs, RSN, Refdesks etc. Similarly, I expect that I will periodically adopt one or more of the admin areas with a backlog for a few weeks or months at a time (once I have sufficiently familiarized myself with their working).

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

A: My editing at wikipedia is driven by serendipity, especially since I don't edit in the area of my real-life expertise. It helps that I am a generalist at heart, love reading, and have access to the resources of a large institutional library. Instead of my "best" work, I'll list some activities I have most fond memories of:

• I remember the article Alice Stewart Trillin that I created during my early days on wikipedia since I recall my delight at finding a subject not covered by wikipedia, and consulting the sources and WP:MOS over 2-3 hours before I saved the first edit. During the creation of that article I came across the name Mina P. Shaughnessy and I created a quick stub for that too. Almost three years later the article Alice Stewart Trillin has been preserved pretty much as I wrote it, while the Mina P. Shaughnessy stub was greatly expanded by two other new editors. For me, these two cases perfectly exemplify what makes editing on wikipedia worthwhile: one's (sourced) contributions are valued, read, and improved upon by other anonymous and selfless persons.
• I have greatly enjoyed editing Hinduism related articles and especially my interaction with a group of editors there (User:Buddhipriya, User:Priyanath, User:DaGizza, User:Redtigerxyz), who are similarly interested in high-quality sourcing, and neutral writing in an area often infiltrated by POV pushers, religious and sectarian differences, good faith but misguided devotees etc. Even when we differed on content issues, the discussions were civil and ended up improving dozens of articles in the area, one of which, Ganesha, became an FA (disclosure: Redtigerxyz was responsible for the final push and nomination to FA status).

For completeness, I should mention that I have also participated in AFDs, reviewing FACs, RSN, fringe noticeboard and several refdesks.

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: Having been active in areas related to religion, nationality and (sometimes) fringe science and current events, I have regularly come across both content and conduct issues including incivility, POV pushing, poor sourcing, tendentious editing, spamming, sock-puppetry, copyvios, misrepresentation of sources, and many edit-wars. I have also participated and/or opined in numerous content debates, many of which were passionate, on subjects related to article name, image use, concerns about NPOV and due weight, article deletion etc. Lastly, I have seen a few good editors become disillusioned with wikipedia and even retire, while others who I have greatly respected have acted in ways that surprised and disappointed me. While all these events and occurrences have shaped my view of wikipedia's editing environment, I can honestly say that, they haven't caused me any real-life or on-wiki stress, perhaps because this is a hobby for me, and because I don't edit articles I have a strong personal stake in and hence content disputes are not personal for me.

Note: I haven't included too many diffs and links in the answers above, but would be glad to expand and illustrate the points I made on the RFA talk page. Abecedare (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Keepscases

4. What articles, India-related or otherwise, do you think you might theoretically introduce biases into when editing?

A: The articles I fear that I am most likely to introduce a bias into are the ones related to my real-life education and expertise, since in that area I have pre-established viewpoints, am aware of unpublished work that is noteworthy, and published research that is not. Hence editing in those areas, in some instances, would present a conflict between what I honestly know and what a "unbiased" reading of reliable sources will say. That's one reason I chose not to edit in those areas, or edit or create articles about any persons or institutions I know personally - even though some of them are definitely notable (the other reason for not editing in those areas is that this is supposed to be a diversion from "real" work!)

As for the articles I do edit here: Two facts ameliorate the degree of personal POV or bias that my editing introduces, (1) I usually don't have a strong view on the concerned topics in any case (in some cases I haven't even heard of the subjects prior to editing their wikipedia article, as in the articles User:SpacemanSpiff mentions in his nomination), (2) I have a admitted bias towards using high quality (not merely, reliable) sources which tends to keep me grounded. That said, I wouldn't claim that my editing produces a comprehensive unbiased article that presents all relevant POV, since it is surely limited by the sources I trust and consult, my blindspots in terms of knowledge and comprehension, and even my aesthetics (for example, when I comment on choice of images). Also, editing articles without being an expert on the topic means that I may end up giving undue weight to outdated publications, or misunderstand and hence misrepresent a source (the latter possibility is a frightening prospect for me!)

Finally, a prize-winning research paper, Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments, showed how poor people are at evaluating their own flaws - so my assessment above should be taken with a pinch of salt. The hope is that in a collaborative environment, other editors will balance my POV and fill in my blindspots.

5. Do you believe dolphins should be permitted to have Wikipedia accounts?

A: For what purpose ? :-)

I know this will (deservedly) earn me some opposes, but I couldn't resist.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

6. If an admin comes across an article marked with CSD G12, what checks should be performed? Are there any alternatives to deletion?

A: I can think of the following:

• Confirm that the text is indeed a copyvio, i.e, it has been copied (largely) verbatim from an external source, the external source does not freely license the text. Also, as far as possible, confirm that it is not the external source that has copied the text from wikipedia.
• Confirm that there is no non-copyvio text in the current version of the article or in the article history that can be retained.

And yes there are alternatives to deletion: the admin, or any any other editor, can choose to rewrite the article in their own words based on the source (assuming that it is reliable). This IMO is the preferred alternative if the subject seems notable, even if it ends up stub-ifying the article, but it is not incumbent on an admin/editor to take this route since retaining known copyright violation is simply not an option, and even a deleted article can be re-created.

I don't patrol new pages, but have come across a few copyvios during my regular editing on wikipedia. You can see a few examples of what I did at Raghavendra stotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Sri_sukta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Andhra Mahila Sabha School of Informatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Shobhit University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have tagged a few pages with G12, but there is no easy way for me to pull those links up since I cannot view my deleted contributions.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

7. What is a history merge and why would it be needed?

A: Content forking, cut-and-paste moving, article merging etc may result in the article history not truly reflecting who-contributed-what to the article content. This is a violation of wikipedia's GFDL/CC-BY-SA license, and is also arguably unethical. History merge is a (masochistic) procedure in which admins can (as it says), merge the multiple article histories so that the contributors are correctly credited. As a non-admin I have never looked up the exact mechanics of how this is performed, and if handed the mop, I will seek guidance and review before I attempt it the first time.

Optional questions from Slumdog102

8: An article which I expanded Michael Lobo has been tagged with a Possible copyright infringement notice. I believe that this is incorrect since the sentences have not been copied verbatim from source. The sentences have been adequately modified in the article. You can also browse through the discussion User talk:Chamal N#Michael Lobo. Can you tell me whether is this indeed plagiarism or copyright infringement.

I am happy to review the case and summarize my views here, but I should first add a caveat that this is not the ideal forum for handling the issue, since it is not suited for a two-way discussion where we can question each other to gain a better understanding on where our interpretations may differ. That said: I looked at this pre-tagged version of the article and, in my judgment, there are copyright issues especially with the Academic Career section, and copyright/plagiarism issue with the Literary Career section. Please expand the following collapsed section, to see the explicit analysis.

Side-by-side comparison of source and wikipedia article

The Academic career section of the wikipedia article said: He gave up both mountaineering and chess, in favour of an academic career. He joined the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, for research studies in Transonic Aerodynamics. He published five papers on this subject, two of which appeared in the proceedings of the Royal Society, London. Michael was awarded the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) degree in 1982, his doctoral thesis earning him the "Young Scientist Award" of the Indian National Science Academy in 1983. In 1984, Michael obtained a Commonwealth Scholarship to the Cranfield Institute of Technology in England, and was subsequently absorbed in its faculty, being employed there until 1993. while the Daiji World article says: However, Michael gave up both mountaineering and chess, in favour of an academic career. He joined the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, for research studies in Transonic Aerodynamics, the mathematical design of bodies, notably aircraft wings, moving at velocities close to the speed of sound. He published five papers on this subject, two of which appeared in the proceedings of the Royal Society, London. The Royal Society is the world's oldest and most prestigious scientific body. Michael was formally awarded the Ph.D. degree in 1982, his doctoral thesis earning him the "Young Scientist Award" of the Indian National Science Academy in 1983. In 1984, Michael obtained a Commonwealth Scholarship to the Cranfield Institute of Technology, England, and was subsequently absorbed in the Faculty of this institute, being employed there until 1993. where I have bolded the common text. The rest of the section is similar. As for the Literary Career section , the wikipedia article started as: The second phase of his professional career as a writer began in in [sic] 1993, when Lobo permanently returned to Mangalore, due to various personal crisis. Lobo possessed an inclination for writing books, while on the staff at Cranfield (1984-93). During his spare time, he complied [sic] a 1000-page dictionary of English words deriving from Classical Greek. while Michael Lobo's answers in the published interview were: In 1993, various personal crises forced me to make a permanent return to my home town. And thus began the second phase of my professional career - as a writer. ... I have always possessed an inclination for writing books. While on the staff of Cranfield, I compiled, during my spare time, a 1000-page dictionary of English words deriving from Classical Greek. In this section the wording is a bit more varied, with phrases being reordered, but is still too close to the source. Also note that the meaning of the source is being misrepresented (in good faith) when "I have always possessed an inclination for writing books. While on the staff of Cranfield, I compiled, ..." is changed into "Lobo possessed an inclination for writing books, while on the staff at Cranfield".

I second User:Chamal_N's advice that you reword these sections in your own words at Talk:Michael_Lobo/Temp and then request that the new version be reviewed and substituted back into the article. In cases where you intentionally wish to stay close to the original interview text, use explicit quotation marks.

This was a question just to test your skills regarding copyright infringement. I didn't bring it here to resolve the issue. Cheers !!! Slumdog102 (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from The ed17

9. Question poached from Lankiveil There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about the practice of putting speedy deletion tags on newly created articles that are just minutes old. How long do you think that users on new page patrol ought to wait before putting an A7 tag on a (technically eligible) newly created article?

A: I don't think this calls for, or is amenable to, a numerical answer or a new policy or guideline; rather it requires some common sense, real-world knowledge, and/or google skills. For example, I consider it justified to A7-tag an article that says "Barney, my dear dog, died yesterday" almost immediately, since I consider the chances vanishingly small that George W. Bush is editing wikipedia, which would have made the subject notable. On the other hand, I wouldn't tag "X is Paris Hilton's terrier", since though I doubt that that by itself establishes notability, the content could at least be usefully merged elsewhere. In general, I would tend to stretch good faith before tagging a page with A7 (or responding to such a tag as an admin). We always have the option of using the more deliberative processes of PROD and AFDs later.

As I indicated before I don't patrol newpages, so my examples may be artificially easy. But now you have roused my curiosity, and I'll try to spend an hour or so this weekend at least watching Special:Newpages. I'll update my answer above if my view changes after that. (This is not meant as a test or demonstration since the the setting, while I am at RFA, is so "unnatural".)

Update Ok, I looked at the ~200 unpatrolled articles created on August 28th, and while there were many that had problems (eg, Eco ethnical trade) I didn't find any that I would nominate for speedy deletion G1-11 or under A* (I didn't look for copyvios, or subtle BLP issues). Since its likely that any really problematic articles from that far back have already been deleted I next looked at some 50 odd article created since midnight Sep 25th, and the first one that I would even dream of considering for CSD nomination is Tracks (band). But it's too new for me to actually nominate for speedy deletion under A7; perhaps if it remains as it is for a week, I'll prod or AFD it (finding sources for a band named "Tracks" is, lets say, not easy). I also discovered that NPP is not really my cup of tea, and I prefer to spend more time on individual article. Just FYI. Abecedare (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"It's really likely"? Wrong. But it's your right to not get involved in this particular task. DS (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from DS

10.As per the rather upset anonymous editor, let me ask bluntly: do you work for any Indian media organization or entity? DS (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would that matter? The IP's comments like "agent of the Indian Media... Indian Media agenda" drip of xenophobia, and I object to them forming the basis for any questions, or requiring the candidate to respond to them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It honestly doesn't matter to me, and it is optional (and the xenophobia doesn't drip, it oozes). But hell, I'd like to know. DS (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I still object to this disclosure be required from an administrator from India, as opposed to one, say, from the United States? I don't think it's our right to ask, given Wikipedia's rules for anonymous accounts. It really bothers me that a new standard is being applied here if an editor is from (gasp!) India. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A: Well, I am pretty protective of my (and others') privacy on wikipedia, and am not sure if the IP's cooked-up-conspiracy-theories are reasonable grounds for asking this question. But I don't intend to climb the Reichstag over this minor issue either, so I'll answer in this one instance: No, I do not work for any media organization or entity, Indian or otherwise. Abecedare (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Suomi Finland 2009

11.What Indian languages do you speak? Would you care to give us a few biographical details? (Naturally, it is not necessary to give your name or street address!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A: Sorry, but I am not willing to reveal or verify any further biographical details on wikipedia (besides the one single exception above). As I have stated before, some of these biographical facts will be apparent or guessable by editors who have followed my editing over the years, but I don't plan to make any further confirmations or denials in this regard. Of course, language skills are sometimes relevant during the course of wikipedia editing, and I'd be happy to talk about my knowledge in the context of specific editing discussions, but I don't think the question is relevant for an RFA.

General comments

• Links for Abecedare: Abecedare (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Abecedare can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to talk page. JamieS93 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• I suppose I might as well question the appropriateness of Q5 before anyone else does? I'm guessing it's a cryptic thing like many of Keepscases' other RfA queries.  GARDEN  20:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dolphins have rudimentary language skills, and might in theory want to edit Wikipedia articles, with a proper interface. Keepscases (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This may be the case, but honestly do you think your question is a) relevant to the RFA and b) will have any bearing on the RFA. I dont mean offence in this but I feel (and many others) that your questions are a bit unneccessary, but I have to admit, I had a chuckle when seeing it, it certainly is fun! :) Regards. AtheWeatherman 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I believe it is very much relevant. If the dolphin community formally requests access to Wikipedia, I think the decision whether to grant them access or deny it to them will be a very important one indeed. Keepscases (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would really love to see that, it certainly would be very interesting, I live in hope! :) AtheWeatherman 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin's get all sorts of questions from users, so seeing how a candidate responds is a test of how they will perform. Some questions are best ignored, but that would not often be the case, some sort of response is a good idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to have been some canvassing at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics by User:YellowAssessmentMonkey, an alternate account of User:YellowMonkey (diff). At least three Indian editors (or editors who edit India-related articles, and presumably check the India noticeboard) have supported since the message was posted. (The overall tally won't be affected much even if those votes are removed; posting this comment here just for the record.) ƒ(Δ)² 09:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • To quote WP:CANVASS, "Canvassing is sending messages to many Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." Now, does the message try to influence the users to support or "influence the outcome"? I dont think "For those who haven't noticed" suggests the readers to support or oppose or to "influence the outcome". Does the message "notify other editors of ongoing discussions"? Definitely. Are there "messages"?... I see only one. Are there "many Wikipedians"?...I dont think so, its just a noticeboard post (but definitely intended to several wikipedians). BTW, this noticeboard is not on my watchlist either, Abecedare's talk page has existed on my watchlist from quite sometime, ( need proof? several months back, I had reverted a vandalism on his user page and even had a discussion before this ) I was very well aware of this. --Nvineeth (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Without getting into the specifics of whether this qualifies as canvassing or not, I'd just like to point out that this message was not added/requested by the candidate Abecedare and on noticing it, he asked YellowMonkey to confirm that this is not canvassing. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Despite the rather startling veiled accusation(s) made by the user who raised this issue, I think it's an issue worth considering and discussing - see Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#RFA_announcements. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
      • It seems obvious that WikiProject members would be the most informed about whether an associated editor is qualified to be an admin or not. Posting a neutrally worded notice there (or at other Projects) does the broader Wikipedia community a service by getting informed opinions on the candidate—rather than !votes based solely on "I really like what you said about dolphins in Q#5" (not that such answers don't also shed light on the person). Priyanath ^talk 18:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

0. Oppose Per WP:IAR obviously WP:RBI does not apply to this comment, because by WP:NPOV the comments of the oppressed as well as the oppressors should belong in this record. My concern with giving Abecedare administrative powers is his tendency to use powers of extra-sensory perception to identify users for summery indefinite block. For example in this discussion with yellow monkey [2]. To my way of thinking in order to meet the definition of a sock puppet, a user must have some sort of disruptive intent. A user making a clean start in good faith, who has not been disruptive should not be stalked using Abecedare's powers of extra sensory perception. There has to be some probable cause for doing a check user. However in the case I bring up in question, the only Evidence against the user being blocked was that he was welcoming a new user, (who is an expert on recent Sikh history) and declared a good faith intention to fix point of view problems in some articles on the recent history of India.

I invite those not aware of the nature of the Indian media to watch the following video[3]. It provides testimony offered on the floor of the US senate that the main stream Indian media has a definite bias. It has a history of excluding foreign journalists and taking control of information available to the public with an iron fist.

It is the impression of this editor that by WP:DUCK that, if Abecedare, is not an actual agent of the Indian Media, (like his cohort yellow monkey, who actually works for the India times), then Abecedare certainly shares the Indian Media agenda. Consider the page that Abecedare maintains, of all the supposed sock puppets or meat puppets of one particular userUser:Abecedare/Maleabroad. Careful examination of some of the edits of at least some of these blocked users indicates that they were blocked simply for having a an undesirable Edit Pattern which as near as I can tell corresponds to saying anything in contradiction to the point of view pushed by the tightly government controlled Indian media. This file even includes active accounts which I suppose corresponds to a sort of enemies list to be monitored.

It is very upsetting to me, that people so sympathetic to the aims of the Indian government and its media, should be checking IP addresses and compiling lists of enemies for possible future use, given the recent history that some editors who attend my school have been discovering. It should be remembered how in the 1980's it has been charged that innocent Sikhs were dragged from their homes, and set on fire, women were gang raped, and property destroyed based on similar lists developed from voting records. None of the perpetrators of these crimes has ever been punished.

I live in America and the culture that produced this sort of behavior seems alien and very frightening to me. On the other hand it is probably inevitable that the powerful will continue to gain an increasing control over Wikipedia, and that it will increasingly become an organ of various state and other powerful interests. Including Abecedare into the administration oligarchy will be in the best interests of those who support a cast system, where content is dictated by the powerful, who banish the powerless who disagree, as disruptive pushers of a point of view other than the one dictated by the powerful.

Of course, Abecedare will no doubt use his ESP powers to justify deleting this comment, and his cohorts will block the terminal it came from, however just because WP:POINT discourages a vote from every IP address at a major west coast university against this nomination, hopefully the Bureaucrat who closes this debate will not be a member of the India projectWP:COI and might take into account that the vote count would have more votes opposed to this nomination than in favor, were it not for the higher ethical standards of those oppposed? I notice that none of the voters have disclosed any personal bias they might have, but I suspect that like the original nominator, many of them are among those who IMHO are part of the India project cabal intent on taking control of an entire sector of Wikipedia and turning it into an official organ of the Indian Main Stream media. To their way of thinking it is the only reliable source and its point of view should be reflected to the exclusion of all others using the iron fist of administrative power. If you want further evidence it would be consistent with the behavior pattern this editor observes if this comment is deleted, in an effort to doctor this RFA, in the same way that some AFD debates[4] have been manipulated.

130.86.149.36 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Above comment moved from oppose section, as anonymous editors are not eligible to vote. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Point of OrderThank you for your input User:Juliancolton, but please re-read the policy. Actually IP addresses are allowed to comment in any section, according to the way I read the policy, but are simply prohibited from casting a numerical vote, by including a pound sign in front of their input. There was no pond sign ahead of the comment you moved out of the oppose section of this project page, instead the comment was preceded by the number zero. This raises a serious point of order, as if both sides in this debate, insist on removing text from the various support/oppose sections of this debate, on the most flimsy of reasons, things could soon become disruptive. The original comment cited other policy which contradicts your removal of text from the oppose section. However in the interest of achieving consensus, I suggest that if people in favor of this nomination insist on removing opposing comments, from the oppose section, that at the very least, a tag indicating that the opposing vote section has a non-neutral point of view, in that it reflects only the view of the oppressors, and not the view of the oppressed, be placed in that section? After all if a point of view is excluded from the oppose section, the section then becomes slanted, and in fact the entire RFA becomes unfairly slanted.130.86.149.37 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I should just like to add that I live next door to America and any culture that produced this anonymous editor's behaviour seems alien and very frightening to me.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I love Montreal, it is such a beautiful city. I was wondering if you watched the documentation I suggested before making this comment.please see this video. Then let me know if you would be interested in changing your position?130.86.149.37 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support I second everything in the nominating statements, and then some. Abecedare is that rare Wikipedia editor who is an absolute delight to work with—supportive, positive, patient, friendly, knows all the policies, and enforces them firmly and fairly. I've seen him frequently in the volatile areas of religion and nation, and he has never wavered from the highest standards mentioned above. He will make a model admin. Priyanath ^talk 19:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Don't know Abecedare personally but the information presented so far is convincing. It appears Abecedare will make an excellent addition to the admin ranks. Jusdafax 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong support - I have never encountered Abecedare in my editing. However, just reading through his question answers alone made me want to support. The answers (and noms) show exactly what I want to see in an admin; strong contributing and communication skills presented over a length of time (this seems long due), a general sense and clue, and the ability to handle difficult or tendentious editors with calm. I've also reviewed his contribs some, and find no evident problems with granting adminship. Unless there's something I'm missing, this looks like a perfect candidate with a good attitude who likely has a strong support from me. JamieS93 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   Switching to strong support here. Very qualified candidate, and I'm quite impressed with all of the question answers. Abece's responses show extra communication ability and a lot of thoughtfulness (besides Q5 ;)). The "ideal candidate". JamieS93 21:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Seen them about, seems to know what they're doing :)  GARDEN  20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

   Strong support after the answer to Q5. We need more admins that can laugh.  GARDEN  21:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Calm & sensible. RMHED. 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
6. No problems at all, all very solid and reliable. AtheWeatherman 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Why the heck not?!Abce2|This isnot a test 22:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Support clean block log, good tagging, candidate looks good to me. ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Thoughtful answers to questions. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Support as co-nominator. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong support. In addition to everything mentioned in the nominations and by Priyanath above, I must add that Abecedare is extraordinary helpful and encouraging to new users, as with several articles written by Wikipedia newcomers. He is also always sensible, reasoned, informed, and a pleasure to interact with. If there was just one editor I could trust to wield the admin tools with the utmost responsibility, it would be Abecedare. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - q4 answer was good, q5 answer was funny. Little harm would happen if this user was given the tools. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Support have interacted with him and believe, has what an administrator got to have. --L I C 23:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Aye No problems at all here. Sensible and helpful editor. Black Kite 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
15. Support (as nom). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I don't see any problems here. Tavix |  Talk  00:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. The response to Q5 about sea mammals was a whale of an answer and seals the deal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
18. Support answered correctly, tagging looks good on deleted content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
19. Support A deserving candidate. A mature, cool headed, reasonable ,balanced and articulate editor. Has got all qualties to be an good administrator. Shyamsunder (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Move daughter article to parent article check yes on delete upon move move page delete purge cached undelete restore all revisions purge cache history find the one to be restored as the current revision restore done boom roasted. Keegan (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
21. Support and not just for the halibut-- billinghurst (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
22. Strong support. Pleasantly surprised to see this. Glad that I didnt miss it because of my inactivity. Will make a great admin undoubtedly. — Lost^(talk) 05:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. I'm impressed by the track record and good answers to questions. decltype (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Will make a good admin. Pikiwyn ^talk 09:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
25. Support: Impressed by the answer to my question. Slumdog102 (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Support - Great responses like Q4 show a straight-forward, well-balanced and self-aware editor. Perfect traits for an admin. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
27. Support for his Lewis Carroll inspired pun because someone who knows, understands and uses academic sources and seems to have a near-inexhaustible stock of patience is just about the ideal candidate for adminhood. -- Arvind (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
28. Agreed, he seems like an ideal candidate. I've turned to WT:INDIA many times for advice, and he (and others) have been patient and helpful with all inquiries. Far from abecedarian. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Well versed editor with great communication skills. Do not see anything that would indicate that they would miuse the tools. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
30. Support, decent enough. --Aqwis (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
31. Support I would've rather seen a Hitchhiker's Guide reference as an answer to Q5, but a pun is fine too. Although we haven't interacted, I have read Abecedare's incredibly helpful comments around all over the place. This would be a huge boon, and I fully believe that in 7 days we'll have another top-notch admin in the crew. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
32. Enthusiastic Support. Abecedare, whom I have known for over two years, is superbly articulate, level-headed, and fair-minded—qualities that will stand him in good stead as an administrator. Best wishes, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
33. Support, well qualified editor. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
34. Support A lot of nice work --SPhilbrickT 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
35. Per Q5. If a representative of the dolphin community does come around, we'd best be prepared with an admin who understands them. ƒ(Δ)² 17:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
36. Support I would have appreciated a more thorough answer to my dolphin question, but trustworthy nominator and excellent answer to my other question. Keepscases (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Per Q5, although it could be more thorough. ;) Very qualified for the position.--Giants27(c|s) 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Very impressed with A6 as CSD's seem to be a contentious issue in RFA. I largely ignored Q5 as dolphins, while I admit possess some intelligence, will never be granted the right to view Wikipedia, so the question is moot. :P ArcAngel (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
39. Support per Q5, Garden, and NYB. Good luck. :) GlassCobra 20:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
40. Support-- I don't see anything wrong here, and I like that you see no porpoise in granting dolphins registration rights. Amen to antianthropomorphism! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
41. Support -- Great work at AfD especially the India related articles, already deals successfully in content disputes and defusing situations. Will make a great admin! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
42. Strong Support - I could have sworn Abecedare was an admin already? Anyway, a big yes, and I love the answer to question 5. -- Atama頭 00:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Special delivery from FedEx, a new mop! Wikipediarules2221 04:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. Very trustable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
45. Strong Support. user appears to be dedicated, and level headed, something we could use more of here. :p Will make a great Administrator. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
46. Icewedge (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
47. Spuport. +sj+ 07:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
48. Support per JamieS93's comments above. Nominee seems to "get it" very well. - Crockspot (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
49. Support: I have had the opportunity to work with Abecedare in the past and he has the qualities req 2 b an admin. As a member of WP Swaminarayan (sub WP of Hinduism): His recent PR for Swaminarayan only proves his commitment to WP Hinduism and his knowledge of Wikipedia. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 12:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
50. Support — For experience, edits, and most of all Question 5 —Animum (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
51. Strong support per better understanding of deletion policies than I have. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Has a demonstrably clear understanding of wiki policies. I feel that discussion on Q.5 should be deferred until the development of a laptop that will work reliably under water. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
53. Strong Support User has been on Wikipedia since 2006, and has moved lots of pages and uploading many images, and will make a great admin. December21st2012Freak , (talk to me, or else...) 19:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong Support Very good editor. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - Why not?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
56. Support I trust this user to not abuse the tools. hmwith☮ 02:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
57. Support - A fine editor who can be trusted with the tools! Airplaneman ^talk 02:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
58. Support, looks good. -- Deville (Talk) 02:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Abecedare is one of the finest editors that I have interacted with. A successful RfA would only be benefical to Wikipedia and its goals. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 03:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
60. Has a clue about what he's doing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
61. Strong Support: Abecedare worked with me on the article Ganesha, now a FA. I don't think it could have been a FA without him. I met him again recently on Wikipedia:Peer review/Swaminarayan/archive1, a PR I have started. The comprehensive PR proves Abecedare's understanding of wiki policies. In the PR, Abecedare not only points problems but also suggests solutions, cutting out the job of Swaminarayan editors. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
62. Strong Support: looks very solid. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
63. —SpaceFlight89 15:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
64. Strong Support A net positive.--LAAFan^sign _review 16:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Very well qualified; I don't see any issues with Abecedare. ThemFromSpace 17:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. The single oppose gives no substantive reasoning for the basis of the concern and I see no other indication the tools would be abused at all. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
67. Support I see no reason to oppose. Timmeh 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
68. Seems to be a great candidate. The answer to Q5 definitely seals the deal. ;) --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
69. Support a great contributor. Shiva (Visnu) 21:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
70. Happy Deepavali! May your home light up with the joy and may this Deepavali bring prosperity, peace, happiness and good health to you and your family. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
71. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
72. Support, can't oppose based on the evidence presented. --candle•wicke 01:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Nice answers. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
74. Strong support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
76. Strong Support has very good knowledge of WP guidelines and a neutral editor as well. Nvineeth (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
77. Support Absolutely! His answer to the first question is a fine example of his cautious and unassuming approach. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
78. Support: should be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
79. Strong support Absolutely! One of the finest editors around.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
80. Strong SupportAs per Dwaipaync. You are a great editor. --Rockstone (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
81. Support - Good candidate, no concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
82. Weak support. Generally good contributions. Abecedare is unlikely to misuse the tools. However from the answer to question 1, I am unconvinced that he will be using the tools much. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
83. Support, see no issues. Wizardman 17:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
84. Support After a review of Abecedare's contributions, I see no reason to oppose. Seems level-headed, thoughtful, and dedicated.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  19:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
85. Support Good answers, good work, good thoughts about policy DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
86. Support. Seems like a fine candidate to me; the India project can use level-headed admins. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
87. Support: Clear-headed answers, ample experience, seems capable of handling all manner of cetaceans situations. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
88.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Abecedare. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
89. Strong Support Worked with him on Wikipedia on several occasions and knows that he is a gr8 editor, helpful and friendly... Will make a good admin -- Tinu Cherian - 11:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
90. Support Looks excellent. --Folantin (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
91. Support! Fully qualified, good answers, and knows about the purposes of pourpoises on Wikipedia. A rarity to find in an RfA candidate indeed. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
92. Support It seems that he will make both a skilled and helpful admin. Valley2city^‽ 17:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
93. Strong support: An ideal candidate! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
94. Support Good contributions, participated in deletions, will make a good admin. feydey (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
95. Support Looks like an excellent candidate. And the anon IP's anti-Indian statements -- and their validation in the Optional question from DragonflySixtyseven -- are objectionable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
96. Good enough. DS (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
97. Creeping towards WP:100... Stifle (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
98. Strong Support Qualities self-evident. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose (no longer opposes, good luck! try to be level headed with blocking) Too hot headed and threatening to be an administrator. Should be more tactful and articulate. Gives harsh warnings instead of nicely worded advice and explanations, even today (so you could expect even more drastic behaviour when the RFA campaigning is over and this person is an administrator). Should return for reconsideration of adminship in 2-3 months pending behavioural changes. Good luck. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Would your oppose be based on this? [[5]]Abce2|This isnot a test 23:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For anyone interested in reviewing the situation here are the relevant links: article history, User page discussion including the 3RR warning I gave, article talk page discussion. I'll be happy to spell it out in greater detail, if anyone so wishes. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare's talk page has my discussion about the situation Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Before seeing Abecedare's response here, I added evidence and explanation at User_talk:Suomi Finland 2009#Additions to India article to help Suomi Finland see that they were indeed edit warring, and approaching a violation of 3RR. Priyanath ^talk 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Suomi Finland 2009, please understand that Abecedare was warning you with a standard template trying to inform you about edit warring and the three-revert-rule. I think, on the contrary, that his behavior was very civil. Please reconsider your oppose if you based it solely on that. Thank you. Airplaneman ^talk 02:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is Abce2? Is Abce2 a sock of Abecedare? Abce2 is a suspected sock per that user's page (not my accusation). What is going on?

I will reconsider and am in the process of writing of Abecedare to find out ways to improve Wikipedia, such as improving the warning message. If Abecedare is as qualified to be an administrator as many think, then I'm sure the situation can be resolved! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it was a disruptive IP who tagged Abce2's page as a "sock". Their talk page and contribs shows the pattern. JamieS93 19:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, then the tag should be removed because it is deceptive (the 2 user names look similar except one is called "2" and 2 supports the other in discussions). Still awaiting Abecedare's response about policy (not about "2") which I'm sure he'll do soon! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Received messages on your talk page. Thank you. Oppose withdraw. Good luck! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Looks like a fair, mature, cool headed, balanced and articulate editor with a good sense of Humour and ConstEdits. Am I missing anything? - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to prolong this discussion, but to close out, the issue was more to do with the wording in {{Uw-3rr}}. You can see the discussion on both users' talk pages. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)