Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arjun01

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


Arjun01

edit

Final (111/1/2); Ended 11:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Arjun01 (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to nominate Arjun (previously known as Seadog.M.S) for adminship. He's been editing Wikipedia for almost five months now, and his 9500 edits proved an extremely valued and versatile user: 3000 edits on the mainspace due to a superbly efficient vandalfight and article building (particularly Hinduism); excellent work on Portal:Hinduism, currently a featured portal candidate; 1000 edits on the Wikipedia space, consisting in large participation on the WP:HD, vandal reports to WP:AIV, featured content candidates, WP:RFA, WP:XFD, etc... Apart from all this, Arjun also happens to be an extremely friendly and civil user, never afraid to ask for advice or a second opinion when in doubt, which reveals his permanent willingness to learn and improve (3 editor reviews! [1] [2] [3]). Arjun would make great use of the admin tools, and I give him my unconditional support. Húsönd 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination Since I have been on Wikipedia, I have very regularly run into Arjun01. Whether reporting vandals at WP:AIV while on recent changes patrol or his excellent work at the Help desk. His many contributions to other areas of the wiki namespace coupled with his many mainspace edits show that he is a well rounded editor who understands Wikipedia and its policies well. I feel that Arjun has always handled situations in a manner which I have much faith in, and personally feel that he exemplifies the spirit of Wikipedia. It is for all of these reasons and more that I proudly offer this co-nomination. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination Aww...I went to sleep and you guys didn't wait for my co-nom? Anyway, I have told Arjun that I would nominate him for adminship, nearly three months ago. Arjun is one of the most level-headed and productive editors with the project, and I feel he has the excellent qualities needed for an admin. He's involved himself in WP:AIV, WP:HD, WP:AFD, and much more. He has worked hard on bringing Hinduism to featured status, and he recently has been working on bringing Portal:Hinduism to FP status. A very diligent and dedicated editor, I express my enthusiasm for this editor in his RfA. Nishkid64 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. ~ Arjun 03:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As a vandal-fighter there are many areas of wikipedia that I could assist with. Most notably the AIV, the list always appears to be backlogged, and there can never be too many admins helping out in that area...I even have it bookmarked and it is also on my watchlist. I would of course before blocking make sure that the Vandal has received proper warnings, and the rest will be done by HBC AIV Helperbot :). Also I strongly anticipate to help clear out the CSD backlogs, which always seems "very high", and there can never be to much help there either. Another area of interest to me is the Requests for unblock. Also worth noting, I would love to help out with Requests for page protection, as there seem to be only a few admins who consistantly monitor this page. Also, I would anticipate the closing of AFD's. And to top all that off I would keep my eye on the Admins notice board.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I do in fact enjoy article building, however I have no Featured articles under my belt, but I would have to say the work I am most proud of is List of Stratocaster players, of which my first edit was this, I honestly think that it can become a Featured list, but still needs work throughout. Another list I have recently worked on is List of Hindu festivals, of which my first edit was this. Another area that I worked a while back was the Hinduism article, of which I added a section, and helped reduce the size. Yet another area I am proud of is Portal:Hinduism , which I helped earn it Featured Portal Status.
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: In short, I can't honestly say that I have been in any major scuffles, there may have been times in the past where I have lost cool to a vandal, but as of recent I cannot remember losing my cool. I am laid back on Wikipedia, and I will not get upset easily. While there were times where I was involved in situations that might cause stress...it didn't affect me. For example most recently the discussion on the Wikiproject Hinduism talk page regarding the use of the Swastika in the welcoming templates. I believe that I held my cool and gave my honest opinions, other than that I can't recall any situations that would cause stress.
4. Can you please explain your stance here – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Guitars. Esp. your comment This is a very notable company and which notability guideline (and the specific criterion) User:Anger22 implied? Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well I still stand by my decision, however I think it was a little over the top to go Strong Support, basically at the time I concluded that it met WP:CORP and WP:NOTE. And when I stated per "Anger22" I was implying about the notability of the company and its players. I however probably did not need to state that, I hope this answers your question.

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

5. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
A: Well to be honest...I wouldn't do really anything. Unless of course the editor was breaking the policies. If they were breaching the NPOV policy I would kindly leave a note on their talk page, and hopefully that would be adequate. Now if he/she were Edit Warring and 3rring I would once again leave he/her a warning on the users talk page, and if these actions continued after adequate warnings, I would have to take proper action and treat the user just like everyone else.
6. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
A: I wouldn't semi-protect an article if there's not enough activity to justify protection, nor would I do so to gain advantage in a dispute in which I am involved. Semi protection would only be used when "mulitiple" IP's are vandalizing the article. Just one IP does not alone qualify for the semi-protection. Now also worth noting the policy page I would obviously not s-protect it for these reasons.
7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: Well I think this process obviously requires a good look at before any actions are taken (unless extremely obvious), I would have to start thinking about does it just look like something taken off of a website, obviously you can tell this when there is "no" wikification and it is obvious when you see "©" on the page ;). Generally I have to look also what links to the article, and does the article repeatedly link to its website promoting material. Only when I go through this process I would take the right action.

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 (Need help?)

8. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs.
A Well spam is becoming a larger problem by the week, as Wikipedia is growing larger. And now we have countless "one purpose" accounts that add spam to promote their product/business. Spam is also obviously increasing the CSD:G11 articles. Now I am in the mid/high tolerance range when it comes to spam, that is just my personal feelings. But spam must be dealt with properly and the users/IP's who cause the spam must be warned adequately and once the warnings fall into place (usually a "spam one" warning will deal with the spammer and they generally stop) the appropriate action must be taken. Now on to the links "no" not every myspace, youtube links should be included in the article, in fact most of them removed. Except in cases of bands, that would be the only real exception for myspace links. And for youtube something like lonelygirl15. But other than that they should generally be removed. In a nutshell, external links should be used to help the reader learn further on the given subject.


Optional question (or questions) from —— Real96

9. If you encountered an abusive user and his or her sockpuppets who makes personal threats, what would you do?
A Well first off if I noticed an editor who was using "obvious" sockpuppets I would first off warn the sockpuppeter, and let him/her know that these types of "alternate accounts" are not acceptable. I would provide links for the user to read up on. If this type of behavior continues after several warnings then the proper admin action would have to be taken. However I would discuss with other admins if the situation was more complex then normal.
10. If an experienced Wikipedian put a wrong user level warning on a potential vandal's page, what type of attitude would you use in order to warn both the user and the vandal?
A Well lets say that a vandal fighter was out RCPing and he throws a T4 on a users talk page...but all that the user did was insert "hi is this where I edit". Well to the "potential vandal", I would welcome the user with the standard {{subst:welcome2}} and give him a little note about the edit. On to the user who did the reversion, I would first off simply let him/her know that it is standard to start with T1 and then work their way to T4. I would be very kind and easygoing about it since this is a mistake many very new vandalism patrolers do (I did it too when I was a newcomer). And hopefully that will clarify some things out.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. First one here support. MER-C 07:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Happy to support. Keep up the good work! -- Renesis (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I support too. Nice work all around — Lost(talk) 08:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Good work from this editor, under both names. Bubba hotep 08:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Another occasion for me to say MER-C beat me... :) Support, this is one user I definitely can't see misusing the tools. All the best, riana_dzasta 08:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - good editor. Will do well with the tools.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 08:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Great user. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Good candidate, no doubt he qualifies as an admin – PeaceNT 08:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Definitely. Appears he can make WP:100 based on the amont of support within an hour with all the Americans asleep. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)09:26, Friday, 2 February '07
  11. Support. Grrrrrreat! yandman 09:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support I told you to tell me when you were nominated! (Luckily, I had this page on my watchlist before it was created. :-) | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support good editor. The Rambling Man 10:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Excellent candidate which will not abuse the tools. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Good editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I run into Arjun all over the wiki, and I believe he will make a fine admin. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support - as co-nom. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Absolutely! You're just what I look for in an admin... good luck! --Majorly (o rly?) 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Lots of vandal-fighting; he could make good use of the tools. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Arjun won't misuse (but will make great use of) the tools. Likes to help write articles and great vandal fighter. He definitely has my support. Cheers, S.D. ¿п? § 12:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support per Húsönd. :-) --Húsönd 13:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support no doubt a good and trustworthy candidate. He's all over Wikipedia. -- Anas Talk? 13:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support! Would have !voted earlier. I've known the candidate since October, and have nothing but excellent things to say about him. –Llama man 14:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support as co-nominator (dang you transcluded while I was sleeping! :-P). Nishkid64 15:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. WJBscribe 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support He looks like a good person to me. I do not know him much but whatever I found about him was good. --- ALM 15:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. No fair listing this when I'm sleeping. -Amark moo! 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Looks like a good candidate. (aeropagitica) 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - the quality of the user's edits, while being consistently high quality, have ben excellent of late, and I think that Arjun is now ready for sysopship. Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support per above... Addhoc 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per all the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Absolutely. He's everywhere and very insightful/helpful. Just H 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support This is my fifth RFA vote, and first Support, having seen this candidate helping others with his Wikipedia knowledge. Please use the tools responsibly. I've no doubt you will. Xiner (talk, email) 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support alphachimp 18:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. bibliomaniac15 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Great combination of need and trust. Agent 86 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - excellent user, no doubt whatsoever. ST47Talk 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - great user, great answers, and I liked how he told the truth about the person editing their own bio. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per most above. Impressive record and fine attitude: I'm sure he'll do great. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Great user, and I have no reason to doubt him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJ King (talk • contribs).
  43. Support absolutely fully qualified user.-- danntm T C 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support fully qualified and has determination to combat vandalism, which is rampant here. Wooyi 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support a real nice guy, is always willing to help and never shows any incivility. JFBurton 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support seen him around everywhere and can definitely use the tools (he can be trusted as well). Cbrown1023 talk 22:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Why not say you are being nominated? A helpful person here so support. Simply south 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per pretty much everything above. No concerns, welcome to the ranks. Newyorkbrad 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Very good choice. - Darwinek 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, when I've seen this user he's been good and that seems to the opinion of everyone else. Trebor 00:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support Arjun is simply one (if not the) best here on Wikipedia. Woo-hoo! :) ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Whoops, would have !voted earlier if I had noticed. PTO 02:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per above. Great initiative. Pembroke 03:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per everyone. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Quite dedicated in my opinion, the 187 edits in two days is a good example of that. I think that you'll be a great admin. Ganfon 03:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support One of those Wikipedians who can always put a smile on your face. Has extensive knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies. He will put this knowledge to good use when he gets the tools. GizzaChat © 07:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. I think his work here is quite excellent. Khoikhoi 10:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Yes, it does. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per above & what I've seen of him around Johnbod 13:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support an excellent user. Rama's arrow 16:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support: An asset, and we require more asset than the liability here. --Bhadani 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support a simply superb Wikipedian. Dar-Ape 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Real96 19:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. I have seen this candidate around and he seems like a good Wikipedian. Kyriakos 19:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strongest Possible Support He does it all: vandalism patrol, welcomes newcomers, mediates disputes, and a great editor - all with a smile. Since I can't vote for Arjun for President, this will just have to do. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Support - This user does it all like priyanath says. He reverts vandalism, mediates, even (gasp?) does some editing.Bakaman 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong Support One of the most capable Wikipedians on EN Wikipedia. His work with Hindunism is incredible. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Support a great editor, will be an ideal admin. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong support - I know this user fairly well and I know that he will become a great administrator. He is a true inspiration to all of us here on the English Wikipedia. // PoeticDecay 01:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong support I believe this is my first 'vote' on RFA, and I'm glad it's for a candidate as deserving as Arjun01. Productive, cooperative, knowledgeable and fair, he is a no-brainer for adminship. My only "cavil" would be that the hope that he does not let his innate civility come in the way of fair-but-tough execution of his admin responsibilities. :-) Abecedare 01:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Excellent contributions on topics related to Hinduism. I extend my full support. Freedom skies| talk  02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Per personal experience and nom(s). Dfrg.msc 04:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong support. I want to state my opinion on the silly opose but I won't :P--Wizardman 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support--D-Boy 08:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. SupportLordHarris 15:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Terence Ong 15:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strong Support--Happy Editing! Ninetywazup?Review meMy ToDo 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Great user from what I can tell--SUIT-n-tie 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support based on his thoughtful answers and his participation on Afd, which I have seen. YechielMan 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Arjun is an exemplary editor both in Wikipedia space and article space. Would use the tools well.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Hello! Support Duh. Completely trustworthy and has excellent experience. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Jaranda wat's sup 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Ultimate Support - meets every possible standard. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support I fondly remember Seadog.M.S from my days as a newbie. I have no doubt he'll make a good admin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I've seen him aroun a lot and could use the tools well. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support will make a good admin. —mikedk9109SIGN 00:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Axl 08:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Super Duper Strong Support Why could I not say that? Good Luck Arjun! RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 14:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong support, an outstanding, trustworthy and excellent contributor. He deserves the tools. Shyam (T/C) 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support per nom. --RebSkii 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - can trust this user to use admin tools properly. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - per all of the above. --A. B. (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - per above Dinojerm 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Strong support- per all above. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support 101 ~ trialsanderrors 07:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support per above --SkyWalker 11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, civil, pleasant, knowledgeable user. --Kyoko 12:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support, yes. Proto::► 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 00:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support per nom. Jahangard 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Suppport as above Bwithh 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support per nom and above. VegaDark 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Strong Support Great vandal fighter, would do great work with the mop RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I refrain generally from pile-ons at RfA, but I must—tardily—support here; it is eminently clear that the net effect on the project of Arjun's becoming an admin should be positive, and it is on the disposition of the latter question, IMHO, as against, e.g., that of 1FA, that an RfA !vote ought to rest. Joe 06:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support per above -- Agathoclea 09:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Fails Diablo test sans exceptions. Anwar 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Roughly 7k of objections to this single "oppose" (which didn't change Anwar's mind, anyway) have been moved to the talk page. Proto::► 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I met Arjun as Seadog.M.S. when he just came to WP - we share some interests (hi!). With 4.5 months of experience at Wikipedia (under this account), this nomination just strikes me as premature. This is at least the third account held by Arjun: Seadog.M.S (talk · contribs) was mentioned; Littlewing1 (talk · contribs) was not. Arjun, your desire to learn is clear, but I would like to a few more months of settling in. Also important to me is evidence that you have handled an active conflict, of the type that may arise as an admin. I understand that you don't create conflicts, of course, but as an admin, how will you manage those created by others? I'm sorry if the answers are presented here: I don't see them (the Swastika debate is too diffuse to glean anything from). Congratulations, though; you've done good work on Wikipedia, and your RfA looks like a success! –Outriggr § 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Outriggr! Yes you were the one who welcomed me to wikipedia! The thing is is that Seadog.M.S...I am still Seadog.M.S however I simply had a username change so all my contribs from Seadog are still counted for Arjun. Now as for the Littlewing thing, I really didn't build anything up in that account (contribs wise), and if you can imagine I didn't like the name. And that was before the time I understood the whole changing username thing. Cheers my friend! ~ Arjun 13:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I agree that this seems a tad premature. Although a great candidate and contributor to wikipedia, I would tend to advocate a 6 month floor for admins . . . -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Arjun01&oldid=1085414169"