Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Srikeit

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

Srikeit

edit

Final (60/31/9) ended 20:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Srikeit (talk · contribs) – Srikeit is an amazing contributor who, from his first day on Wikipedia (January 20th of 2006) has been a kind, courteous user with exemplary social skills, while at the same time being an incredible article editor and vandal fighter. With ~4100 total edits, Srikeit has seen action in the mainspace, has extensively communicated with other editors, and has even done a large amount of editing in Wikipedia namespace. With his calm, helpful manner and excellent article and vandalism skills, it gives me great pride to nominate this user for adminship. MoppEr Speak! 16:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at the time of writing, Srikeit has 6 barnstars from six different experienced editors for doing totally different types of work on Wikipedia. Also, the commitment to writing and cleaning up articles to NPOV is probably the most important thing on WP, and Srikeit is a model of NPOV.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quantity of barnstars a user has received is immaterial. The quality of their works shows in their edits, not in their success in popularity contests. Please do not bring that up in future RFAs. Six is not even many for people who collect them... Feel free to remove this comment if the barnstar count is removed.--Gmaxwell 02:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the barnsters are provided by *very* experienced editors including Nichalp and Sango123. It is not the barnster that is significant, but the recognition of his abilities by highly experienced users. I'd also like to point out that Adminship is no big deal, especially when an editor is actively reverting vandalism and acting in good faith --Andy123(talk) 11:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are welcome to come here and extol his virtues with support votes or co-nominations. At this point neither of the two users you've mentioned have supported this RFA... and for crying out loud Sango123's barnstar was for making 500 edits! --Gmaxwell 12:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I very gratefully accept. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. I beat the nominator Computerjoe's talk 19:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - so what if he hasn't been around for ages, he obviously can take advantage of the tools and has a low risk of abusing them = my support -- Tawker 20:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. People beat the nominator at supporting because he was in class Support. Great user, and experienced. Shame to see that people are pulling the "haven't been here long enough" card, though. MoppEr Speak! 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   There-Is-No-Cabal (Yes there is!) Support. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 21:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Usually I would say too short a time here, but 4100 edits overrides that 100%! —Mets501talk 22:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I've recently gained the perspective that really, sometimes we can be a bit overly harsh on admin candidates. I support this user fully, no reservations, would make a good admin! I hope you get the chance to be! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - the user doesn't seem to have much interest in admin-type work, but I don't doubt his integrity. - Richardcavell 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Easily enough experience. DarthVader 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, positive influence on the encyclopedia. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Nice work in his areas of interest and he is quite experienced, I think we can learn enough in three or four good months. Afonso Silva 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very Strong Support, Srikeit is an excellent Wikipedian. He is actively involved in VFD and is an excellent vandal fighter. He has also welcomed many users and organized or added vital information to articles. Just because he has only been here since January 2006 doesn't mean he needs more experience. My account is two days older than his and I still don't feel like a "good" Wikipedian yet. Excellent work, Srikeit! --Evan Robidoux 00:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Four-plus months can often lead to worries that a user is pining, but this one's well-rounded, involved and appears to keep a level head. No reason to oppose. RadioKirk talk to me 00:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. An accomplished vandal-fighter who should be able to block his vandals after whacking them. Bucketsofg✐ 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I was under the impression that "whacking" a vandal meant blocking a vandal, undoing their damage is just reverting. JoshuaZ 00:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I thought it was an allusion to the arcade-game whack-a-mole, where you whack one on the head only to have it return a few minutes later. Bucketsofg✐ 16:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Slight concern with a lack of article talk edits, but nothing fatal. JoshuaZ 00:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support One of the best among the new kids. Tintin (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support Excellent understanding and usage of NPOV, has made significant content enhancements, reverting vandalism, always civil and polite. A lot of the content discussion is centralized at WT:CRIC rather than individual articles. A lot of the time I myself use WT:CRIC, Australian Wikipedians Notice Board to ask for cricket and Australia feedback because there is about 50x higher chance of feedback than on a random article talk page, which skews the edit-count balance. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Cxaxbxaxl support. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Editcountitis and wikiservicetimeitis is ridiculous support —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, good user. --Terence Ong 04:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Impressive work on Cricket as well as with the audio. -- thunderboltz(TALK) 04:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. You seem to be a great wikipedian and i appriciate your understanding of NPOV. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 05:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Definite Support - inspirational user, would be an inspirational admin. Seems to be a great person as well. Support. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support- ordinarily the lack of time being a Wikipedian would be aoncern, but once in a while an editor comes along who edits like a seasoned veteran right from the word go. Skrikeit is one of those. Reyk YO! 08:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, I don't think that much more than a few months is required for adminship, especially if the user is active in different fields. --Tone 08:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Very strong support - He is one of the most hard-working and tireless contributor to wikipedia. I have seen him make literally hundreds of very valuable edits day after day. Aksi_great (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, Joseph Solis in Australia 10:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support A lot of edits in a short manner of time, good use of AfDs, and lots of Wikipedia namespace edits. Jared W 11:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfuadam (talk • contribs)
  29. Support - I've seen him around a fair bit, and he's struck me as a sensible user who could be trusted to use his powers for good. Metamagician3000 12:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per endorsement from MoppEr, endorsement from Master of Puppets, and endorsement from Andy123. Also has a good record of interactions with other users. Besides, I just want admins who won't create their own policies, who won't wheel-war, and who won't cause drama and controversy. 4117 edits seems like enough experience to me, and 3 1/2 months with calm interactions looks like a good track record. --Elkman - (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strongest possible support, we need more vandal-whackers like him --Andy123(talk) 16:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Go vandal killer!!!! Happy hunting. the_ed17(talk) Use these! 17:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Will make good use of the tools. - Ganeshk (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I see no problems. Will use the tools well. Just get rid of that joke on your talk page. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment --I have removed the joke page link from my user & talk page. Thanks for giving me a chance to rectify my errors. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 23:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment What's wrong with a joke on the user page? Although I can't claim it's the funniest thing I've ever seen, I don't see what's wrong with some lighthearted and harmless levity on occasion. --Bachrach44 01:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the presence of a joke that myself or others object to, goodness no. Nothing wrong with having a bit of fun whilst we're here! It's just that particuar joke is a pain in the arse. --kingboyk 08:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I like the look of his work. --Alphachimp talk 23:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Awesome User!! Primate#101 00:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Not afraid to ask others opinion Myciconia 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  39. Support Rama's Arrow 02:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. For an exceptional editor, I am making an exception. --Bhadani 15:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support. Good collection of comprehensive edits at his back. --Asterion talk to me 16:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Of course I have to support :D(Aatuapina 16:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  43. Support --Jay(Reply) 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support adminship is not just a promotion for mainspace editors. In fact, the best mainspace editors may not make the best admins, and vice-versa. If Srikeit has experience doing RC patrol, fighting vandalism, and AFDs, then that's very valuable experience for an admin since that's most of what an admin does. (It also means that he probably has a lot of deleted edits which aren't showing up in the counters, although since I'm not an admin I can't check myslef). As it says at the bottom of Kate's tool's page: You must travel the road to reach your destination, and some may travel longer roads than others. But do not judge the person at your door by the length of the road he has travelled to reach you. --Bachrach44 01:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. per nom.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support -- The numbers don't matter to me as much as character, humor, and quality of contributions. In contrast to what others are suggesting, to me Srikeit's joke banner exhibits great maturity of attitude — he doesn't take himself too seriously. It parallels the irreverent jocosity of the Dalai Lama. Overall, very helpful user. Saravask 12:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - He is an excellent vandal hunter, I see no reason to believe that he will misuse the tools (or that an extra xxx months experience will make him any better at what he does). Rje 16:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support astounding number of edits for someone whose been here for only a few months. The Republican 18:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support One of the best wikipedians in wikipedia. Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 18:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. sipport why have a bright future admin when we can have a bright admin today! Benon 19:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Has done a lot of work. Looks good. I see no need in delaying giving them the mop. Nephron  T|C 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I would feel silly to oppose simply because he hasn't been here for terribly long. He's got a ton of edits, which more than makes up for supposed inexperience. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 23:15 UTC
  53. Support per the answer on my questions abakharev 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support.  Grue  17:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Exceptional member. For a member like him, I dont think the length of time he's been here matters. He's ready to become an admin. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Wikipedia needs good solid admins like this. Guinnog 19:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I've been impressed with StrikeIt's contributions to AfD discussions. He'll make a good admin. Gwernol 22:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support I'm willing to take a chance on this one. I would have preferred the nom to be a month down the line with more project space involvement but he seems to be a good user. --kingboyk 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I found him to be level headed in the interactions he was involved. Too sad to see that most oppose votes are about account age but it also means that he'd probly be an easy shoo-in 2 months down the line. --Gurubrahma 17:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose You haven't been here long enough. Try requesting adminship around August. joturner 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose same reason as above --T-rex 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Although substantial edit count, most are from vandal reverting/warning. (Good to see a fellow user of Vandal Proof, though.) Most in Standards say 3-4 months. 6 would be better. User is not quite there. Has created a number of articles and has been active with reveiwing articles for deletion. Just needs to prove sustainability. I hope to vote for this user in 2 more months. Dlohcierekim 21:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Congratulations on the 6 Barnstars! You will probably be an extra-ordinary admin, as you are already an extra-ordinary user. However, I am now concerned you are courting burnout. Please be careful. From the look of things you are going to make it despite your short tenure. Best wishes.Dlohcierekim 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Editor is beginning a fine wiki-career and doing good work as an RC patroller; however, editor hasn't been here very long, has relatively few project-space edits, and could use more time before mophood. Xoloz 00:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose You should have at least 3-5 months on Wikipedia before your nominated. Need more time. ForestH2
    Comment This user has been here for 5 months. MoppEr Speak! 03:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Actually MoP, I've been here as an active user for 3 1/2 months although I have been viewing pages & reading policies for 6 months. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose per Joturner. Will definitely support if you can keep up your impressive contributions for another 3 months. Kimchi.sg 05:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: Based on: 1, When this user nominates articles for deletion he also enters a vote of delete underneath the deletion reason. (example) This suggests that the user considers AfD a vote and not a consensus-building process and we don't need any more admins who can't make that distinction. 2, Use of image in signature 3, the "Practical joke" on his homepage is immature. — GT 06:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Changed to Neutral. — GT 16:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination : " Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise. (Some nominations are performed by experienced users on behalf of others, either because they are inexperienced with the AFD process or because the deletion recommendation was the result of a separate discussion.) However, many nominators explicitly indicate their recommendation, to make things clearer and easier for the closer. " . What he does is perfectly within policy and convention. Tintin (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It only makes things clearer and easier if the closing admin is a vote counter who scans the page for bolded "keeps" and "deletes". — GT 06:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen several cases where a nominator only wishes to nominate an article & does not intend to participate in the AFD discussion. So I add my recommendation after the nom so it is clear that I intend to participate in the discussion (as Tintin has stated above). Also I like to keep the nomination clear of votes so AFD participants can have a clear idea of what my nom is, without a recommendation clouding it. Also I believe a little humour never hurt anybody. The people signing my joke page don't mind & I feel that userspace is entitled to some harmless humour. And about my sig, as you must have seen most of my contribs are to India related articles. So is it a crime to have a 20px flag in your signature? Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do a similar thing sometimes; I'll bold delete within my nomination rationale, just to make it clear that's what I'm advocating and it's not just a janitorial guideline. It's well within common practice, nobody objected on my RFA about it, and nobody has said to my face I'm a crap admin because of it (or any other reason). I'm not doubting your right to an opinion, just gently pointing out that at least one admin (moi) does a similar thing on occasion :) I thoroughly agree with you about the "joke" banner, good for him he zapped it because I too will oppose anyone who has one of those. They are so annoying and immature. --kingboyk 15:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIG NSLE (T C) at 09:06 UTC (2006-05-05)
    Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed the image. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 09:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Two months of editing (16 article edits before March) is just not enough. The future looks bright, though. ×Meegs 07:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Oppose. So far your edits and contributions look good, and you may make a great admin., but I need a further month or two before I could feel comfortable in supporting (and I most likely would). Thank you for removing the image in your signature. No it is not a crime, but they create additional server load and can (for example if the server "having problems") increase page loading time for users viewing that page.--blue520 09:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose, mainly due to lack of edits and activity before March. I would probably support in two months' time. I also think that Wikipedia-space and Talk-space edits are a bit on the low side, which may imply a lack of policy knowledge or willingness to discuss issues. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose: not enough experience. Jonathunder 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Kimchi. --CTSWyneken 16:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC) (Talk)[reply]
  12. Oppose - please keep going with your current work rate and don't be discouraged. Another few months and you'll be fine. --Knucmo2 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose too soon, and perhaps a little to obsessed with his own editcount (see userpage) --Doc ask? 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Far too soon. -lethe talk 01:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose A little too new. Maybe in 2 months or so. Jonathan235 16:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose on grounds of time, on the basis that effective participation seems to have started in early March. I'd be happy with another month, in that respect. Alai 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak Oppose time, edit count = good, but needs at least 6-8 months experience. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Stifle Search4Lancer 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose -- not enough time on project, insufficient involvement in and understanding of project process, image in sig. Spend 6 months working in project namespace, try again. John Reid 05:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The candidate removed the image from his signature a few days ago. MoppEr Speak! 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose not enough time --rogerd 05:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sorry. Will be happy to support in a two months. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I'm sorry, but I have to oppose you, you really haven't been around long enough.--digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 15:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Reluctant Oppose Not enough time. Sandy 19:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose too new. You need a few more months exposure before a fair judgement of your experience can be made.--cj | talk 10:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Newbie. No solid featured contribution. Try again next year. Anwar saadat 11:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In a year!?...Isn't that a bit long? Already been here 5 months with over 4000 edits. Chuck(척뉴넘) 11:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Oppose supports the abuse of Wikipedia userspace for the distribution of divisive userboxes, first edit far to recent when combined with his level of community involvement, lots of nearly mindless mechanical edits [1], but little to demonstrate a clear understanding of the important goals of the project. Many instances of high speed bot driven welcomes [2] which are probably in violation of policy (62 edits in 18 minutes faster as I operate my authorized bot!). Poor ratio of user/user_talk edits to article/article_talk edits mostly due to editcount pumping from welcomes and low activity on actual article work. Frankly I can't tell this user from a bot, so how can I know his judgment or character? Adminship is about trust. If srikeit would like to go up for adminship as a bot (and disclose his source code, and have another admin operate him) then I'd be more likely to consider supporting.--Gmaxwell 02:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know that those welcomes are done by bot? I have looked at my edit history and I have at times managed 4 edits per minute when I manually added a template to a set of articles which needed them, such as {{Sydney Marrickville suburbs}} for instance to all the suburbs in the Marrickville Council for instance. It is also rather uncalled for to call someone's edits "mindless" for doing a dour job like categorizing/standardizing/attaching templates.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, don't twist my words. I didn't call him mindless. I called the edits nearly mindless, because thats what they were: He has huge spans of edits I could easily have my bot do... they aren't worthless but they aren't material that helps us understand his commitment and understanding of the project. As for them being bot edits, if he's able to keep up 4 EPM for spans of 20 minutes at a time (which he's done several times, about 10% of his total edits are welcomes) .. Well.. it's possible, but it doesn't change the point that almost all of his activity could be mistaken for a robot. --Gmaxwell 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for revising your comment. --Gmaxwell 04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, my edits & welcomes were definitely not made by a bot. My knowledge of coding extends upto a basic level of HTML & Wiki-markup. I have no knowledge whatsoever about how to create a bot.
    Secondly I believe that a welcome can go a long way in motivating a user to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia (see MPOV in my userpage & my comment in the Welcoming committee members list (no.329)). I feel every user registering an account deserves a welcome & a link to an experienced user to ask any questions or queries they may have. Although if others feel I give these welcomes to raise my edit count, I will cease to do so.
    Also I agree many of my edits are a bit repititive. All the vandalism reversion, stub creation, stats & category addition etc could have been done by bots, but they weren't. The completion of the List of ODI bios was done by typing out the info (name, DOB, stats etc) of each & every player (over 150 players) with references from Cricinfo. Bots can do such edits but they don't. Also adding pronunciations in my own voice to over 350 aticles is a job I'm sure a bot can't do. Nor can they vote in AFD's & bring articles to NPOV.
    As for the userbox, I apologize. I had added it when I was a newbie here & was absolutely fascinated by userboxes & was solicited to oppose the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. I completely forgot about that userbox being there on my subpage. I have removed it now.
    Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clearing up the bot bit, I don't see a problem with having many welcomes directly, however people here who are using the count to gauge your expirence level should know that almost 10% of your edits are high speed welcomes and we'd prefer quality rather than quantity with welcomes. It would be trivial to make the software welcome people, or have a bot do it... but we don't do that because we want welcoming spread among many users whom are paying some attention to the edits the new users are making, and at 4 welcomes per minute it's hard to expect anyone to pay much attention... some of the people you've welcomed only edit is vandalism. Your pronunciation work is great, and I hope you keep up things like that because that is important work. ... In fact, all your efforts are good, but for the most part they don't tell us about your qualities as an admin, many only tell about your qualities as a bot. :) I'd rather we teach you to build bots than encourage you to be a bot, true you did some bot jobs first, but some might have been better done if done by a real bot because of the different effort curve. If you keep up great contributions like the audio, and expand your interests into a few more judgement exposing areas, I'd see no reason not to support a future adminship. Thank you for you response. --Gmaxwell 12:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for giving some constructive criticism. That's so much better than the oppose vote below that says no more admins are required! Anyway I still do not see eye to eye with you on the topic that the stub creation should have been done by bots. The day bots start creating articles will be a sad day for Wikipedia. Anyway, It doesn't seem I'm going to make it this time so I would greatly appreciate your suggestions on where I can direct my efforts. Thanks. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (De-indenting) You haven't heard of Rambot then. It's been done - long ago. Kimchi.sg 14:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose agreeing with Gmaxwell, may not be a bot, but mechanically (even if manually) adding tons of welcomes to bump edit count doesn't strike me as earning adminship approval -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hmmm, I've been adding welcomes as I RCPatrol, especially now that I have VandalProof. I hope that if I ever become a candidate for Admin that no one opposes my nom "per Gmaxwell." I do it because I believe every new user deserves a welcome and becasue I believe it's best for Wikipedia to give new users the tools that come with the welcome template. I would like to think the same of Srikeit.  :) Dlohcierekim 02:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose don't need more admins, and he has an image in his sig. Ardenn 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, firstly, he doesn't have an image in his signature; secondly, I don't really see how we don't need more admins. Ever been to AFD on a busy day? >_< Mopper Speak! 03:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen to that!  :) Dlohcierekim 02:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. No Rob Church (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per Gmaxwell and Rob Church. --Cyde Weys 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that was a very convincing argument Rob Church provided, wasn't it. — GT 02:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per Gmaxwell, Jo. Also needs more time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Looks good but haven't really been around here for long enough I don't think └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: Good number of edits; but, at this level, you've only been a newcomer so far. Experienced users stay around with that same strength for 8-12 months. --Slgrandson 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I usually look for candidates that have been consistently active for at least around three months, give or take some. This is usually a good indication of ones dedication towards Wikipedia and understanding of its policies. (IMO, 8-12 months is an unreasonably long time to keep a qualified user from the mop.) Though, a quick look at his contris showed that the most recent 2800 or so edits occured in the last two weeks. Can't oppose (not with that many barnstars), but I'd like to wait a bit (about a month) before I support (and consider removing that "new messages" box. Argh! =P). — TheKMantalk 20:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Good editor, but not enough experience. Royboycrashfan 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Not have been here for long time, but I do not oppose.--Jusjih 06:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral A wonderful editor who I know personally and does deserve the job. As others have said, time is an issue though. Talkspace is also a bit on the low side. Remember Adminship is not a reward for Wikipedians. Besides, if you became a administrator that would mean we would see less focus on the great contributions you are currently doing. A couple of months will convert me. All the best. GizzaChat © 12:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral leaning towards Support. Well done on getting rid of the "you have messages" "joke" bar; I promised to oppose the next admin candidate who has one! You're clearly already an important asset to the community, and you'll get adminship soon enough if you keep up the good work. However, I think this is just a little too early. I'd be happy to support say in a month's time having seen you around project space. --kingboyk 15:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Changing to support. I think some less qualified candidates are likely to be promoted this week so it seems churlish to oppose this editor. --kingboyk 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Changed to Neutral from Oppose as most of my concerns have been addressed, plus there are some pretty lame oppose votes based on wikiservicetimeitis and I'd like to negate at least one of them (if not cancel it out by going to support). — GT 16:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. I really, really wanted to support this guy as he's has done everything right, but length of service is just too short - a couple more months needed at which time I would almost certainly support. (I've procrastinated over this for a couple of days). BTW, fantastic work on WP:Cricket bios which would have probably never been done without you. You are an asset to WP. -- I@n ≡ talk 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral leaning towards support. Well-rounded user, but clear lack of time on the project.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments User's edits below. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 04:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

User contributions
Contribution data for user Srikeit (over the 4117 edit(s) shown on this page):
Time range: 106 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 05, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 11hr (UTC) -- 20, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 91.06% Minor edits: 93.76%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 95.09% Minor article edits: 97.9%
Average edits per day (current): 38.68
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 8.14%
Unique pages edited: 2656 | Average edits per page: 1.55 | Edits on top: 40.59%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 52.56%
Minor edits (non reverts): 30.73%
Quick reverts: 10.59%
Unmarked edits: 6.12%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 42.12% | Article talk: 1.04%
User: 4.15% | User talk: 29.37%
Wikipedia: 10.13% | Wikipedia talk: 1.14%
Image: 11.42%
Template: 0.51%
Category: 0.07%
Portal: 0.05%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0%
Other talk pages: 0%
Total edits 4078
Distinct pages edited 2666
Average edits/page 1.530
First edit 16:49, 20 January 2006

(main) 1728
Talk 43
User 171
User talk 1195
Image 470
Template 21
Category 3
Wikipedia 401
Wikipedia talk 46
  • Comment: The candidate has asked, "So is it a crime to have a 20px flag in your signature?" Based on objections about images in signatures raised at some previous RfAs, I can say this will be reason for some to oppose. (Note that the choice of image doesn't matter.) Kimchi.sg 08:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to objections about the image in my signature, I have removed it. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 08:52, 5 May 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Currently I am actively involved in voting for AFD's & reverting vandalism, so as admin I would much appreciate the rollback/blocking privileges and monitoring AIV. Closing out AFD's is another task that interests me. I also intend to tackle the maintainence backlogs.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My greatest achievement here was infact today when I finally finished adding bio stubs for cricketers in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. This, in effect, means that every player who ever played Cricket at the international level has an article (see List of ODI cricketers). I also added the name pronunciations for all the states & major cities of India. Of course, I find reverting vandalism very rewarding.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have never suffered much Wiki-stress as I'm basically quite a calm person & do not lose my temper easily. I have not had many tiffs with users as most problems can be solved with a "sorry" or an "It's alright, mate". I did have a few exchanges with an anon, over his edits[3] that I reverted, who considered the policy on edit summaries as my personal policy. I did my best to explain it to him. but I still think he's somewhere out there holding a machete with my name on it! Also I reverted an edit made by User:Jazzper (whose has now been indefinitely blocked for using sockpuppets abusively) to User:Asphyxe8 (where he revealed the user's real name, see this). His edits were later removed by admin Mark who also gave me a cookie for the reversion.

Question from JoshuaZ (As always, all additional questions are completely optional)

1 You have about 50 edits to article talk. How would you respond to concerns that your total number of artice talk edits is too low?
A Sorry for the delay. It's night here & I tried to sleep & I got some (which surprised me!). Anyway I have been making sweeping changes to entire categories instead of single articles & those changes have been stub creation & adding name pronuncitions. Such changes rarely get opposed or contested in talk pages. But I have still implored all my fellow Wikipedians to give me feedback, so I can improve articles (see 1, 2 & 3)
Still I have worked on several cricketers' bios removing NPOV & controversial stuff. I have also worked on the Indian cricket team which has recently been selected as a Good article & the articles of cities of Ahmedabad & Delhi both of which are promising. For nearly every change I have made, a talk page comment exists. But now that I am mostly done with the mass changes I wanted to do, I am now interested in improving & maintaining articles, so the number will definitely increase. And moving from the topic, I think it's unfortunate that people are opposing your (JoshuaZ) RFA for asking questions to RFA candidates. I feel that you question are helpful to voters for gauging a candidate's potential as an admin.

Quick question from Myciconia

How would you respond to a committed non-admin user who is blatently breaking basic wikipedia policy to achieve a certain goal? How about an administrator who knows Jimbos phone number? An anon user? What factors would influence your approach, and when (if at all) is ignoring the rules acceptable?
A I always try to assume good faith in reviewing edits by a user, especially if the person has been around & is a committed member of the project. I would bring the point to his notice & if the rule breaking is serious (like revealing personal info), delete the edits & protect the page for a while. I would request the user to explain his actions & if the user continues with the rule breaking & refuses to heed the warnings, I would have to resort to blocking him or reporting him, depending upon the severity of the infringement. If you mean an admin who knows Jimbo's phone number & posts it on a page, that would be a highly serious matter & I personally would be very unpleasantly surprised to see an admin do this. I would, as above, immediately remove those edits protect the page & demand an explanation from the admin in question. I would also report the incident to the Admin noticeboard to get additional admins involved & prevent the possibility of a Wheel war occuring. In case of an anon, I would follow the same procedure only give him a strict warning informing him about the Wikipedia policy & if he continues, I would proceed to block him. The factors that would influence my approach will be-
  • Reason for the infringement
  • Severity of the infringement
  • Seniority of the user
  • History of the user (vandalism or other warnings)
  • Commitment of the user towards the project
For cases of harrasment like revealing personal info & personal attacks, ignoring the rules is never acceptable as such moves can never be made in good faith hence must be dealt with swiftly & strictly.
Thanks, you have my vote. Sorry I wasn't clear, by "know Jimbo's phone number" I ment an admin who was highly respected by the king. Myciconia 01:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I find it very interesting that in the above reply you never considered the possibility that the user in question's actions were beneficial but still somehow a violation of some rule. The above question did not make it clear that any harm was caused. It is not uncommon for corner-case situations to arise which were not considered when whatever applicable rules were written. The above makes it sound like you would revert an action purely because it violated the letter of some rule, even if the action were clearly beneficial and/or completely uncontested. Is this the case? Working as a team with other users is critical, and since the question clearly stated that this was an established and trusted user I find your answer deeply troubling. --Gmaxwell 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from abakharev (As always, all additional questions are completely optional)

1 A hypopethetical situation. You a getting an E-mail from a user asking to unblock him. The user claims to have no idea why he was blocked. It is the final days of his ArbCom case and he is understandably frustrated. There are no warnings or block messages on his talk page, and on the block log there are only general words like: For disruptive behavior. Attempts to contact the blocking admin fail. Your actions?
A Sorry for the delay. My server was down for a while & was nearly like a fish out of water for a couple of hours without Wikipedia! Well ArbCom or not, blocking a user without any warnings or block messages is unacceptable. Also if the blocking admin does not explain his actions, I would check the user's contribs & see if any evidence of disruptive behaviour exists. If not, I would unblock him & report my actions along with explanations to the blocking admin, Admin noticeboard & the ArbCom case the user is involved in.
2 You gave a user the Npa3 warning. In an hour you got a compaint that the user used words XXX and YYY that are a grave nationalistic slur in the language Z. You do not know the language Z and never heard words XXX and YYY before. Your actions?
A Well that's a good one. Considering that the user has a history of making personal attacks, assuming good faith will be difficult. I would:
  • See the experience & integrity of the complaining user.
  • If the complaining user is a well known & respected contributor, then I would take his word for it & block the user for making personal attacks.
  • If the user is not that well known, I would post the entire incident on the Admin noticeboard & request an urgent response by anyone who is familiar with the language & the words in question.
Although since the user already has an Npa3 warning, depending on the situation & my gut instinct, I would block him before I get the Admin noticeboard response.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/Srikeit&oldid=1089730478"