Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:50, 26 September 2006

Duja

Voice your opinion. (36/32/11) Ending 10:18 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Duja (talk · contribs) – He should have become an admin a long time ago. But he just refused to accept the nomination: first offer (in Serbian) and then a bit later the RfA he declined; offers over the email I cannot link here, but I know I asked him more than once. And now he finally accepted the nom, and all of us from former Yugoslavia community can start celebrating, because he is the most levelheaded and one of (let us all now bow to Joy) most respected editors this ebullient area has ever seen. I just can't remember him making any enemies which is a fact that keeps me in a continued state of awe knowing how easily you make enemies on Balkan related issues (saying he enforces strict NPOV would be an understatement here). Except from being a great contributor to former-Yu themes, he does all sorts of other things on Misplaced Pages, which is extremely rare (ex-Yu editors usually stick to ex-Yu themes). He also contributes content to linguistic themes and bridge. He has been with (some of) us for more than 2 years (see his first edit for an example of his good manners - the man introduced himself even before he started editing) and accumulated more than 5500 edits. His interaction with community is abundant both on his talk page and on wikipedia_talk pages. He started WP:WPCB and is one of founding members of WP:FY. He also takes part in the dirty tasks: he is a regular on WP:RQM, has voted on AfDs, TfD, CfD, has contributed to WP:CP and has reported vandals to WP:ANI. If I didn't mention something important, that's probably because I forgot it, not because he didn't work on it. Come on, let's give him a mop. --Dijxtra 18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Duja 10:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: For the start, I'd like to help clearing up backlogs at Category:Requested moves and WP:AfD, and later perhaps more engage in handling things like WP:AN/I. I think that fresh admins should engage and garner some experience in "housekeeping" jobs before reaching the "block" button routinely (obvious cases aside).
Like Dijxtra said (and my contribs hopefully confirm), I'm kind of a "polymath" (please substitute a less pretentious and more ironic English word, can't find one) or a "dabbler" — while I've touched many aspects of Misplaced Pages by contributing, talking or merely reading (WP:RM, WP:AfD, WP:AN/I, WP:AN, WP:CP WP:WSS/P, WP:RfC, article space of course, categorization, numerous templates like those etc.) I'm not really profound in any. For the bad or the good of it, my potential admin activities will probably also be "a bit of everything". Duja

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: In line with the above, I'm more a "patcher" type of editor (format/wikify/NPOVize/expand/categorize/reorganize/reference/you name it) than a comprehensive in-detail writer. Consequently, I don't have a FA behind me (although I do have a plan :-) ). If I'd have to single out some articles, I think I did a good job in Bidding box and Screen (bridge) mostly by myself, and significantly shaped up Differences in standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, Montenegrins, Gorani (Kosovo), Torlakian, Contract bridge glossary and Duplicate bridge. I have set up Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Contract bridge (hmm, a bit slowed down lately).
As I see it, perhaps my best plus side is my ability to NPOVize things (cynics would say, use weasel words); I think I'm mostly able to distance myself away from the subject and present the conflicting POVs in a fair manner. Duja

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: Having dealt with numerous pages related with former Yugoslavia-related issues — you can bet it. Here, fringe and extreme POVs abound, and trying to tone the conflict down is often an impossible mission. I'd skip the examples here (I'd be happy to provide them at request). I think I managed to maintain a cool head and stay within WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for the most part (not that I wasn't frustrated on occasion). I even walked away from some articles I still don't agree with (perhaps not a good thing for encyclopedia, but at least better for mental health).
To be honest, I don't think I handled e.g. this case well—I probably should have taken a deeper breath; it settled one way or another, anyway.
Even if I become an admin, I certainly don't intend to change my approach in conflict resolution—I am well aware of the policies which prevent taking admin privileges in content disputes and getting involved into a conflict of interest. There's always an option of posting at WP:RfC, WP:AN/I or WP:AN/3RR. Duja

Question from Andeh

4. Hi, could you point me to some of your AfD nominations? (They should still be on your watchlist) Or any AfDs discussions you have been a part of. Thanks.

A: Some AfD nominations (not so recent): , , ],
Some recent AfD discussions: , Duja

Question from Mcginnly

5. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?

A: If under "established user" we understand a user with a long primarily constructive (i.e. WP:V out of consideration) contribution to the project, I'd say it would be breaches of WP:3RR, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In cases of disruption, I'd like to get more opinions on WP:AN first (although e.g. mass page moves should be stopped quickly). In any case (and even with non-established users), I would give user a warning first (and/or require an apology in cases of WP:NPA). I think "established users" in the above sense should be given some leeway but not a "blank trust" either. In case of 3RR, some leeway needs to be given in cases when the other side in the edit dispute is obviously inserting cruft, crank or other material clearly against e.g. WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (note that 3RR excludes "simple vandalism" but there are many borderline cases). Duja

• NOTE; I didn't add question 5! Check the history.--Andeh 11:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Andeh - I'd changed the link but not the proxy. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Question from Andeh

6. In answer one you stated "I think that fresh admins should engage and garner some experience in "housekeeping" jobs before reaching the "block" button routinely (obvious cases aside)", are you suggesting that users should become admins before gaining the required experience? Please explain/expand this. Thanks.--Andeh 12:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A: Sorry, but I don't see how it can be plausibly interpreted like that. I referred to "fresh admins", i.e. newly promoted admins, not "fresh users". If one gets hired as e.g. journalist, should he immediately jump into editing the newspaper's equivalent of Watergate affair? I've just said that I'd refrain from using the heavy weaponry, (like e.g. blocking another admin as an extreme example), until I gather some experience. (I said it perhaps subconciously having in mind the entire post-Carnildo RfA affair that I'm fairly acknowledged with). Duja

{{subst:weaksupport}} it is.--Andeh 12:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Question from —Wknight94 (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Will you spend any time in CAT:CSD? If so, what will you absolutely never ever forget to do when you pull up a speedy candidate? And I mean ever... (A short answer is acceptable)

A: Ugh, I spent a bit of time tagging Special:Newpages but frankly, I got tired soon. I probably will spend some time. I will absolutely never ever forget to copy the page to WP:BJAODN if I find it amusing... :-)
Now seriously, before deletion, I would check the page history to see if it wasn't vandalized rather than being outright CSD candidate. If not, I would check whether the CSD criteria apply, and if so, specify the reason for deletion in the summary (otherwise, AfD it if eligible). Finally, I would notice the article's creator. I'm not sure which of those steps you will consider "essential" but there's the answer...

Perfect! Too many admins don't check the history and they delete valid articles that were just changed into ridiculous attack pages (I've saved three articles so far). —Wknight94 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Duja's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• I am concerned that this RFA will, like many in the past having to deal with Balkan editors, get nationalist sockpuppets. Reflecting nothing on the suitability of the candidate, but I must voice my strong concerns. The crats will have to monitor this closely. – Chacor 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Concerns have obviously not materialised, although it's worth keeping an eye on this. – Chacor 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

• I would trust Duja with admin tools. – Chacor 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator --Dijxtra 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. We need more admins and I have a good impression of this candidate. I'm not particularly worried that he has 'only' 94% edit summary usage and less than 200 template edits :) Haukur 10:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Petition firmly accepted. Unquestioning approval. Duja is a good man and will make a fine admin. - FrancisTyers · 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong support. Will be nice to have such a clear-minded admin. --dcabrilo 12:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Michael 12:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support A fine candidate. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. Very good answer to question 1 too. Good luck! --Alex | talk / review me | 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak support, experience seems to fit with what they want to do as an admin. Even though they haven't done much vandal fighting, the users last reverts were in July and showed they know the basics, besides I don't see anything in the nom suggesting vandal fighting. User has been here a long time too.--Andeh 12:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Balkan, South Slavic and former Yugoslavia issues definitely need a devoted admin who knows the matter well. Todor→Bozhinov 12:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Seems like an excellent user. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Why not? The Land 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak support - Concerns met (per Oppose #1) - and per AndehPandy.UK thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, looks good, although I don't understand why you added these extra fair use rationales. The standard {{logo}} and {{bookcover}} seemed to me to explain the fair use adequately already. By the way I am an admin and have less than 20 image edits, and most of my template edits are trivial. Kusma (討論) 13:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Rama's arrow 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Mangojuice 14:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support: Looks like a good and civil editor that has touched various places and followed protocol - plus a perfect answer to my question. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support: How can one object to this nomination? Also, Novi Sad is indeed a lovely city! •NikoSilver• 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Levelheaded and civil editor. Regards, Asterion 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - a true NPOV user. —Khoikhoi 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Undoubtful Gargantually Strong Support. There are little (or no) admins from where he comes - and he more than qualifies according to wikipedia's standards for one. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Apparently level-headed, long-term editor with many substantive edits. Espresso Addict 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Very good editor. Hello32020 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support, looks like a great editor. Themindset 19:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Seems like a perfectly good admin candidate, based on answers to questions above. (aeropagitica) 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Appears to be an excellent editor. Canadian-Bacon 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Less than 200 template edits support. Ringing endorsement from nominator and good answers. Grandmasterka 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support good enough for me. Actively works on a wikiproject. Also, we need more serbian editors --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Meets my standards, and has shown his longevity and dedication to Misplaced Pages.-- danntm _C 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 23:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Strong Support Critical thinking, moral integrity, emotional maturity & tactful reserve are characteristics of this user- at least this is what I see when I look at his wiki personality . I doubt such traits could be detrimental to the wiki admin position.Mir Harven 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong Support I am quite impressed by your editing and handling of conflicts. It becomes even more commendable if we bear in mind that you are deeply involved with such hot topics as the Balkan-related ones. I'm also glad to learn that you are willing to clear the backlog on WP:RQM. Many more pros. Definitely yes.--Húsönd 23:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per the nominee's answers, and the experience definitely a bonus. Excellent editor. --Coredesat talk! 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support I know him for a long time, and until now I did not know that he live in the same city as I do. LOL :)))) PANONIAN (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support per excellent answers to questions; seems to be a good editor and will do well with those power tools! All the best, — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 03:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Why did HolyRomanEmperor remove my last support vote? TruthCrusader 04:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Great editor --Trans25 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - User does not meet my criteria (Major edit summary is less then 94%, i require 95%. Less then 20 image space edits. Less then 200 template edits. Also this, this and this bother me, there are no fair use rationales on those images.) - User requires a little more experiance first. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  Regarding images there is always a possibility the user contributes to Wikimedia Commons and therefore has a low image-space count. – Chacor 10:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  commons:User:Duja has more than 200 image edits. --Dijxtra 11:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  I upload most of my self-made images to Commons (commons:User:Duja my contribs there;) only a few fair-use ones are on en:. As for the fair use rationale, I initially did mark them with {{fairusein}}, but then I discovered the {{logo}} which states that it's fair use "...to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question". Those images are indeed used only in American Contract Bridge League, World Bridge Federation and The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge pages (the latter image has also {{fairusein}}). Sorry, but I don't see which additional rationale is called for.
  I admit I'm less than perfect in edit summaries, most often when I make several consecutive edits—I tend to forget to mark all of them. Duja 11:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree with the above oppose vote, there is nothing in the nomination or answers suggesting the user wants to get involved with anything related to images, and many users don't provide fair-use rationale. And the edit summary usage is a few percent out? So.--Andeh 12:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  Fair use rationales are a must for my support, i'd be willing to switch to a support now I know of his commons account but i'm unwilling to do so until his fair use images are rationalies: (per: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Misplaced Pages:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information."). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  Many users, including admins don't provide fair-use for their image uploads, I urge you to reconsider your vote. Neutral is just below!--Andeh 12:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  I know they dont, but it isnt much to ask a user to start using them now and add them to there present fair use uploads (I believe there is only 4 or 5) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  FWIW, I added the rationales. Duja 13:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  Concerns have been met and i've switched accordingly. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  The candidate doesn't have the moon on a stick either. That's no reason to oppose them. (200 template edits? How irrelevant ca you get?) The Land 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose Service time, microscopic engagement on article talk pages, and a sometimes baffling eagerness to keep the most spurious of articles, with "I've heard of it", "sounds notable" and deliberate misreadings of guidelines ("has three CDs on CDbaby") often taking precedence over policy. Not to mention lack of knowledge of policy ("If the info is true" is not grounds for a keep vote opinion, hoax is not a speedy criterion). (Edited to include: barest of vandalfighting activity, no follow-ups on user talk pages afaics.) ~ trialsanderrors 19:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose because I am extremely impressed with this candidate, and in order to make full use of his intelligence and independence of thought, he will need to have a thorough grounding in wikipedia's ways, which he should spend the next 3 months doing. Tyrenius 19:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Too early. Shows lack of knowledge on guidelines, and policies above (even on WP:CSD). Lack of experience, and only seems to want to work with AfD deletions, when there are many other areas an admin needs to be aware of. Will support in the future, maybe in 3 months. SynergeticMaggot 20:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose AfD participation shows an inclination to keep marginal-at-best articles based on marginal reasoning. This is worrisome given that he wants to do deletion-related work. Opabinia regalis 00:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose a bit more experience necessary. And there are some articles that just aren't worth saving! Dlyons493 Talk 01:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose My strongest oppose to date per Crazy Russian Don't need admin tools to save articles from the fiery pit. And most CSD's are just plain rubbish. That's why they are CSD's. :) Dlohcierekim 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment We have plenty of existing articles that need work. Why not try fixing them up? Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 01:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment As the nominator clearly lacks understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidlines this reflects on the nom. No thank you.  :) Dlohcierekim 02:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

7. Absolutely not! per willingness to keep anything w/o regard to the dictates of policy and per choice of nominator. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   Wow I did not see the nominator. Let the edit warring and wheel warring begin--- NOT! :) Dlohcierekim 02:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   Struck incivil remark w/ apologies to nom and nominator. :) Dlohcierekim 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

8. Strong Oppose TbT's contributions to AfD arguments have been disruptive at times to some discussions and shows no ability to be open to deletion. Every single encounter I've had with this editor has been baffling in how arguments are formed,. His opinions on AfDs are always something that I await to see if he actually looks into the article and realizes that you can't keep everything. Alot of administrative work deals with deletion, it appears that he takes everything he can just to stall it when deletion is fairly obvious. Yanksox 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per CrazyRussian's first reason. Viridae 03:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per above.Strong Oppose per AED and per this. Stubbleboy 12:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

    And Stubbleboy's diff here reminds me of something I didn't mention in in my comment, TruthbringerToronto often uses misleading edit summaries. Like the one in that diff says add the newspaper link but really the link is just one of maybe a dozen changes being made. I've also seen (and I'll try to pull up some diffs for this later) things like "adding categories and links" while also removing the CSD or PROD at the same time. Metros232 12:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose. As suggested by others, a review of TbT's recent contributions reveals that he/she has a weak understanding of Wiki policy and guidelines, particularly WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:EL. When an article is nominated for deletion on the grounds that is lacks reliable sources, TbT has consistently added items to the External links section presumably in an attempt to "save" the article. Examples over the past 48 hours: . -AED 04:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose for now, but suggest RfA from a different nominator next time -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per CrazyRussian, shows little understanding of process and policies. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Two months' experience makes me queasy. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose per CrazyRussian, doesn't seem to have a strong enough knowledge of process. RandyWang (/_{fix me up}) 08:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Oppose per Crzrussian, Dylons493 & Buchanan-Hermit. Jorcoga 10:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose knowledge of policy seems shaky at best. And a nomination by a permabanned sockpuppet doesn't help matters much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose per very shaky AfD voting (per my own background in AfD discussions, and per Trialsanderrors) and lack of knowledge of policy. -- Kicking222 11:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose user often expresses/demonstrates a lack of knowledge of policy. One such policy/guideline is userfication of articles, I've often seen the user copy and paste articles to people's user space, taking away the GFDL history on it. See and along with this discussion between myself and the user User talk:TruthbringerToronto#Userfying biographies. Metros232 12:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose, per Crazyrussian. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong Oppose Editor has demonstrated difficulty in grasping basic Misplaced Pages policies, including WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Xoloz 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong Oppose

    User shows no template or html/wiki markup skills

    User has been here 3 months, and seems to new for me

    User was nominated by a sockpuppet account

    User has not participated in a wikiproject

    User does not seem active in the Article review process (GAN, PR, FAC)

    User participates in only one deleltion category

    Other editors seem to be raising concerns about policy knowledge

    User seems to have no vandal fighting experience

    User page suggests a narrow range of intersts.Misplaced Pages's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 16:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

23. Oppose per trilasanderrors and several others here.--Crossmr 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Stong Oppose -- only 3 months is enough for me to oppose anyhow --T-rex 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose: Lifespan here is too short (3½ months). Try again next year. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose per False Prophet. --CFIF ☎ 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose per above comments. User has a propensity to save just about everything; removing speedy tags from articles that are rather easily determined to be non-notable but not actually doing anything to indicate that notability in the article or any other comments is the wrong way to go about it. Start thinking about doing the research on articles before contesting, removing tags, etc., and consider that editors who have tagged them have probably not done it for fun. Also needs more experience and talk participation. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong Oppose as per Yanksox. Dionyseus 23:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose: Per concerns above about keeping everything in spite of policy/guidelines. --AbsolutDan 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose as per trialsanderrors & Crazyrussian. Pete.Hurd 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose per above comments. Leibniz 18:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong oppose per CrazyRussian and False Prophet. 1ne 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Weak Neutral - leaning on support, but to be honest just a little tentative due to TruthbringerToronto's fairly short time here (3 months). Also salvaging articles does not actually require any additional tools. May change vote upon further comments or answers to additional questions. Thanks - GIen 16:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral The answer given to question one reveals a limited interest in using the admin powers. An editor can be 95% as effective with the strategy-as-outlined without the admin powers. Are there other areas of Misplaced Pages to which you would consider contributing where the presence of an admin would be of benefit to the community?  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral - leaning towards support. His answers to the question above shows a small interest in using admin powers. On top of this, his experience to this project is relatively short (3 months). However, the user is a very good editor and I may support this candidate if more convincing reasons are being presented here in favour of this candidate. --Siva1979 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral Great editor, but 3 months is too short for me. --WillMak050389 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral - great editor but responses don't seem to show need of the +sysop flag -- Tawker 19:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral Great editor, but lack of experience. --Nishkid64 00:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral First, the user who nominated Truthbringer is a suspected sockpuppet User:Ladodgersss. But that doesn't take TruthbringerToronto contribs which have saved quite a lot of articles. Even he makes mistakes, because he is quite over enthusiastic in saving every article. But he is a great editor, and I'll vote keep in a few months time. --Ageo020 01:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   I think you might have meant "I'll vote support in a few months time" but your brain was stuck in keep/delete mode :) Metros232 12:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

8. Neutral The candidate seems to be a good editor, but I would feel better with a bit more experience and a more concise realisation of what he/she would do with the extra buttons. hoopydink 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral. My experiences interacting with this editor have been generally positive, and although I don't share his inclusionism it doesn't bother me (if anything, I'm troubled by the assertions from trialsanderrors and Alexander about policy on AfD; guidelines like WP:MUSIC are explicitly not binding, Wikipedians can choose to ignore them if they choose, and this we're-not-binding-it's-just-a-suggestion is far stronger than even the usual "fuck process" Cluey view). However, I don't think he has the experience or wiki-fu necessary to be an administrator as yet. I would like to see him as an administrator at some point, however. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   For the record, I opposed because of votes "without regard to the dictates of policy" (emphasis added), not guidelines like WP:MUSIC. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

   Also for the record, I'm talking about cases like this, where the issue is clearly verifiability, something TT completely ignores in his vote opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

10. Neutral as there's no need to pile on. If this does become close, however, I will switch to oppose per CrazyRussian, Yanksox, Andrew, and Kicking, to name four. Srose (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral candidate, while I admire his dedication to inclusionism, simply has not been around as long as I would like to see an candidate also could consider branching out.-- danntm _C 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)