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

AlexandrDmitri[edit]

(99/9/2); ended 05:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Candidate information: AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs)

I would like to present AlexandrDmitri for the community's consideration for the role of admin.

I became aware of AlexandrDmitri through his excellent work on the Account Creation Team, where he has created the 4th most accounts out of the 300 members (past and present) of the team (879 accounts created, that's 3% of all the accounts created by the Team).

AD is an active clerk for the Arbitration Committee, where he has done some sterling work. He has been trusted with adminship at the English WikiNews (verify) and he has Reviewer rights on the French WikiNews (verify) which means that under the French WikiNew's Flagged Revisions, he can confirm changes that are seen by visitors to the site. This shows that he is trusted on other projects as well as enwiki.

AD reports users to UAA when necessary - his work at ACC has meant that he has a lot of experience in user names, and UAA is an area in which he would be well-placed to use the bit. In his role as an ArbCom clerk, he has sometimes had to impose sanctions - but as a non-admin, he has not been able to do this, but has had to find an admin to do this on his behalf. Also, some ArbCom pages are fully protected to prevent vandalism, so this has sometimes made it harder for AD to clerk, as he can't edit those pages himself. Having the bit would mean that he can impose sanctions and edit fully protected pages.

He works as a New Page Patroller, and flags articles as ((db-person)), ((db-attack)) and ((db-spam)) - and I should note that of the last 200-250 CSD tags that AD has placed over the last 7 months, almost all of the articles have been deleted including 4 which I deleted on 12th May - there were 2 which have since been recreated, but which were originally deleted via an expired PROD and a CSD tag by AD. He generally hand-edits to tag articles (his automated edit count is approx. 10%) - and obviously checks that the tag is appropriate before adding it.

Now to the negatives: AD had one DYK to his name, and no significant article work (most of it has been tagging for references, etc) - he is not an article creator, but a maintainer - which, after all, is what an admin is for. He does not participate in AfDs, because he has no interest in this area - and no intention of working in this area in the future.

I am confident that AD will make an excellent, conscientous admin, and I would trust him with the mop should he receive it. I hope you will agree. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I echo everything Phantomsteve said in his statement, and do not have much to add. Much of my interaction with Alexandr (AD) has been since he joined the Arbitration clerk team. His diligent contributions to the clerk team's workload brought him to my attention long ago, and it's a shame that it has taken so long for this RfA to be filed (just a few days ago, I had to unprotect a page to allow AD to do his job[1]). Alexandr is without exception a polite, thoughtful contributor, in all the areas of the project that he assists with: account creation; clerking; RC/NP patrol; article maintenance; and most recently, dispute mediation with the mediation cabal. In his interactions with other editors, he is unfailingly pleasant; and he will always explain his thinking if prompted. These are all traits we look for in our project's administrators.

Alexandr is a discreet contributor who contributes primarily to Wikipedia's background processes. Whilst this work is important in itself, and more than adequate a workload for an administrator, it would be unfair to imply that AD could not be of service elsewhere. I do not often see him post to the administrators' noticeboards or assist with user conduct problems, but his mature, lucid approach would certainly allow him to deal with the less pleasant side of the administrative workload if that became necessary.

Access to the administrator tools would allow Alexandr to work more extensively in the areas he presently does. Phantomsteve has already outlined the ways in which AD's presence there is greatly beneficial, and I hope that I've succeeded in reinforcing his message. I am sure that you will agree that Alexandr is a useful guy to have working on the encyclopedia, and hope you will join us in supporting Alexandr's request for adminship. AGK 00:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'd like to thank both Phantomsteve and AGK for offering to nominate me and for their kind words. I am happy to accept this nomination. ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Given my experience with the Account Creation Team, where I am a Tool Admin, I feel I have a lot of experience with the username policy, and thus WP:UAA would be a logical place to start. As Steve mentioned, I have been unable to complete my Arbitration Committee clerk duties fully and having the bit would allow me autonomy. I would continue to work in the areas of CSD that Steve mentioned as well as ((db-hoax)) and ((db-vandalism)), and would take great care in ensuring that the tag had been correctly applied. I am famililar with how Flagged Revisions works, as that was already implemented at en-Wikinews when I got there, and moved from editor to reviewer to admin. There are other areas that I would be interested in working, such as WP:RFPP and WP:AIV, but I would enter those arenas slowly and carefully with the guidance of a more experienced admin (my contributions there are low but the pages requested have been protected and the vandals listed blocked). I would not work in XfD, nor have anything to do with images or copyright as I believe that there are far more competent people than me already in those areas.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm definitely a Wikignome working to keep the place ticking over. Whilst I am on NPP I hit "Random article" and tag with ((noreferences)) or ((primarysources)) very often. One less visible area in which I work is the Account Creation Team, helping people who for one reason or another cannot create an account themselves. As a team we pride ourselves in responding very quickly to requests, being careful not to create accounts that are too similar, conflict with another account which has its SUL unified, and refusing the various username violations that come in. By no stretch of the imagination am I a prolific content creator, which I do appreciate will be an issue for some people, although I do have a DYK to my name and I created Christophe Moulin and Sans aucun doute from unsourced versions on fr-Wikipedia. I've undertaken three cases for WP:MEDCAB of which one was resolved fairly easily (though one of the parties was indef blocked for an unrelated issue), the second I helped resolve on the talk page, and the third is just starting (delays in getting people to agree to informal mediation). My work as an Arbitration Clerk has shown that I am methodical and meticulous whether it be opening/clerking/closing cases or generally maintaining WP:RFAR and the ((ArbComOpenTasks)) template so that everything is up to date.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have to say that so far my experience on Wikipedia has not been stressful to me, and I have not had any conflicts with any editors. Back in September someone questioned my speedy tagging of an article and I thought that I had acted correctly at the time. Through discussion with the person who declined the tag, I became more aware of the need to be careful about tagging short one-liners which had the potential to go on and become articles. It was a useful experience which taught me to be more prudent. The two dispute resolution processes which I helped to resolve ran fairly smoothly and it was a good learning experience.
Additional optional question from Groomtech
4. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A: I would not unilaterally "issue" orders in the examples you cited as this does not in my mind fit the WP:CONSENSUS model we use. There are times however when an admin has to enact decisions that have been agreed on, such as WP:RFAR, WP:AE or WP:ANI (amongst others). My first step in dispute resolution is always, without exception, to discuss with the user first. Sometimes a little explanation can go a long way. If discussion with the user, on the talk page(s) failed to achieve dispute resolution, then I'd progress down the dispute resolution route. The most important thing for me is that the matter should be discussed and agreed on first. Note that this does not include actions such as blocking a user for violating the username policy or a persistent vandal, in which case I would follow the appropriate policy. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC) (Addendum before I leave for culinary school for the day: an admin is not in a position of power, but is a user with advanced access rights and with additional tools) -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
5. What is your take on IAR?
A: WP:IAR is an extremely important policy which should be used prudently, with care and attention; it should not be used without caution, due consideration or respect for others. We should all be striving to improve the encyclopaedia, whether it be through content writing, copyediting, vandal fighting, maintaining articles, resolving disputes or any other activity which seeks to make Wikipedia a better resource. Policies and guidelines are important ways of codifying how we do things but sometimes they don't cover every single eventuality, and sometimes people have to ignore a rule that prevents them from improving or maintaining the encyclopaedia. That said, I have never had cause to invoke IAR, and I would be extremely cautious about using it; given the areas I intend to work in, I am not sure that I would have reason to do so. I suppose that IAR boils down to "use your common sense"; the problem is that it can often lead to highly contentious actions—especially in the area of administrative actions—and what is common sense to one person is an unwise move to another. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from ImperfectlyInformed
6. You are interested in new pages patrol and WP:CSD (speedy deletion). Imagine that you come across a new article on a living person which would be controversial as a speedy (say one full several page article reference on the subject and a few short news articles). Let's say you read it and notice it is written in a very negative manner and the person is a minor bureaucrat covered only by local newspapers in a small city mainly for a scandal. How do you react? Let's say you tag it and notice a couple weeks later it is unchanged. What do you do? Also, you are interested in CSD but not in XfD. Do you think your lack of knowledge of the deletion "case law" might hinder you efforts? Do you ever come across articles which can't be speedied but that you don't think should really be in the encyclopedia? Sorry for the multiple questions but I'm trying to get an understanding for the new pages review process, which I think is important. When you click a new page and hit it with some tags, the yellow highlighting goes away; additionally, some people may take the tagging as a certification that the article doesn't need major attention and that urgent issues have been addressed.
A: I hope I cover all of the questions here. First off, if an article has been deleted and recreated in exactly the same form, after checking that the article had been correctly deleted under the appropriate criteria it would be a valid decision to redelete it and explain on the editor's talkpage why the issues raised need to be addressed before recreating the article. Secondly any BLP, whether it be a minor bureaucrat or (for example) a high-profile fim star, that serves no purpose but to threaten or disparage and is unsourced should be deleted under G10. Even with watertight sources prudence is required and defamatory material should be removed for ethical and legal reasons, and when in doubt, the BLP should be cut down to a policy-compliant version, if that is indeed possible. I would never just tag it and leave it, I would take it to the BLP noticeboard if I felt that expert attention was required. I stated that I would work in CSD and not XfD because I have a fair bit of experience in the former, and virtually none in the latter; I am a firm believer in concentrating on what I know well, rather than spreading myself thinly over the multitude of areas that an admin can work in, and there are many people who are far more experienced and competent than me to work in these areas. Same reason for not wanting to work in deletion review. I don't believe that my lack of participation in XfD or deletion review will hinder my ability to move from tagging an article to actually deleting it as they are different processes requiring different skill sets. When an article does not clearly fit CSD, I have WP:PRODed it, citing the relevant policy. Finally, I only mark an article as patrolled if I feel it clearly meets CSD, so that fellow New Page Patrollers do not have to check it again (though often by the time I have manually substed the ((firstarticle)) if appropriate and left the CSD notification, someone else has got there before me); if I have marked an article as ((noreferences)) I leave it unpatrolled. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from ImperfectlyInformed
6a. In my question about CSD, I noted that CSD is closely related to XfD but you have no intention, apparently ever, to work in XfD or even nominate articles for deletion. You say you're worried about spreading yourself thin and you don't have the expertise. Why do you think nominating an article for deletion requires a certain skill and expertise and CSD does not? Why do you think you're not qualified to work in certain areas. I should note that I considering the expertise requirements for CSD versus AfD to be simply technical; the administrative judgment and policy knowledge requirements are essentially equivalent. Do you worry that by nominating yourself this early and promising not to work in certain areas, you are boxing yourself in and hampering your personal growth? I should also note that in my imaginary example, the BLP had sources. WP:CSD G10 says "These "attack pages" may include slander, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced", and deleting such a page under G10 would likely be controversial. I should also note that a fair proportion of current WP:BLP/N notices have essentially no comments. Assuming yours received, similarly, no comment, how would you react? Also, how do you feel about imposing extra work on the scarce noticeboard workers without yourself pitching in to add an uninvolved comment to some other issue?
A:I think there is a slight understanding here: I did not say I would never nominate an article for deletion, I said that I would not work there as an admin i.e. judging consensus and closing an article nominated for deletion. I mentioned above that I have PRODed articles in the past, but it has been a very long time since I have had cause to nominate an article for deletion. As for limiting the areas in which I intend to work, I already cited two examples, RFPP and AIV where I am looking to gain experience, and I think with CSD, UAA, ACC, clerking at ArbCom—which often requires quite a bit of work in itself depending upon the number and size of the cases—and MEDCAB, where I intend to increase my involvement, I think I will have quite enough to occupy the hours I have available for Wikipedia (keeping in mind that I also help out as an admin on en-Wikinews). For your imaginary BLP example I was careful to note that G10 should only be applied if there were no sources, but that "[e]ven with watertight sources prudence is required and defamatory material should be removed for ethical and legal reasons, and when in doubt, the BLP should be cut down to a policy-compliant version, if that is indeed possible". I'm not quite sure that I can fully agree with you that a fair proportion of WP:BLP/N notices have essentially no comments. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from ImperfectlyInformed
7. You start work on AIV. Imagine that there has been slow edit-warring against an editor who repeatedly adds unencyclopedic and perhaps mildly ridiculous material, sometimes unsourced or sometimes sourced to blog posts or other random websites. After persisting in removing the information for a couple weeks, an exasperated couple editors lodge a complaint at AIV. They argue that the editor is a sophisticated vandal who is joking around to just waste their time and pretends ignorance of reliable sources. There's a long backlog at AIV and so it's up to you. How do you deal with the situation?
A: Whilst I would emphathise with the frustration felt by the editors making the report, AIV is mainly for "obviously malicious edits that require no discussion" and complex cases such as the one, where you emphasise the edit warring nature of the dispute should, I believe, be addressed at the the edit warring board or at WP:ANI. I would mark the issue as such on AIV, and discuss with the editors who made the report on their talkpages, in order that the issue be addressed appropriately and in a timely fashion, either helping to make the report or even doing it myself myself to facilitate things. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Followup optional question from SarekOfVulcan
7a. Given that you restrict AIV to "malice" above, what's your opinion of this report that I filed earlier today?
A: Looking at the user's contributions this seems a much more simple case of someone deliberately adding content which compromises the encyclopaedia for legal reasons, unlike the one referenced to in Q7 where complex edit warring was the issue. This particular edit further indicates that the editor is merely trying to promote the Boston Youth Symphony Orchestra. As copyright material is being introduced and reintroduced and the multiple warnings ignored, I would block the user with the explanation that they had persisted in introducing copyright material despite multiple warnings. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from ImperfectlyInformed
8. One of the key principles of Wikipedia is boldness. The key here is that there is a lot of work and few volunteers, so often the most efficient thing to do if you see a problem is to do it yourself rather than cluttering up the already overloaded noticeboards and heavily tagged articles. You've essentially said you will not nominate articles for deletion and have shown a very strong disinclination for doing substantive article work. Why do you avoid adding/removing references from articles - is it fear that you'll overstep? In my vandalism question above, you said you would refer to ANI, but at what point would you step up and handle ANI issues yourself? Between May 14 and May 17, you tagged 7 articles as "noreferences". Why don't you go ahead and add references to any of these? Have you in some cases added references when you didn't see, instead of tagging? If not, why? Do you sometimes wonder if the tagging is an efficient use of time - if you had simply worked on referencing 1 of the articles, it's likely that with that time spent Wikipedia would have been in the different position of 1 referenced article and 6 untagged articles which, quite obviously, have no references. Is that a loss? Further, you would have learned a little more about some random article topic.
A:I believe I addressed the misunderstanding about not nominating articles for deletion in Q6a. Some people are content builders, some are Wikignomes and I am one of the latter. Some people are inclined to write GAs, FAs, find references, others help with the maintenance. Each person has his or her own way of contributing to the encyclopaedia and I specialise in maintenance and administrative tasks. I did once whilst on NPP come across Answers Solutions Knowledge which arrived in French and totally unreferenced and I brought that up to a DYK. However I have made no secret of the fact that content building has not been the norm for me. Will I get involved in ANI myself? Possibly, as I have helped mediate two disputes and I am familiar with the dispute resolution process. Am I bold? I have to make judgement calls about usernames all of the time on ACC: for the 896 accounts I have created for new editors, I have declined 106. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as co-nominator. AGK 00:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. The nominators got this one right. AD's work at ACC has been stellar, and he'd be the first one I'd look to for advice were I to eventually get around to it. I know him from clerking, where he's been a fantastic sounding board and has always had his head in the right place. More importantly, any review of his contributions show that courtesy is his middle name, and when that's combined with experience as a trusted user on other sites, well, I think you all know what I'm getting at. Calm demeanor + solid contributions + foreign-language experience = no brainer. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support Trustworthy and dependable. MBisanz talk 06:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Looks the goods. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Strong support I've known this user for a few months through ACC. Reliable and to quote MBisanz, trustworthy. BejinhanTalk 06:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support No problems I've found. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support. Pretty much per Amory and MBisanz. Definitely trustworthy and has a genuine use for the tools. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support as co-nominator -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Deleted content, and logs looks good, even marks pages patrolled indicating thorough work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support: Too many threads about not enough RfAs... Oh, and no concerns with the user, either in my (limited) contact or in my (slightly less limited) perusal of their contributions. TFOWRThis flag once was red 07:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. support- well-deserving of the mop. Excellent conduct and he will certainly use the tools well :) ((Sonia|talk|simple)) 07:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support I've seen his work, on and off the account creation interface. As is said, methodical and trustworthy. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 07:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. The creation of "all those accounts" doesn't mean shit, I'm afraid, it's more a race than a task for most of them now. I do however feel Alex is more than helpful and approachable enough for this role.  f o x  07:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support - Have seen his work and trust he'll make a good admin. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. I'm genuinely shocked to see this user is not yet an administrator. He certainly deserves the support of the community for this role. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Incredibly Strong Supprt, AlexandrDmitri has done tremendous work as an arbclerk, and this is long overdue. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  17. Support. Seems trustworthy. SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Strong support. A fantastic user who has some serious amounts of clue. Alexandr will do extremely well with the tools and he's obviously in need of them. He'll make a fantastic administrator. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Strong support; clerking for the Committee is a hard task that drops one in the middle of frayed tempers and angry editors while being continually under a microscope. That Alexandr manages to keep his cool and act deliberately and carefully is proof that the admins tools would be no big deal for him. — Coren (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support - trustworthy. PhilKnight (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support. I, too, thought this editor was already an admin. Thanks for all your hard work, Alexandr. Tiderolls 11:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Very light on edits to article space and highly active for a year; however, the candidate has proven trustworthy with a number of tools (current administrator on WikiNews, accountcreator, ipblock-exempt, rollbacker). His consistently calm, cool demeanor and body of work clerking for the Arb Committee — an area where emotions can get white-hot — is what tipped the scales in his favor for me.--Hokeman (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support - I have known AlexandrDmitri for a while, and he has always been very helpful when we have interacted, such as on Eurovision Song Contest articles. He showed himself to be admin material in a dispute I got involved relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan, where he remained civil and logical in the face of hostility from some other editors; the relevant discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 5#Dealing with criticism and controversy. Alexandr passes my criteria well, with "bonus points" given to his work as an ArbCom clerk and trusted positions on other projects. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Per Ryan. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support - The trust of the nominators goes a long way in my book. Also, the clerking for ARBCOM indicates a cool head needed for adminship.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 12:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support - I've been working with AlexandrDimitri since he became a trainee clerk. He is hard-working and level headed and will be an asset. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Strong Support - I thought AD was already an admin. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 13:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Weak support I see nothing in this candidate that would make me feel they would abuse there tools, but I would have liked to see more contributions in the article space. Immunize (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support - Great experience in various maintenance roles, which, as indicated in the nom, is mostly what being an admin is about. The limited content creation doesn't bother me at all. The candidate seems to interact with others well and I think overall he will make good use of the admin tools. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support per MBisanz and LiberalFascist. GlassCobra 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support Candidate seems to be well suited to become an Admin. Jarkeld (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support Has shown that he will remain cool and calm in pressure situations, whether clerking or in content/conduct disputes. SirFozzie (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Excellent work in ACC. He is level headed and should do good as an admin. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Strong Support As a member of the Account Creation Team I work with AlexandrDmitri on a daily basis. He is always professional, consistent and trustworthy. He is one one of the first members I go to when I need guidance with a new account. Further as NSD states above I thought he was already an admin. Mlpearc Pull My Chain Trib's 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Added note: The Snowball Clause. Mlpearc Pull My Chain Trib's 17:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Strong support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support No concerns, I have seen his work and have always been impressed. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support He is already an admin on ACC, so he knows the role well. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately that role is completely different to the one he is currently applying for; having admin rights on ACC gives you very little additional power.  f o x  17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support per WP:RIGHTNOW --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Looks to me like he won't mess up too badly. Hi878 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Two great nominations in one day! AlexandrDimitri clearly has lots of relevant experience in the areas he wants to work in, and I offer a strong vote of support and my encouragement to carry on the good work. And I like Gnomes. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Hmm, though he was an admin. Nonetheless, a good candidate. ceranthor 20:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Answers to the questions are reassuring, I can't find any problems, and it looks to me like you're trusted and appreciated all over the place. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support Of course, he's a great arb clerk and is extremely active in ACC as well. —fetch·comms 21:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 22:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support per nom.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support - don't see why not :) Airplaneman ✈ 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support I see nothing in my review to say they would be anything other than a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Overdue. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support. Limited content contributions, otherwise good work. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support for the simplest possible reason: I have no doubt that giving him the tools would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Tim Song (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support - although i never worked with this Wikipedian, from the look of his/her edits, they've done well. Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Strong SupportOutstanding work all around. Those traits and his track record show he'll be an outstanding wikipedian in whatever area he works in. Note: I could count on one hand the RFA/Bs I've voted in since becoming a crat and this is an easy one to make another exception for. Also, recusing on closing this on two grounds: 1) I've now voted and 2) he's a current arbclerk and I'm a current arb. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support per Amory and Ryan. Excellent candidate! -MBK004 01:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Prodego talk 01:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. I think I've seen you somewhere. Anyway, net benefit. Aditya Ex Machina 06:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support - I'd like to see more automated edits, but otherwise good. Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Yup, no alarms here. GedUK  09:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support. Seems trustworthy. Pcap ping 12:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support-Thought this user already had the mod.--SKATER Speak. 13:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Strong support. Fully qualified, trustworthy, and I have no concerns. JamieS93❤ 14:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Суппорт – B.hotep •talk• 14:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support – KnightLago (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support Pleased with question answer. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support - Obvious. Tiptoety talk 17:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support - yes, please. Genuine need, cooperative, friendly, and helpful (from experience in ACC). Broad knowledge of Wikipedia, and knows when to ask for help. Demonstrable calm attitudes through clerk work.  Chzz  ►  17:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Looks like a big net positive to the project.  7  23:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Yes. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support – Has my trust. I'm not worried about edit count, because of activity. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support - looks good to me. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support. I can think of few more obvious candidates - best of luck. ~ mazca talk 08:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support - knows what he's doing. Orphan Wiki 17:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support. No concerns. decltype (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support Contribs show evidence. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 20:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Digago (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This user is now blocked, so I'm indenting the vote. —Soap— 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support Per above. Elockid (Talk) 22:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support Very helpful editor, and has shown he can be trusted at ArbCom. Rin tin tin (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support - the relatively low percentage of edits in the article space is the only thing keeping me from a strong support. You have my support nonetheless.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 04:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Aye Having spent nearly all of our respective time together on account creation i have see his ability to make wise decisions in tricky grey areas. It hurts a little to say it but people turn to him all the time for his sound reasoning and guidance. That same competence does carry over into his editing which, while not being large on content, is still helpful. Gnome, elf, færie, or whatever, consider me one more proud supporter. delirious & lost ☯ ~нuɢѕ~ 05:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support You are a newpage patroller, and as one myself I know admin tools could be extremley useful, instead of constant tagging. And nothing bad I can see Acather96 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support For the work he has been doing with account creation, and his continuous friendliness and helpfulness there, he is clearly the type of person we should have as admin. - EdoDodo talk 19:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support No concerns- ACC admin doesn't necessarily mean a lot to me, but enwikinews admin and Arbcom clerk do. No concerns with this one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. —SpacemanSpiff 02:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support yes I would prefer some more article creation but do I think he'll be a net positive to the project? Yeah, most likely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support. He looks good, and easily meets my standards. The concerns raised by the opposes do not concern me greatly. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC) P.S. We could use some proof-readers. :-) Bearian (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support per nom. --John (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support - no reason not to trust him with the tools, and his answers to my followup fit nicely with my understanding of the situation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)
  89. Support and I hope he decides to move on to AIV very quickly, because he seems the ideal person to work there as an administrator. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support I appreciate how well and helpful he resolved this mediation cabal request, and closed it at the right time. Resolving disputes is important in an administrator, and AD has done it very well. Although I voted neutral once, I agree to myself that it was pretty harsh of me being the first neutral voter. See here if anyone wants to have a look at my Neutral vote. Minimac (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support per noms. J.delanoygabsadds 17:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support. In a way, I might have expected an RfA before becoming an Arb Clerk. But I think it speaks volumes to see Arbs, Clerks, and AE workers endorsing this candidate as having the right temperament for the flag. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support Seems to be capable of doing the job...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support No problems here. Aiken ♫ 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, AlexandrDmitri. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support No concerns. Royalbroil 04:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support as I see no evidence the tools would be abused. I'm still of the opinion that adminship isn't and shouldn't be a big deal. Also, WP:100 is coming up. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Strong Support per the above comments, answers to questions, and past productivity. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I have skimmed through all article contributions. Aside from Christophe Moulin and Sans aucun doute, I found one nice, promising little substantive edit but in general I couldn't see many. I know lots of people will very heartily disagree with me, but drive-by tagging is one of the more annoying things in Wikipedia. It appears as if the editor may be somewhat addicted to wikignoming and similar tasks. These are things which do not take much wisdom and are pretty much black & white. So it is impossible to determine the person's ability to make wise decisions in tricky grey areas. It's concerning that he wants to work in mediation but does not get into the trenches himself. If the person cannot allocate a certain proportion of edits to straight content building and the closely related work of checking articles for accuracy and debating over what should and should not be included - the core areas of Wikipedia - I cannot support. I believe that the sad truth is that Wikipedia desperately needs more content people and less gnomes and less politicians. Spend some time looking for citation needed tags and adding the refs, spend some time at WP:RS/N, WP:NOR/N, WP:NPOV/N, and also perhaps the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All. I don't drop in here very often but I'm disappointed at the number of supports. It's also interesting that NPP is mentioned but the editor shows no interest in the AfD process. A new pages patroller who has a general intention to stay uninvolved in deletion seems problematic. I agree with his philosophy on unilateral page and topic banning by admins (unacceptable), and it is somewhat unfortunate that we couldn't delegate some of the extra "no-brainer" technical tools to clean up things without giving him the power the make controversial judgment calls. But there's no certainty that he won't move in with judgment calls in the future. II | (t - c) 03:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Too many supports for how little content creation AD has done. When one spends time clerking rather than developing a single GA, it says to me that this user is not interested in building an encyclopedia. Wikignomes are fine, but II is right--this is precisely the profile of an admin candidate we do not need. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose as per ImperfectlyInformed and Jclemens - they've said it all. I've checked everything out and there's no need for me to add anything. --Kudpung (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose as per Jclemens. This trend for lionising wikignomes with no actual experience of building an encyclopedia, and no demonstrated ability to do so, is rather alarming. I'm curious to know how and where this recent batch of candidates has been recruited. (Please, don't anyone waste electrons on asking me to WP:AGF; I wasn't born yesterday.) Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dammit, who leaked details of our secret plot to destroy Wikipedia to Malleus? He wasn't on the approved list! - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And I hope I never will be. There's clearly something rotten in the state of Denmark. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Um, waitaminute ... I thought you and I were both going over the top, now you sound like the brooding Dane ... if I misunderstood, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alexandr's light participation in solid content production is his one weakness. My intention is to collaborate with him after this RfA closes on a featured content drive on one or two articles. But it is unfair to suggest that his work, lacking as it is in raw mainspace edits, is not greatly beneficial to our processes. If AD wants to focus solely on grunt work, so be it. Declining his offer of help is silly, because the end product will be either an increased backlog or a movement by content-writing sysops from the mainspace to mundane background work. And as for the question of where the recent batch of candidates came from? Well, a few of us got together during April's Cabal meeting and decided that this would be the week when we rushed through the new Recruits™. I guess you caught us! AGK 13:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have made no comment on whether I consider Alexandr's work to be beneficial or not, so please do claim that I have, and use that deception in an attempt to discredit my opinion by calling it "silly". I consider it "silly" to have administrators with no content-building experience lording it over those who do. Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It involves a very small logical jump to say that if you oppose his RfA because he has no "demonstrated ability" to contribute to the encyclopedia then you do not find his work to be of value. And precisely how would Alexandr lord it over anybody? AGK 13:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is nevertheless not what I said, no matter how many times you claim that it is. What is very clear though is that you regard the role of admininistrator as some kind of a reward for hard work, a notion I fundamentally reject. Malleus Fatuorum 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now who is misrepresenting positions? I nominated Alexandr for adminship because he could be very useful in our background processes. Recently CAT:CSD has been perpetually backlogged. That's just one kind of thing a gnome like AD could help with. The only reward that the sysop bit confers is more work. AGK 14:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have to say that, possibly for the first time in my life, I agree with Malleus in that content work is vital and it's always better to see an RFA candidate with some decent mainspace experience. However, as a fairly new admin myself, it would be nice if someone else could deal with the constant backlogs at RfPP and AIV, for example, so I could do something more interesting (like write content!) :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. As I have said in numerous RFAs before, I simply cannot support a user with such limited content creation contributions. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and the lack of experience in this area is too much for me to overlook. BigDom 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose. Lack of thorough questions with which to assess this candidate, the paucity of his encyclopaedic contributions and the immediate rush to support him based on generally meagre justifications. This seems to be a popularity contest rather than a searching test of the candidate’s credentials. Leaky Caldron 18:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please could be more specific about where he has gone wrong? In other words, what question number did he get wrong? How many of his edits are notably mistaken? And in response to your other sentence, IMO the more trusted a user gets, the more popular he/she will be. That's why there are so many supports in this RfA. Minimac (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I said there was a lack of thorough questions - not a lack of thorough answers. I didn't say he'd got anything wrong. Popularity isn't always a gauge to competence. Leaky Caldron 19:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why don't you pose some of these missing questions to him? As well as giving the candidate a fair chance to counter any concerns, it would also help undecided voters in their evaluation of the RFA. AGK 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With 78 supports before the first oppose, this was a forgone conclusion as soon as he was nominated. I have better things to do in RL. Leaky Caldron 20:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And with 68 of those supports in the first 24 hours, not a little suspicious. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    LC: Fair point. Malleus: Are you seriously implying what I think you are, or are you just trolling? AGK 22:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm simply pointing out what even a fool could see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, it's not as if RfA is one of those pages everyone watches or has templates for and whatnot, right? ;) —fetch·comms 05:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose (not that it'll make any difference) per II @1. Alexandr's efforts are appreciated but are not what's truly needed for an admin (and I say this as somewhat of a wikignome myself). Leaky has also made an interesting point about the RfA=popularity contest situation. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. As per my own criteria, those who don't contribute significantly to articlespace/auditing content are out of touch with the point of the encyclopedia, to a certain extent, which is a negative quality in a potential admin. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Believe in most cases an admin should have significant content contributions so as to understand better the conflicts among editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Moved to oppose Just not enough experience in article creation and building for my liking. After all, we are here to make an encyclopedia and while CSD tagging and vandal fighting are important, I think that writing articles is what Wikipedia is really about. No reasons to oppose, but I just can't bring myself to support either. BigDom 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he has article experience, since he has the autoreview tool. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Oops, he actuallyhas the account creator tool. I thought he had autoreview, but I confused it with account creator. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But without vandal-fighters and NPPers, content building would be much harder if not impossible. In the big scheme of things, vandal-fighting and NPPing are essential parts of article building. I don't want to sound like I'm hounding you or anything; just stating my opinion :). Airplaneman ✈ 01:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Agree with BigDom. While his work is commendable, there is a clear lack of article creation and building. I would prefer a more 'well-rounded' editor. -Reconsider! 02:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Question, an Editor who contributes to the project in many ways, but is not a writer, cannot be trusted with the tools to make decisions and guide the community ? Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WIth respect to Reconsider and his right to vote in line with his philosophies, that is one of the silliest reasons to oppose I have ever read. AGK 11:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In fairness, AGK, it was a neutral... :) –Juliancolton | Talk 13:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per WP:WIKIPEDIANS, there are Wikipedians who write articles and others who carry out administrative tasks. AD is one of those who carries out administrative tasks. Just because that's his 'area', is that wrong? Wikipedia is not wholly about article-creation, it is also about maintaining it. Just my 2 cents. BejinhanTalk 11:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I completely agree. Lack of content creation is not enough reason to oppose at an RfA, though it is preferable. Immunize (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See my bolded statements response above on in the oppose section on why content building is a requirement for my support. Administrative powers extend quite a bit beyond things which could be done in the foreseeable future by a bot. Someone who does purely wikignome things does not give much indication as to how they'll decide on grey areas. II | (t - c) 03:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I respect your opinion (and understand it, even if as a nominator I obviously disagree with it!), may I just suggest that your first sentence there should have read why content building is a requirement for my support? There are no requirements for adminship, so your statement may be confusing for newcomers to this page. However, that aside, I feel that you are perfectly entitled to have this as a requirement for someone whose RfA you could support - and I trust that no one will argue the point on this, as every editor has their own standards (whether publicised or not), and one of the great strengths of Wikipedia (for me, anyway) is that the community can form a consensus - some will make statements that one disagrees with, other make statements which one will agree with - but it is the overall consensus which makes decisions. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, changed the wording, although I think with the way we use acronyms newbies have a lot of other things they'll be more confused about. I should note that content building might be a bit misleading and perhaps the word should be content improving - I'm more inclined to look favorably on someone who does work in the trenches fixing and providing neutral opinions on articles which violate NPOV and BLP (thus why I mentioned the noticeboards) than someone who only tinkers away at DYKs and FAs which are completely noncontroversial. II | (t - c) 18:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral—this sentence put me off from supporting: Whilst I am on NPP I hit "Random article" and tag with ((noreferences)) or ((primarysources)) very often. (I don't actually see what this has to do with NPP, but that's not the point...) To me, that sort of tagging, which someone above described as "drive-by", is essentially 'whining' at the state of an article. Perhaps important, but easy, effortless and not anything to broadcast or be as proud of as AlexandrDmitri seems to be. The fact that this specific editor's tagging arises from hit-and-miss random searching for problems also doesn't suggest a methodical or dedicated approach... though I think that sounds much harsher than I mean!! On a related note, Jclemens (talk · contribs) makes a good summary, with which I concur, of the content-creation issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢
    Thank you for your feedback. To clarify, when I am on NPP I alternate checking the pages that are created with hitting the Random article link to see if there are older articles out there which are unreferenced, whether they be BLPs or not. It was not my intention to come across as whining at the state of the article, broadcasting this or being proud of it; I was merely trying to say that I also check older articles as well as those that have just been created. If you have any suggestions for a more structured way of checking for older unreferenced articles, then I would welcome them. When it comes to creating accounts on the ACC team, informing editors that I have nominated a page for speedy deletion or clerking a case for ArbCom, I do so in a rigorous and methodical fashion. With regards to content creation I am very aware that I am lacking in that area, and fully expected opposition on this count (noting of course that you have placed your comment in the Neutral section). Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[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.
Category