Final (17/20/2); ended 06:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC) - Withdrawn by the candidate. (non-bureaucrat closure) TheAnonymouse (talk • contribs) [MerryChristmas!] 06:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anbu121 (talk·contribs) – Fellow editors, I'm glad to present to you Anbu121 for Adminship. I first came across Anbu121 at WPCCOTM which was his brain child and has been actively coordinating it since its creation. I'd been keeping an eye on his work from then and I was fairly impressed.
He has been on this project for an year and has some good amount of edits. The areas where he edits ranges from content work to tireless vandal fighting. He is one of the better vandal fighters around with hundreds of reverts, around 200 reports to AIV and some reports at RPP. Frankly, I cannot find a day where he hasn't been fighting vandalism, excluding the days he took off for holidays. Other than vandal fighting, he has been active in the deletion process too. With 600+ entries, his CSD log is absolutely amazing with a success rate above 95%. His PROD log is impressive too with 116 entries; quite few blue links exist. I've been working at AfDs and have found his sign numerous times. His comments are not the drive-by ones and has participated in 200+ debates where 87% of his !votes matched the consensus. He also tries to help newbies by working at the help desk, new contributors' help page and teahouse.
On the content side, he has managed to get a GA and has half of his edits to the main space. Most of his content work comes from the articles selected at WPCCOTM and cleaning up Chennai-related articles. Chennai is one such article which was in pretty bad state. It looks much better, undoubtedly due to the efforts put in by Anbu121 and other editors working at WPCCOTM. Being the founder of the project he has worked enthusiastically at it and has taken care that it doesn't get inactive.
He is always open to criticism and has vastly improved taking in account the suggestions made to him. I feel that Anbu121 has it all that takes to make a wonderful admin; a content editor who has good record and experience at admin related areas with helpful attitude. His editing has been perfectly balanced and I believe that Anbu121 will make a great admin. At the end, happy holidays :) TheSpecialUserTSU 03:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you so much. I accept the nomination. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I Withdraw. I understand that I have been impulsive in some of my actions and communications. I will work to control it. --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to initially start with CSD and PROD, which I am comfortable with. I would like to observe AIV, AFD and RFPP for 1 or 2 weeks before contributing to them in admin capacity. I may contribute to PERM, DRV, EP and other areas after getting familiar and thorough with them. In the future, I am planning to apply for SPI clerking and/or OTRS, where mop, although isn't necessary, would be useful.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would say that my best contribution is the creation of Chennai COTM, that brings together the efforts of editors interested in articles related to Chennai. I have written a GA and created some 30-odd articles. Most of my content contribution is on India-related articles. I occasionally do some article rescue work, but only for articles that I am familiar with. Other than content, I have also been involved in vandal fighting, CSD tagging, AFD discussions and Help desk replies. I have been slowly exploring different areas of Wikipedia, but the one that has given me the most satisfaction is vandal fighting.
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: There have been a few such instances. During a conflict, the moment I realize what I did was wrong or could have been done better, I apologize to the person(s) concerned. I never try to consciously defend my mistakes. I am proud about the very act of apologizing. It reduces the heat of the discussion and acts as a quick solution in many cases. If I don't see any mistakes on my side, I refer to guidelines and try to explain my viewpoint.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, should Portals be permanently deleted from Wikpedia?
A: Portal is one area which I have not yet started exploring, not even the wikisyntax used in it. Anyways, I will atleast give a try to answer this question. Portals can be speedily deleted under the General criteria G1-G12. If the portal's content is non-transcluded and meets any the CSD criteria of articles (A1-A10), it can be deleted through P1. I have to admit that I do not understand the criteria P2 thoroughly (may be due to my lack of knowledge about portals or the description could have been a little bit more elaborate). I haven't explored the area of MfD, so can't comment on the deletion of portals through MfD either.
Support; you look like a solid character who's ready to have the tools. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, seems to meet my criteria. --Nouniquenames 14:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Moved, see rationale at oppose. --Nouniquenames 14:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - per nom. TheSpecialUserTSU 15:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – Excellent CSD and AfD, good content work, and great vandalism fighting. My interactions with this user (what little I have had) have been good. The user has also been very helpful at the Help desk and Teahouse. TheAnonymouse (talk • contribs) [MerryChristmas!] 15:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – Anbu121 initiated Chennai Collaborations and has lots of respect among fellow editors.--Challengethelimits (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Seems like a good candidate for the mop. From their history, despite a few mistakes, there is no reason to oppose. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - One who works very hard against vandalism and does a lot of Wiki-policing work meticulously. Many a times, he is the one who bears the brunt of edit wars (chiefly by vandals and other similar mischievous users), for which we are really grateful. The initiator and leader of Chennai Collaboration. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Great PROD, CSD and AfD work, would be very useful to Wikipedia if given the mop. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Moved to opposeReply[reply]
Support I feel that he is sufficiently qualified in the areas he intends to work in, particularly CSD, AfD, and AIV, for me to be comfortable in supporting him.--Slon02 (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - have seen him around and his contributions are good. I think he will be good admin. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - meets my criteria.PStrait (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I think he's well qualified for the adminship. Saw him at the Help desk and he was very helpful. His contributions are also good. So he should be given the adminship.--Pratyya(have a chat?) 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I've been constantly working with Anbu over the past three months at the Chennai COTM and he has shown tremendous knowledge of policies and guidelines. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I have personally found this user to be helpful and courteous. I see nothing here to suggest that he would misuse the tools. The "oppose" comments below seem to be based on the notion that an admin candidate must be PERFECT, and that any trivial one-time deviation from perfection is a reason to reject. Seriously, what is he accused of? Occasionally taking the wrong side in an AfD debate? Using Twinkle?? Posting his nomination in December??? These are not good reasons to deny tools to someone who is clearly hardworking, well meaning, and from an area that needs more admins. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I opposed because the candidate made a tasteless personal attack on a recently deceased person at AFD less than a week ago. I don't expect perfection, but I do expect basic human decency. Townlake (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Townlake, the person in question died in 1990 (according to our article). If that matters. Also, bear in mind that many people in India have their favorite mystic and, unfortunately, too many of them also show up here to create pages on these mystics. While Anbu's comment was not acceptable, contextualizing and forgiving may not be a bad idea. --regentspark (comment) 16:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) 1990 is recent enough for such an attack to be an issue for me. Your opinion may differ. 2) Forgiveness is completely different from assessing one's practical qualifications for a job, so I don't understand how you think I should act on your suggestion. Townlake (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Anbu is a helpful editor with a keen eye for cant who will make a fine admin. I've been thinking of nominating him myself but have hesitated because he is brusque and that's something that doesn't go down well in this age of niceness that we seem to be getting into on Wikipedia in general and at RfA in particular. But, his brand of brusqueness is very useful on the India pages which is plagued by POV warriors, sock puppets, agenda pushers, vandals, and well meaning but completely incompetent editors. It is good to be nice but that's not a useful trait when dealing with these sorts of editors so I'm willing to take the occasional rudeness for the overall good of the project. I must also add that I'm extremely disappointed to see editors I respect treat an RfA of a well meaning and competent editor in a less than serious way. I worry that we'll lose an excellent editor because of our inability to see that not everyone can time things perfectly. --regentspark (comment) 16:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Doesn't look like this one is passing, but I encourage the nominator to continue editing and not be discouraged. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Agree with Regents park here. A couple of rants and a careless miss (I haven't seen people often using the d-word to mean it in India and I can understand why Anbu missed it with a glance) doesn't overshadow the good work done by the candidate. Also I beleive Anbu is willing to learn from his mistakes. I request the candidate to continue with his good work regardless of the outcome of this RFA. SurajT 04:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Anbu seems like a good person, and I applaud his intentions in reverting vandalism and so forth. However, most of his actions in that area are entirely reliant on Huggle and Twinkle. For example, this notification to a user of an AfD is unintentionally bitey, and suggests to me that he didn't stop and assess the situation. What he should have also done was tell the user in a nice way where they were going wrong (someone else later did that). In a similar vein, he left this welcome message for a user, but didn't advise them that their username was promotional/organizational and thus in violation of username policy, or report it at WP:UFAA. Likewise this welcome left for a user with an obviously offensive name and whose only edit was the creation of a page that was clearly messing around. If you intend to specialize in "vandal fighting" - I must admit that that is a term I dislike - then you need to be more individually involved on a case by case basis, not just using scripts to revert edits and leave messages.I generally believe in the principle of giving people tool access (to do whatever admin tasks they feel like) once they've been around long enough to demonstrate that they're clearly not going to harm the project, but Anbu's only been here a year, and that doesn't feel long enough for me to be able to say that with certainty. Sorry Anbu, please get more involved for a while and then try again later on. — Hex(❝?!❞) 14:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for bringing these to my notice. The two welcome messages that you mentioned were actually a part of Twinkle's CSD deletion notice. Well, I do not wish to pass on the blame to twinkle for this. I will be more careful in future. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The good thing is that the "Notify page creator if possible" option can be checked off easily if necessary. TheAnonymouse (talk • contribs) [MerryChristmas!] 15:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it makes you feel any better, Anbu, I use the same templates when I used to AfD articles (I don't think I've done any since becoming an admin). I imagine others do as well. True, it's not personalized, but I don't see anything bitey about it. I do tend to agree with Hex's comments about the Welcome messages.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't like the spiking of RfAs when adult editors are busy with their families, AA, and ALANON meetings. Try again during a normal time of year. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The flip side, Kiefer, is that the only time the majority of American teenage Wikipedians can run through an RfA is this period in December, when they're (finally) away from the seven-hour movie analysis and parties that the government calls a "college-preparation school". Just sayin'. Buggie111 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not convinced that any of the current three RFAs are teenagers, and only one is an American. RFA has certainly come to a strange pass when having 3 RFAs running at the same time can be described as a spike, though I'll concede it is above the average for the year. But judging from the candidate's userpage he is an adult and from a country where Christmas is the holiday of a small minority, so this may not be a holiday season for him. ϢereSpielChequers 18:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now feel stupid for making assumptions. Buggie111 (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What in the world does this time of year have to do with AA and Al-Anon meetings? It's a small percentage of people who attend those meetings, and those who do generally go all year round. Keepscases (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This time of year has a greater proportion of cliche-wielding serial supporters sporting amazing technicolor dream-usernames. The proportion of supporters who examine article contributions is lower this time of year. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it really inappropriate to oppose a candidate based purely on when the nomination is submitted. And I'd have to tag "citation needed" on your claim that this time of year is heavy with serial supporters who don't give much thought to their support. It looks to me as if the serial opposers, who seize on any trivial deviation from perfection as a reason to oppose, are here just as strongly. You say your only reason for opposing this nomination is its timing (an argument apparently based on the American calendar, even though the nominee and nominator are not Americans). If you can't or won't evaluate a nomination on its merits, it seems to me it would be better to remain neutral. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please avoid adverbs, MelanieN, particularly when you impute intentions to me that I have never stated: "purely", "only", etc. Not one of the supporters has declared having gone through one article and checked for prose quality and copyright compliance, which is a minimum requirement of articulated responsible support. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Sorry Anbu, this AfD !vote and the subsequent discussion do not instill confidence in me. Salih(talk) 15:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From a purely technical standpoint, the concerns that you point out (and which apparently doomed the article) were not a part of the AfD originally. Anbu's comments addressed the nominator's reasoning in a manner that (I can only assume) was technically accurate. It may be poor form by Anbu to !vote keep without an in-depth check, but BEFORE is for noms, not a requirement of all participants. It could be argued that your oppose here is at least as poor in form. Just saying... --Nouniquenames 19:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's my point, though, you didn't need an "in-depth check" - in its entirety the article was an obvious piece of spam (not to mention clearly translated verbatim from its source) and I wouldn't expect a putative admin to vote Keep on such an obvious speedy deletion candidate. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please forgive me, as I'm fllying blind here (lacking the ability to see the article and not recalling it from pre-deletion), but if it was a verbatim translation, copyvio may not apply. The translation may be considered to impart or require enough creativity as to be considered its own work (although I'm not a lawyer, your mileage may vary). Spam as a claim could be either a surmountable problem (poorly written WP:UGLY), a LIKELYVIOLATION, or WP:IDL. Absent a claim of no notability, there may be great merit in a keep argument in such a discussion.
Further, I would suggest that even if the two of us usually wrote very similarly, if I were to paraphrase a source also written in the same way, you might think my contribution was a copyvio due to the unusual linguistics. AGF isn't a suicide pact, but it is encouraged where possible. I would contend that your reasoning is still rationally unsupported. --Nouniquenames 03:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I completely forgot you couldn't see it. To give a flavour, the second sentence is "Nakshatra is a galore of cerebral minds & has everything to conquer your imagination ... (it) unleashes the talent and creativity of the brightest minds all around and gives them unprecedented opportunity to immerse themselves in the plethora of future technocrats. The will to create, the brilliance to innovate, the zeal to accomplish, the patience to learn, the diligence to teach, and above all the passion to succeed. These are what define NAKSHATRA". It's also written in the first person ("Nakshatra'07 was a success where we had participants from all over India") hence the "almost certainly copied from a primary source" above. It also contains what is possibly my favourite ever sentence in a Wikipedia article - "To create a concrete platform, where different people with common minds canalize their passion and instincts to re-invent themselves and re-create a society which stands hyphenated with some of the most glorious works of the software realm. ". Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well. Crud. I apologize. A glance at that would seem to raise significant alarm bells for most users, and for good reason. My mistake. --Nouniquenames 14:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per the AfD concerns mentioned above -- shows poor judgment, use of evidence, and analysis skills. More experience required. Pol430talk to me 17:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Salih. That trolling personal attack on a recently deceased individual tells me this candidate is not ready for adminship. Townlake (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regretful oppose The AfD discussion cited by Salih above (which was only a few days ago) indicates the candidate may not have the judgment quite yet for judicious use of the tools. Miniapolis (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I do not doubt for an instant that Anbu's contributions are sincere and with the best intentions - we do need editors to look after the quality of articles from the Indian subcontinent. However, I concur with several of the concerns voiced here, and a thorough review of his talk page suggests that his communication may sometimes be a tad too bitey. From my own experience from working in India, this may not be so much of an issue, but the cultural dichotomy needs to be understood if/when interacting as an admin with users from other regions, especially Western ones where sensibilities often run high. I think if he can address these points and his misjudgements at CSD and AfD over the next few months, I would be ready to support a new RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry I feel inclined to oppose, but this is just too egregious an oversight to ignore; that username was blatantly unsuitable for editing Wikipedia. Also, the AfD being cited above demonstrates that Anbu121 likely does not have a sufficient grasp of notability policies, which are crucial in deletion discussions. With a few more months experience and an effort to rely less extensively on tools for communication with other editors, I'd be very happy to support. Kurtis (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not meaning to badger, but I'm not sure I see an oversight there. The welcome template was probably added in automatically as a Twinkle setting. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that's the issue; the candidate used a tool to notify an editor of a speedy deletion when an equally damning concern, that of a blatant username violation, existed. The fact that Anbu121 did nothing about it was, to be frank, somewhat careless. Kurtis (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you that important things were missed that are better served by not being missed. The only mitigation is the lack of an expressed desire to work wp:uaa / wp:aiv. It does reflect a general lack of experience however, and that underpins my impression as well. The Twinkle script arguably begs for some improvements though; and that should be remembered; I'd say fixed. --My76Strat (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without sorrow, I oppose this RfA for obvious reasons. With joy I wish the best for the candidate. --My76Strat (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per AFD concerns; come back after brushing up on notability. GiantSnowman 10:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Devraha Baba was ten days ago. So ... no. WilyD 13:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunate oppose, based on recent AfD issue pointed out by Black Kite above. I'm convinced that more time is needed. --Nouniquenames 14:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose More than 9000 edits out of total 17000 edits are automated edits. As per AfD issues raised by editors and automated edits, I vote oppose. Forgot to put name (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The candidate doesn't have a firm grasp of WP core policies and is a bit too error-prone; just see the problems with the Devraha Baba AfD and the miss that Kurtis pointed out . That said - Anbu is a hard-working editor who could make a fine admin one of these days. Majoreditor (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I am sure that this editor is on the threshold of adminship, and oppose with reluctance. We all make mistakes, and I have made my share, but the mistakes variously highlighted here should not have happened, and as of now I do not feel cofident that similar errors could occur in the future. If we are to blame automated edits (which I do not use) this only highlights the need for them to be scrutinised before posting. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 23:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - per temperament concerns as well as AfD issues. GoPhightins! 23:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - (moved from support) Per concerns raised regarding AfD issues. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Right now, I am leaning towards support, although the personal attacks are a tad concerning for me, so I am going to remain neutral for now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - We need more vandal fighting editors, and I'm bothered by such detailed analysis and hindsight of anyone who's doing regular vandal fighting. I don't find Hex's objections very persuasive for that reason. However the short tenure (just over 1 year) combined with some of the missteps (some mentioned above, a few other small things I see; mostly little "misses" of issues that probably should have been addressed at the time, but were passed over), many recent, make me neutral. I think with a little diligence and more breadth, I could support in the future. Shadowjams (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2012 (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.