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

Blnguyen[edit]

Final (160/1/0) ended 03:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen (talk · contribs) – It is with great pleasure I nominate Blnguyen for adminship. Blnguyen (from Sydney, Australia) is a user who personifies the term ‘silent contributor’, notching up 10,500+ edits since September 2005 without letting anyone notice. He is a (hyper)active member of several (11 to be exact) WikiProjects like WikiProject Cricket, WikiProject Adelaide etc . He has even created two highly useful & informative portals: Portal:Eurovision & Portal:Swimming. He votes actively in AFD’s & RFA’s. He even finds time to be an active RC Patroller & is also found to be an effective vandal fighter, which can only improve on recieving admin privileges. Other than being a tireless contributor, he is also a really nice guy. He is a member of the Welcoming Committee & Esperanza. I have found him to be polite, couteous & very approachable. He is also one of the most prolific members of the Barnstar Brigade, letting deserving users know their efforts are noticed & much appreciated. I have interacted with the Blnguyen in the Cricket project where he is one of the integral members. His contributions, especially NPOV enforcement ,are extremely valuable in cricket articles. Just check out his User Page (which I think is the most organized user page on Wikipedia, Damn he’s like Monica on steroids!) & you will know why he so deserves the mop, bucket & the keys to the janitorial closet. Thanks Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Adelaide, South Australia actually.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 03:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to co-nominate with Srikeit. Blnguyen is a first rate Wikipedian who contributes maturely and intelligently to articles, projects and debates. He remains cool under fire and thinks before saving. Adminship will enable him to be even more of an asset to the Project. I have absolutely no reservations handing over the keys to someone of his calibre. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thankyou very much to Srikeit and I@n for their kind words. Thankyou to the community for turning out to review my contributions and activity to Wikipedia.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. An excellent contributor. Calm, polite, friendly. Snottygobble 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extreme Nominator Support Hell yeah! --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as co-nom. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rfa cliché #1. RadioKirk talk to me 02:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, most definitely. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 02:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support, absolutely. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 03:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jaranda wat's sup 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I don't see any problems as far as I can see. joturner 03:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Fully capable of mop and bucketing! Ziggurat 03:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Tintin (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Moral Support Bwahaha. Master of Puppets That's hot. 03:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Has lots of stellar reviews at WP:ER, and is very familiar with processes like AFD and RFA. Also has portal talk edits, so the last excuse for not supporting is gone. --Elkman - (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support - Ganeshk (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support of course, and meets 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 03:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Totally edit conflicted support, excellent candidate, good editor, experienced in administrative tasks, and always polite and encouraging. Kusma (討論) 04:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support with full confidence. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oh heck ya! Been after this one to stand for a while now. More candidates like this one please!™ Support ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. DVD+ R/W 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support from downunder for the fellow Aussie. - Richardcavell 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Support I'm a little concerned with the lack of Article:Talk edits (other than Project templates). The most he has ever edited in Talk is 6 for Dravid. He is civil in his dealings with others, but I don't see much evidence of the ability to compromise or work through problems. Ted 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. RfA support cliché #2. Seen him doing good stuff everywhere (not really). --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support A great contributor whose work I've seen and admired. Can be trusted with the mop; making him an admin will improve Wikipedia. Gwernol 04:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, he's dipped his hands in many areas of Wikipedia and is worthy of the mop the mop is worthy of him. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sweet, I'm worthy of someone! Master of Puppets That's hot. 05:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support a devoted Wikipedian with diverse interests and contributions, with more than enough experience for the role.--cj | talk 05:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per above, a good balance of contributions across all facets of WP life, a well rounded editor who will make an efficient admin. --bainer (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support everything above. Teke 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Absolutely. Rebecca 05:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - too many damn Aussie admins already oh, all right - support :) Grutness...wha? 05:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. What can i say?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 06:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Great editor and a promising potential admin. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support  :) Dlohcierekim 06:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I look forward to working with admin Blnguyen. michael talk 06:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support edit history looks good, no sign of potential for abuse of admin tools.--MONGO 07:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Of course!!!! Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Sounds like a great candidate Valentinian (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support.Bharatveer 07:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - a fantastic editor should become a fantastic sysop abakharev 07:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Sure, he may be a "silent editor" but I've definitely noticed this editor around. From my experience, Blnguyen is a very solid contributor and would make a great admin. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Return Support GizzaChat © 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. --Andy123 talk 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. DarthVader 07:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Nomination and co-nomination say it all. Blnguyen has both the knowledge and temperament suitable for the mop. Let's give it to him. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, well-rounded and conscientious contributor, will make a fine admin.--cjllw | TALK 08:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support! It was about time, B! :) Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, based on my experience with Blnguyen. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support and excellent work with the Gastroturfing. Arbusto 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong Support, I have seen him a lot on the project, and my interactions with him have been positive. Great Wikipedian and he will make a fine admin. --Terence Ong 09:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, also based on my experiences with Blnguyen. --Roisterer 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support - Very mature user and will become a great admin. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Only positive experience with this user. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Looks ready to move up. Mostly Rainy 12:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support 10,000+ editors is a rareity :), serious wiki-addict it appears.--|«Andeh?»|Talk? 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, of course. --kingboyk 12:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support A great contributor. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - obviously a brilliant contributor. Will make a fine admin. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Punkmorten 13:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong support, very nice nomination too. You have my full confidence.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support despite two edit conflicts. Strong contributor, good work on AfD. Hadn't noticed the silence, particularly with regard to RfA fishing but seems to be a strong candidate for mop status. MLA 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. --Bhadani 13:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, definitely. Proto||type 13:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support: Naturally. Kukini 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support--Jusjih 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support --Scott Davis Talk 13:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - great user. --Tone 14:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Very active. Steveo2 14:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support--blue520 14:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Obvious choice. Tangotango 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Great editor and will be a good admin. Pecher Talk 15:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. What can I say. enochlau (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Absolutely, everyone else has said it already. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. On one condition – that he does not revert to the almost indecipherable signature that he was using until very recently. (Users need to be able to read an admin's username.) Zaxem 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Long awaited. Rama's Arrow 16:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. He is a perfect example to all wikipedians! User:Prince06 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote should be discounted. It comes from a proven sockpuppet of Prin Anwar 23:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support On Wheels On Wheels lol you deserve it richly. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per above.—G.He 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Strong Support Trustworthy, polite, patient, kind -- perfect candidate. Xoloz 17:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. No worries support. Deizio talk 18:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Extremely good contributor. With 10,000+ edits he deserves to be an admin. Jordy 19:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support per Jordy. —Khoikhoi 19:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Absolute support. Our paths cross often in our various editing capacities. I think he'll make a great admin. Sue Anne 19:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. What, ... <RFA CLICHE REMOVED> Support WerdnaTc@bCmLt 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support per Xoloz and Jordy EurowikiJ 19:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Can't oppose. Royboycrashfan 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Looks like a good contributor who is ready. Yamaguchi先生 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, without reservations. Sango123 (e) 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support; I've seen nothing but good contributions. — TKD::Talk 23:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support, of course. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 23:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support DGX 00:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support as per noms and own positive experience with Blnguyen. — Donama 01:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Full support. I have come across this editor frequently and he will be an excellent admin. --Bduke 01:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support JoshuaZ 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support; yes, absolutely. Antandrus (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - he's done some great work on WP and is a really good contributor. (JROBBO 06:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  97. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. From his posts at WP:AN I had thought he was already an admin! Isopropyl 06:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Bumped into him on vandal duty a few times and he has always shown control and consistancy. My pleasure to support. Rockpocket (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    99!!!! WP:100 :) Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Duplicate vote Tangotango 14:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, wasn't a vote, just wanted to add a comment on how close we were to the 100 mark. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. Hardworking contributor on a number of Wikiprojects and well deserving of adminship. Capitalistroadster 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support good work. JPD (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. A fantastic contributor who has repeatedly displayed the skills required to make a good admin. Rje 11:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Fair dinkum support. Wow! 10k+ edits already! Obviously a committed member of the project! Brisvegas 11:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Another bandwagon support. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Joe I 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support- I see this guy everywhere, and I'm always impressed with his contributions. Reyk YO! 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. support did you say 10,000+ edits? --Bachrach44 20:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Tie me kangeroo down support - Friendly, helpful editor who already does a useful share of vandal hunting and would therefore benefit from an extra button or two. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. I've seen Bing in action on several occasions and everything I've seen suggests to me that he'll be a good admin. Bucketsofg✐ 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I've crossed paths with Blnguyen in my counter-vandalism efforts; I have no doubts he'll make a great admin. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. I've seen him around and he's a trustworthy and responsible editor. --Muchness 03:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Why haven't I supported yet? Support- Will make a good one. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - give him a mop Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 05:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Looking at his history, I am quite impressed by this guy. Even though it's not needed, I stand squarely behind him. --Alphachimp talk 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - Trustworthy fellow Australian ed. that deserves a go. --Arnzy (whats up?) 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support - haven't interacted much with him but he sure displays a cool head from the little I have seen at Ajith. Also, I trust the nominator. --Gurubrahma 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support!!! Cos he has the same birthday as me, haha. :D-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support per nom Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Though I have no experience with him, he seems good, and Anwar below is blatantly POV about him. Alethiophile 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support; confident in this user's potential as an admin. Aquilina 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support--A Y Arktos\talk 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Strong support, although at this point I'm just piling on... :) and yet it was edit-conflicted! --Deville (Talk) 21:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. I thought he was already an adim support ILovePlankton ( L) 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Have your Support!!! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support do a good job! -- Samir धर्म 23:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. A salve for vandalitis. Shenme 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Merovingian {T C @} 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support per norm --K a s h Talk | email 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Great Wikipedian. --TeaDrinker 03:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Oh Yes! --Shultz IV 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. --Nick Boalch\talk 12:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support, I especially like the friendly or at least neutral talk page comments. -- Kjkolb 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support See him around often. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. I have run across this user very frequently and have seen nothing unhelpful. No reason at all to oppose. Grandmasterka 06:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. Good editor. Will make a good admin, I think. --Firsfron 07:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. Agathoclea 09:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Awesome editing. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (History of War) 16:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support, of course, per, for example, MONGO. Well on his way to becoming the Ian Thorpe of Wikipedia (whatever that means).  :) Joe 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thorpey would say: Blnguyen is fully sick! -- I@n ≡ talk 17:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support pile-on! Seems like the right kinda-person for admin. ---J.S (t|c) 17:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Unnecessary but morally reassuring Support – willing to do boring stuff AND WikiProjects, good combination – Gurch 17:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support, can't believe I haven't already supported, a very friendly user who has a ridiculous number of fantastic contributions! -- Natalya 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. I fear this RfA might struggle to get up, but I'll vote support nonetheless. Too bad I couldn't have been the 138th person to give Blnguyen heaped-on praise and wished him all the best with the mop and bucket. Oh well, try again in a month? Harro5 11:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Harro's edit summary was "support" and he upped the support tally by one. I suspect he's posted in the wrong section but have asked for clarification on his talk page. --kingboyk 15:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Australian sarcasm is lost on the Yanks. Blnyugen has my un-wavering support, and I'll go back to the standard "support, well-deserved" comments in future. :) Harro5 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe so, but I'm not a "Yank". I'm what you folks would call a "whingeing Pom". --kingboyk 09:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the error; either way, support. Harro5 09:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Strong Support I just think its a good Idea. -- Babii-Gurl-Ray 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support.Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support from the sunny Czech Republic. I like your articles about suburbs of Adelaide. - Darwinek 11:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support A great, kind, and helpful wikipedian. He deserves this mop. -- Banez 12:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 12:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support of course! --Mmounties (Talk) 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. Will be a good admin.--Dakota ~ 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support - oh no! My vote made it 151 which is an odd number! --GeorgeMoney T·C 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Well overdue. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Extremely Strong Support, 10,000 edits is an automatic "yes" from me. --Evan Robidoux 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Absolutely Spprot, He always provides the good information on article, and just being nice to everyone. Daniel5127, 02:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Yes! Why aren't more people piling on? Flowerparty☀ 02:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Per Nomination, and meets my requirements. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Whoops, I don't want to miss this one! --Cyde↔Weys 06:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support Good all round contributor, break out one extra new mop. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Strong Support: I am confident, he will become excellent admin. - Holy Ganga talk 19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Excellent user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Presumes bad faith in dispute resolution. His idea of cleanup is blanking out whole lines, paragraphs, sections and even supporting links without even a pretense of discussion. This is evident particularly in Ajith. Pushes his POV as NPOV. Unusually high participation in AfD shows herd mentality. Poor judgement of who is editor and who is vandal. Supports majority vote even in matters of fact. Amateur contributor. Vandal-fighting is a irrelevant criterion to become admin. Last but not least, fails miserably Mailer Diablo's test. Try again next year. Anwar 17:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment At least once a week I see Vandal-fighting is a irrelevant criterion to become admin. or along those lines. From what I can tell, that's primarily what an administrator does: Blocking, protection, rollback. Are there special article editing features that an admin has that I'm not aware of? I'm serious here, because I see so many oppose votes based on article experience; as far as I know it's called a mop for cleanup and not a pen for writing. If I am wrong, please let me know because I'm confused as to why that's a criterion for opposition all the time. Teke 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment How exactly does a high participation in AfD show "herd mentaliy"? It seems to me that that would make a person a good contributor. Alethiophile 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bcoz vandal-fighting needs only a brainless bot not a balanced admin with good judgement on the quality of the contribution and contributor. Mailer Diablo's test establishes the candidate is a serious contributor to this encyclopaedia. Anwar 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, vandal-fighting does not need "only a brainless bot". You must try it someday and then you will realise that it is actually very hard and tiring work which requires a well-balanced mind to face a lot of brainless vandals who constantly disrupt wikipedia. And I am sure that some of the vandal-fighting bots around here have a brain (atleast TawkerBot2 seems to have one) :)- Aksi_great (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tawkerbot2 only gets about 40% of the vandalism you know, we always need humans to catch the close stuff -- Tawker 23:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These are serious allegations. Could you point me to specific diffs that illustrates the points you make? It would be very helpful to me and I'm sure other editors too. Thanks, Gwernol 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Blnguyen, who has been here for over 8 months, has 10,000+ edits, 15 DYK's to his name, has started 2 Portals & has wide community approval (78 Support votes with no opposes excluding this at the time of writing). Stating that he has "Poor Judgement" & is an "Amateur Contributor" without any evidence is quite uncalled for. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, please add new comments in a separate paragraph and don't edit like you did this time as it is difficult to follow discussions this way. Now, coming back to your allegations. The community consensus (and not the author's own wish) was that use of words like "Mega-hit" and "Mega-star" was making the article un-encyclopedic and hence it was needed to tone down. Discussions regarding this have been indicated by Blnguyen as answer to Question 3 below. I would consider high participation in AfDs a good sign and not a bad one. Can you explain in which context you are saying he has poor judgement in identifying vandals. What I request is to provide us reference(s) where he showed poor judgement which was evident as community felt otherwise. This will help us decide if it indeed were "poor judgement". Vandal-fighting is considered by many as an important criteria for an admin so I am not sure if this point needs to be countered at all. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a quick look at Ajith Kumar as recommended above by Anwar. Blnguyen's first edit to the article is here. He added a POV tag to the article; changed the infobox name from "Ultimate Star Ajith" to "Ajith"; changed the initial statement of the star's name from "Ajith" to "Ajith Kumar"; did some cleaning up and rephrasing; and gave the edit summary "(use his real name not his glorifed nickname, massive pov violations, need help from knowledge people)".
    Blnguyen then left the following message on the talk page: "The most hagiographic article on WP?? The whole article is utterly ridiculous. I tried to do some rephrasing, but someone who has watched more of his films will have to intervene because the content is also rather ridiculous."
    Anwar responded with "Its not POV. Editors who negate this article as such have their own POVs that are anti-Ajith and pro-Vijay...." and shortly afterwards partially reverted the article back to the "Ultimate Star Ajith" version, including removing the POV tag.
    I am satisfied that the article was indeed grossly POV. At the time the first sentence was: "Ajith (born 1 May 1971 in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India) is a immensely popular Tamil actor and a race car driver with a huge fan following" and it went downhill from there.
    Blnguyen's subsequent edits to the article are clearly repeated efforts to remove the blatant hagiography from the article. I applaud Blnguyen's effort in this case, and have no qualms about his conduct.
    If this is Anwar's evidence for his assertion that Blnguyen "pushes his POV as NPOV", then Anwar's claims above must be disregarded.
    Snottygobble 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anwar's complaints should definitely by disregarded. It is clear that it is Anwar who is at fault, not Blnguyen. He has been sulking about this for a while now, opposing all Indian RFAs, opposing all Indian FACs, FPCs etc. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should be prepared to file an WP:RfC. He is going too far. GizzaChat © 22:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  1. Well, thankyou to all of the community for turning out to discuss my presence on Wikipedia. I am extremely flattered by the raw turnout and gracious comments, especially from so many Wikipedians with whom I had not directly interacted - I am rather surprised at how many people had been keeping an eye on me. I hope to live up to the trust imbued in me by the large show of the support from the community. I look forward too continuing to work productively with everybody in the future, and will be talking to everybody personally in the near future. Thankyou. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Username	Blnguyen
Total edits	10950
Distinct pages edited	7513
Average edits/page	1.457
First edit	22:40, September 14, 2005
	
(main)	5238
Talk	749
User	323
User talk	1384
Image	67
Template	202
Template talk	36
Category	232
Category talk	14
Wikipedia	2413
Wikipedia talk	166
Portal	118
Portal talk	8
 G.He 23:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry completely slipped my mind! --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I spend most of my maintenance work doing WP:RCP, WP:NP, and WP:AFD, so I would anticipate helping with WP:AIV (where I have reported regularly), CAT:CSD, and in deleting pages at AfD as consented by the community. As I am a WP:DYK enthusiast, I would help to update DYK more frequently, as I feel that exposing more quality work on the front page is an important part of maintaining morale of article writers and of the community at large, as most article writing would appear to be quite lonely. I feel that keeping community morale high is an important facet of maintaining Wikipedia's success. I would also be happy to help with requests such as page moves that require admin powers, having done close to 100 myself.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have one featured list, Swimming World Swimmers of the Year, and also have accumulated 15 DYKs, mostly on my more comprehensive articles. Aside from that, I created Portal:Swimming and Portal:Eurovision. A personal project of mine is to have a relatively detailed (although information is unfortunately rather scant in some cases) biography of every Australian Olympic medallist in swimming: Category:Olympic swimmers of Australia has increased from around 25 to a 130 since December, and there are only 8 which are still missing.
Aside from that I've written some articles which fit into the category of Category:Hopf algebras (mathematics) and Category:Statistical mechanics (physics),geographical and psephology (election) articles about South Australia, where I live, as well as maintaining and expanding Cricket articles.
I also keep an extensive list of material on my userpage and the subpages which document what I have been doing at Wikipedia, if anybody would like to read. Vertex model was a quite difficult article to write. Although it was one edit, it took me about 6-8 hours to work up outside of wikipedia.
On the procedural side of matters, I participate in NP and RC patrol, which explains my 600+ deleted edits, report vandals to WP:AIV when I see it and write up a lot of AfD nominations. I have also participated at Pages needing translation - it appears that I am the most active user with a knowledge of Vietnamese on the English wikipedia.
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: The thing which makes Wikipedia great - it's open sourced nature - "the encyclopedia that anybody can edit" will inevitably lead to people who are overenthusiastic or have differing opinions on what should be included in certain things - discussing POV edits on the talk pages can solve this . For people who try and use WP as advertising or for political marketing or soapboxing, this is something I was always mindful of; so this always keeps me philosophical when these things happen. This is how I stay relatively unruffled throughout content disputes. I try and use 1RR and discuss the matter on the talk page, until both parties agree unanimously, or until more third parties arrive and reach a strong level of consensus. I try not to escalate the dispute, and try to debate on the talk page at eg, Talk:Rahul Dravid, Talk:Sachin Tendulkar and Talk:Jason Gillespie. For the record, I had a very minor anxious moment in a content dispute at Talk:Ajith Kumar regarding the Tamil actor Ajith Kumar, which I believed to be very hagiographic, in that it included repeated uses of "!", "mega-hit", "mega-star", resembling a fan-site. I tried to tone it down, and cut some matter that I felt were unencyclopedic, but after Anwar saadat complained on the talk page that I had vandalized his articles and was engaging in trolling, I decided to take a step back and use the talk page and wait for others to comment. After many other editors commented on the matter at User talk:Anwar Saadat/Archive 2, User talk:Anwar saadat, and [1], my minor apprehension subsided. Anwar seems to editing and contributing normally now, which is also good. In future, I would continue to think philosophically, that the editing conflicts which arise are a very small downside to the benefits of having a free enycylopedia which is built by hundreds of thousands of volunteers from across the face of the earth. I would continue to try and restrict myself to 1RR, and discuss on the talk page, slow down a bit and wait for more reaction, and think that this will prevent me from becoming stressed. Observing Jason Gastrich from close quarters, and seeing other users get death threats, etc, keeps to help things in perspective with the editing disagreements that I encounter, so I don't anticipate getting stressed in future.
4. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category