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

Samulili[edit]

(75/18/4); Originally scheduled to end 07:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samulili (talk · contribs) - I've been a Wikipedian since 2004. I'm an admin on a couple of projects, mostly in the Finnish Wikipedia and Commons. I only have some 1000+ edits in en-wiki (including my now abandoned username EnSamulili).

I request adminship so that I could better check and fix images that have been transferred to Commons. I'd rather do checking and fixing than putting images for deletion because they lack a proper source. [1] Samulili 07:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I admit that I don't have much experience of the English Wikipedia nor will I ever have, and I confess that I would not be a very productive admin. On the other hand, I definitely would not be in anyway a disturbance. But for the kind of janitorial work that I'd like to help with, admin tools are necessary. Samulili 11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what is is worth, I have today been elected as a member of the Arbitration Committee in fi:WP. Another thing I'd like to say (and I'm sorry if this all goes in a wrong place) that I understand those people who ask me to try again after a month or a few months. That is exaclty what I would do if I came across and RfA of someone who seems like a good candidate but who has little experience. However, I have been around for three years and gained only ca. 1100 edits. I don't see myself speeding up and I don't see myself getting that much more involved with en:WP. This is not out of disrespect towards the project. On the contrary, I believe that en:WP is the most important single project and that is exaclty why I would like to be able to operate better between en:WP and Commons. Samulili 17:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Fixing image transfers from en-wiki to Commons.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Say's law for which I had good source material. Not being an economist, however, I could only do so much. Other than that, I have been asking some good questions.
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 can't remember any serious conflicts nor stress. Recently there was a nasty "pest" at bureaucracy and I had to revert him a couple of times. I wasn't the only one reverting him and eventually the page was semi-protected by admins. On en-wiki, I rely on the latin phrase "festina lente" when I'm in a dispute.
4. You say I request adminship so that I could better check and fix images that have been transferred to Commons. Please explain how en:WP's administrators' superpowers (or janitorial powers) help them do this. (Hoary 08:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A: That is a good question and I'm glad to elaborate. En-wiki is the largest receiver of new images and later many of those images are moved to Commons. Moving to Commons is often done in a wrong way by those who are not familiar with copyright issues or with Commons. The link above shows one example where there is no proper source. I believe that the proper source is Image:Chrysalis5504.jpg but without being an admin I have no way to check that. It is possible that "someone else" will fix the sourcing before the image is deleted - but with 2,000,000 images on Commons and a handful of admins, that is not likely. In short, between saving and deleting a file, I'd rather save. As things are now, I'm sometimes only able to delete. Samulili 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merely because I'm sleepy, I don't understand. this tells us that at 07:08, 16 April 2005 Fanghong uploaded it to Commons with the comment "from en wiki Taken by Pollinator". This tells us that at 07:08, 16 April 2005 Fanghong uploaded it with the comment "from en wiki Taken by Pollinator". It's certainly odd that a file at en:WP attributes the file to en:WP. That aside, let's imagine for a moment that this wasn't en:WP but instead was fi:WP: that a file at Commons was claimed to be from fi:WP and that the same file at fi:WP was claimed to be from fi:WP [huh?] -- and at the same time, to the minute. As an administrator of fi:WP, what would you do (or what additional information would you examine)? -- Hoary 14:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The file is not on en:WP anymore, what you are seeing at en:WP is an image on Commons (on en:WP the "File" text at the top of the page is red). It may have been here with the same name and it may have been uploaded originally by Pollinator and be his original work, but I'd like to check that by checking the history of the deleted file. Samulili 18:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from nattang

4. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?
A: I would. I don't know the details of this procedure but it seems obvious to me that "a sufficient number of editors in good standing" with "good faith" can question whether someone can continue as an admin. Samulili 09:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. If you ran into an editor, who had an extreme POV, and yet this individual was not committing vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this editor?
A: If there is no vandalism and no revert warring, I would either a) raise some questions on the talk page, b) edit the article towards a NPOV (preferably with sources), c) revert their edits, or d) a combination of the three—in this order. These are things I would do anyway and doing them doesn't require adminship.
If the editors in question are not registered and there is more reverting than discussion, I might semi-protect the article to the m:wrong version for a short period of time with automatic expiration.
All of the above is something I would only do if the article is one that gets little attention. I would leave articles like George W. Bush and Western-Sahara alone. I know that the good admins do a lot more than what I have said, but what I mostly want is to be able to save images from unnecessary deletion and for that I need to able to see their deleted history. Samulili 09:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Samulili before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Yes, that was me you were referring to in you're comment (not that I'm bothered by it, no worries at all). It's just there will always be that element of risk with a passing RfA in this condition. That's what I'm worried about. But, seen as this one looks set to pass anyway, we'll just have to wait and see. No real concerns though, because he's an admin on Finnish Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, so I'm sure all will be fine in the end. Lradrama 13:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's cool. I'm fine with disagreement, and in retrospect I could have made my comment less dramatic (i.e. the "Indeed , if this doesn't pass ... gather my thoughts" stuff ;-). Glad to see discussion happening, though! That's what my ideal RfA includes.  :-) --Iamunknown 05:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support - question comes down to; can they be trusted with the admin bit? They're already trusted with it, both on commons and on fiwiki (I verified both), and have been for some time. As far as I'm concerned, it's procedural and No Big Deal - Alison ❤ 07:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support As per Alison. This user can be trusted with the tools. Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No big deal. Rettetast 09:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, very good reason for the tools, trusted elsewhere and not gone mental, don't see any problems here. I don't envisage Samulili would even want to get involved in areas such as blocking or ANI disputes, so his lack of experience in such areas is irrelevant. Neil ム 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, very good reason for the tools, trusted elsewhere and not gone mental. Thanks for Q4 answer. Good luck and Godspeed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Sounds sensible enough; a quick glance through the contributions didn't show anything really significant enough for me to oppose. - TwoOars (Rev) 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Neil, editor is trusted on the commons and has a valid requirement. Addhoc 12:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I know this user from Commons, and I'm confident that he would use his tools to the benefit of this project. In my experience Samulili is a polite, careful and professional editor, who would not misuse sysop-tools. Finn Rindahl 12:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - a reasonable amount of experience on en, but this user has been trusted as an administrator on the Finnish Wikipedia and on Commons. The user's proposed work would be beneficial to both en and to Commons. Warofdreams talk 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Demonstrates a request for very specific tools to carry out a worthy function few others will help with. Hiberniantears 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Suomi sisu. No reason not too. Ronnotel 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Already trusted with tools. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 14:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - It's about trust. He's gained the trust elsewhere. There's no reason to assume he'd go rogue here. He lacks experience, yes, but he's got one administrative task in mind, which he is experienced in. The work he'll do with images will decrease the work load on existing admins. Lack of experience won't play a role in his adminship as long as he's not working in areas he doesn't know. LaraLove 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Hmn. Candidate has been editing since February 2006 without any incidents, and that puts him/her in my good book. I'm an oftentimes enthusiastic supporter, and I'll stick to my default support in this case. But even if we're strictly going to apply the only relevant criterion of trustability, I can understand people opposing you on the grounds of too low editing experience. Strike that BS. You're doing valuable work and I absolutely trust you're not going to abuse the tools in any way. — aldebaer⁠ 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No convincing reason to oppose. If he rarely uses the tools, that's fine. Acalamari 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support; he has already shown he knows the tools, and there is no reason to mistrust him. The fact that the tools will be used for exactly one purpose, or infrequently, does not mean he has no use for them. — Coren (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Yeah, sure, no problem! Editor is trusted and respected. Doesn't need 436498 edits to make him a good editor. Take care. ScarianTalk 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, editor seems trustworthy enough. May not be the most active here on enwiki but the question not if I think they would be a big asset but whether they've earned trust - and I'll say sure. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Although not much experience on the en-wiki, has a good reason, and is trusted elsewhere. Lemonflash(O_o) 22:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Doesn't have a great amount of experience in en:WP and doesn't need it: he's proved his stuff at fi:WP and at Commons. Being an administrator here may help him do some good work here and will certainly be of great help to him in his laudable work at Commons. -- Hoary 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Being an administrator on other Wikipedias is good enough for me. Captain panda 02:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Kannatan. A trusted editor wants to check deleted images here so that they can be retained on Commons, benefiting en.wiki and all other WMF wikis? I don't see where this would be such a bad idea. No, Samulili may not have enough experience here to deal with all of the complex administrative issues, but I trust that xe will not be involved in any of those issues and will use the permission only to do the image work outlined above. WODUP 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per User:Alison. We need more people willing to do unglamorous work. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. He's already a trusted administrator on two other Wikimedia projects, and is experienced in and willing to work on our perennially backlogged image categories -- his help is definitely welcome. --krimpet⟲ 20:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. His rationale makes sense. My limited research on other Wikipedias shows that 1. He's very productive over at Commons, about 500 edits per month, 2. He's an established contributor on the Finnish Wikipedia, though edits less often there. He hasn't been blocked in either place. He has what appear to be the Finnish equivalent of barnstars on his user page. If he were a holy terror at Commons I assume that would show up on his Commons user talk, which seems rather peaceful. Someone who knows Finnish and can read his Finnish User talk might enlighten us further. EdJohnston 21:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per Alison and per Bobet (comment below in response to an oppose). Seems like he might make very good use of the tools. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per Alison. nattang 01:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Absolutely. A commons admin who wants to work with images being moved to commons...how the hell with that hurt the project? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. If the user has already been trusted in commons and fiwiki, I see no reason not to trust them here. Has the need for the tools and the trust. --DarkFalls talk 01:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support from oppose. I have re-evaluated. See below. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - per LaraLove, who I think put it very well. Into The Fray T/C 02:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support You really need the tools and are honest about why. Never made trouble, so I trust you will not start now. Brusegadi 03:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Question answers make perfect sense to me. Dedication to other wikis is enough to pass the trust test. CitiCat ♫ 04:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support We desperately need more admins who understand image policy. The lack of experience isn't really an issue since they're not planning to work in mainspace, and seems to be someone who won't try to get involve in anything they're not sure of. — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Aye. Jon Harald Søby 13:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Being a admin on two other projects, at least shows to a degree he can be trusted and is respected. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Deb 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per Alison et al. above. Also seems to be one of the most competent and levelheaded admins on the Finnish Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support　The regular "edit count, lack of experience etc." sort of objections are invalid for this particular RfA. The user is already an admin on Commons and Finnish wiki which proves he can be trusted with the tools. He intends to use these for only a specific task so there is no potential for abuse. --Kudret abiTalk 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I have hesitated due to the fact you have little contributions in the English Wiki so far, but however since you are already an admin in the Finnish Wiki, I would think you will be able to operate the tools fine just as in the other one.--JForget 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, we need more crosswiki admins. I'm pretty sure he knows that things are different here and on fiwiki and won't jump into things he doesn't know about. Kusma (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. The tools will make Samulili more productive. With regard to the disputed edit summary, I would suggest that Samulili should try to ensure that he doesn't use offensive language when it isn't necessary. Axl 11:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Clearly can be trusted with adminship and will do a good job with image work. Phgao 16:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support -- I don't think a lot of en.wikipedia experience is critical for this sort of image work -- it's mostly about mechanics and copyright, not the cultural differences between Wikipedia communities. I am sometimes wary of giving admin support to someone with specialized goals since there's nothing to stop them from immediately working in all sorts of other sensitive areas such as WP:ANI or AfD; however, in this case I'm confident Samulili won't stray into other areas without good reason and preparation. Thanks for taking on this task (... and watch out for the bollocks-word). --A. B. (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support An excellent example of why editcountitis is a very poor parameter on which to work. This user clearly needs the tools if he is to do what he wants to do in enwiki, and equally clearly will not abuse them. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Been here a while, made a bunch of contributions, doesn't seem to have gotten into any trouble. Why not? --Carnildo 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support No evidence that he will abuse the tools. Jbeach56 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support can be trusted with the tools; more multilingual admins is a +, too. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, has all the experience needed for what he's planning to do here and the rationale given is extremely persuasive. Opposition is unconvincing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support per my comments in the discussion section above.--Alabamaboy 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support This is a fascinating case, and I can see it both ways. I have supported at least one request for a cross-project administrator (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eukesh), and I feel that if an editor is familiar with the technical quirks of adminship and is trusted by a foreign language community, and knows when to ask questions instead of acting outside policy, they will be successful at en.wiki. This candidate has made it clear that he's primarily interested in language-neutral image issues. I see no problem with that. Good luck to him. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per Laralove and others above.--Chaser - T 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Adminship is about having a clue, not about having a high edit count. Adminship is about having a deft touch, not about having deftly touched pages in many name spaces. Adminship is about not blowing up the wiki, not about blowing up your own reputation politically. Wikipedia is "not like the other wikis", to be sure. But that's not necessarily a good thing. Commons is "not like the other wikis" either, and Samulili has been a great admin there. We need some new thinking from some old experienced folk. Adminship should be no big deal. Samulili earned my trust some time ago. Support. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support- Need for tools, why not? It is no big deal right. Dureo 05:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, I poked thu your contribs, and, I don't see anything that would cause concern. As a note, however, I'd like to see you use edit summaries more in the future. That's hardly significant enough for me not to support, however :) Good luck! SQL(Query Me!) 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Clearly explained why the admin bit is needed, and already being an admin on commons and fi means that it is highly unlikely that this user would abuse the tools on en. henrik•talk 11:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - He has clearly explained why having the mop would be helpful, and I don't see anything to suggest he'd abuse the other functions. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 19:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. In my mind the absolute perfect example of why relying on edit count is a total irrelevance. Has experience here and on other wikis and clearly states which areas he intends to contribute in, as well as his intention to avoid areas he is not so familiar with. Absolutely. Will (aka Wimt) 02:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong support responsible editor who definitely could make good use of the tools. I urge opposers to reconsider: in the end we want to know if Samulili's adminship would benefit the en.wiki and I don't think there can be much doubt on that issue. This is really a case where a strict focus on editcount is threatening to result in a silly mistake. Pascal.Tesson 11:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support known & trusted on Commons. This user will not break anything and has valid reasons for the request. --Herby talk thyme 12:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support As per Alison.Greswik 14:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. This is one of those cases where editcountitis is directly at odds with good sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. If it's no big deal, and there's a consensus he's very unlikely to misuse the tools, I don't see why one should oppose based on limited experience, when he doesn't plan to be active in those areas. Ensuring valid information for the images on commons is important. Rigadoun (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Per Allison. Not a major concern over the use of bollocks or slight incivility.--WriterListener 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support per Alison. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Trusted and experienced user, nothing suggest any future abuse. Pax:Vobiscum 02:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. As someone who spends a bit of time on Commons and has actually used his en wiki adminship to double-check pre-transfer-and-deletion sourcing, the candidate's rationale is thoroughly reasonable. Seems reasonably sane, besides the contrary evidence of seeking a third adminship, and unlikely to delete the Main Page. - BanyanTree 07:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Appears to be trusted in the larger scheme of things, thus conducive to 'pedia building (yes we are little fish in bigger ponds...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Having confirmed on his commons talk page that he is the same user, I am willing to support this whole heartedly. I anticipate that his primary use of the tools will leave no traces in the logs, because reviewing deleted revisions doesn't leave a trace. He does have a need for the tools, isn't likely to use them in areas where his lack of en.Wikipedia experience matters, and has said that he'll be open to recall if experienced users here feel he has gone astray. GRBerry 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support 24,000 edits and 3 years of service at Fin wiki definitely counts for an awful lot in my book. Wants tools here for a reasonable and useful purpose. --JayHenry 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support On the basis of the aspiration for commons work alone - and any perceived problems do not prevent a sense of being able to work through the issues -- SatuSuro 23:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Is Samulili a trusted user on other wikimedia projects? Yes. Will Samulili delete the Main Page? No. Block Jimbo? No. Be an abusive admin? No. Work other areas requiring more experience? No for now, of course with more experience equals different work. Will Samulili do a useful chore with the sysop bit? Yes. Therefore there little reason to oppose. Editcount's highly decieving here, and I do have to mention I have to firmly disagree with the opposers as well. Strong support. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support per Alison and LaraLove. Seems to be a very trustworthy editor. Dreadstar † 04:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Weak support I think it clear that Samulili intends to partake regularly of only of a part of the sysop toolbox, and I trust his representation that he will act qua sysop only whereof he is sure he knows and, in part in view of his contributions elsewhere, have confidence in his judgment and, in particular, his ability to appreciate well that he is unfamiliar with, and ought not to act (at least at present) in, certain areas—he will not, that is, misuse the tools avolitionally by acting in areas with the policy and practice relevant to which he is unfamiliar (especially, I imagine, because many of those opposing and supporting here have counseled that he act, at least initially, quite circumspectly)—and so I feel relatively comfortable concluding that the net effect on the project (and, I suppose, on commons, although that's essentially entirely irrelevant here) of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 05:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. I am unconvinced that policy on other projects is so alien that experience there should not count here. Samulili is an Arb on a Wikimedia project and a good admin on Commons. I can see it being an advantage to a Commons admin to be able to see deleted content on en.wiki as so much is uploaded from here to there that must be verified post deletion. His having adminship here will be benefit the wider project and may have occasional benefits locally. So although he's unlikely to log many admin actions, adminship isn't a big deal - right? I can't imagine he'd misuse the tools. WjBscribe 08:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Sorry. Allthough you've been here a while sub 500 sub 1100 edits(between the two user names) doesn't cut it barely cuts it - I have little positive to judge you on. Also your answers to the questions are very weak, an I.P. translcuded this which I find....odd, you didn't even leave edit summaries when creating the RfA and assuming the I.P. is you no edit summary on transclusion, but mostly the moment I looked at your contributions I saw this Putting "bollocks" in an edit summary is a big no-way for an administrator. Pedro :  Chat  07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've heard far worse terms than that, to be honest. Given the British English usage of that word meaning 'nonsense', it's not all that bad - Alison ❤ 07:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (doesn't use it herself!)[reply]
    I also checked[2] the IP transclude before I gave my support; it's in Turku, Finland - Alison ❤ 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec'd) I know Alison, given I live there! I take note of your support above, and whilst that did make me think positive thoughts I still found the tone of the edit summary overly harsh. And I think we've had precedent that just because someone is an admin on another wiki(s) that doesn't really make it procedural to be an admin on en. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, which is why I said, "As far as I'm concerned ..."; there's no consensus on that and it's down to individuals to comment and judge accordingly. As both of us have :) - Alison ❤ 08:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering we've got admins cussing like drunk sailors unprovoked in very uncivil edit summaries, I don't think "bullocks" is something to hold against anyone. LaraLove 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The post above made my day (in the given context!) On a more serious note, I find nothing uncivil about the edit summary in question. Brusegadi 03:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect the actions of others has no bearing on this RfA. Edit summaries are a place to summarise edits. Not complex. Using them for swearing / blasphemy / incivilty / taking a swipe at other editors etc. are not what I want to see in an administrator of this project, and I'm disapointed in the editor concerned in the examples you have given. However the relevant thing here is that I was less than pleased to see that in this candidates contribution history. This RfA will pass anyway for sure, but I'm not prepared to offer support to someone who feels the need to take that tone. I might go Neutral after reflecting further, in view of his expanded reasoning in Q4 and the undoubted good work he intends to use the buttons for, but at the moment I'm afraid it still riles me. Pedro :  Chat  14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    NB he doesn't say that an edit was bollocks, he says that an infobox is bollocks. Further, this is a bonus addition to his main description, which, after minor editing, is: I want a SOURCE for this. All this as an edit summary for an edit consisting of the addition of a single SOURCE tag. Never mind the bollocks, I say. -- Hoary 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. As above, it was not just the use of the word bollocks, it was the overall tone implied in the edit summary that was particularly jarring. Pedro :  Chat  15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't jar with me. Actually I didn't fully understand it, but if he's suggesting that the "need" for biographical gimmickboxes is bollocks, he has my full agreement. -- Hoary 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per the above concern. I feel that you lack experience in this project. I suggest you try again after a few months and you will definitely have my support. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. This editor has been around a long time, but is not active enough for my taste. Only 132 edits in the last 6 months (between the two accounts). While is is definitely true that we could use some more admins who want to deal with images, making someone who is only semi-active an admin doesn't sit right with me. Useight 14:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Not enough experience.--MONGO 14:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose A good editor but not a particularly active one. -Icewedge 16:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Around 1000 edits--not enough. Not very well thought out answers to questions. More interested in deleting images than actually building the project. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no sign that he wants to delete images willy nilly. He has a very commendable desire to delete images of fictional provenance or with spurious licensing, and more power to him. -- Hoary 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He states in his answer he's more interested in saving images than deleting them. A lot of admins here aren't too familiar with the commons policies or anything related to commons (as shown by the followup question by Hoary in Q4, who didn't at first notice that the image description page on en-wiki is just a mirror of the commons description page), and therefore images that are moved to commons improperly and tagged with csd-i8 sometimes get deleted too hastily. In those cases, having someone who's an admin both in here and in commons can check the deleted history here and see how the original upload was tagged and see if it really is suitable for commons. If not, he might still restore the image here, if it would qualify under some fair use criteria. - Bobet 11:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well said. -- Hoary 12:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Useight. With such a small level of activity as of late, the candidate doesn't have the experience required for me to trust them with the tools. Adminship on other sites is a moot point, as is all off-wiki activity. VanTucky Talk 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Per Useight"? Useight says that Samulili is not active enough for my taste. This is the edit count that matters for Samulili, and if you want reassurance that he knows his way around a Wikipedia, try this one, combined with his obvious ability in English. (He's commendably multilingual for somebody concerned with image use, also editing in other languages.) Ah, but you say "Adminship on other sites is a moot point", whatever that might mean. Samulili has written his purpose: that he can better check and fix images that have been transferred to Commons. Seems an admirable purpose to me, but perhaps it "doesn't sit right with" other people. -- Hoary 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, hurray! An ad hominem attack on Useight was just the kind of reason I was looking for to switch to support. On the second issue, we are directly admonished to avoid arguing for or against candidates based on outside events, which is reasonable advice. Both the duties, strictures and culture of adminship are disparate between sites (even Wikimedia projects), so a comparison is not usually helpful (except perhaps in proving good faith, which doesn't need any proof). Your rude, combative attitude in responding doesn't exactly help the candidate. VanTucky Talk 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try to avoid personal attacks. I don't think Samulili is active enough on English Wikipedia to become an admin. Perhaps others do, but that's my opinion on the matter. Useight 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily condone the tone of Hoary's comments, but I must ask: How are they "an ad hominem attack" or a "personal attack"? All I see is Hoary addressing Useight's arguments to oppose Samulili's RfA ... nothing about him attacking Useight's person in order to discredit his arguments... Am I missing something? --Iamunknown 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should've actually used WP:BITE instead of WP:NPA. Perhaps it was actually an innocent comment, in which case I apologize, but they way it was phrased "Per Useight?" just seemed to say to me, "Why are you listening to Useight?" Useight 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I can agree with that. --Iamunknown 00:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    VanTucky, to me experience on other wikis isn't inherently relevant to showing that an administrator can do a good job on ENWP due to policy differences. However, it does demonstrate trustworthiness, and the important aspect of that here is that we can trust Samulili to judiciously use information from image deletion logs and not get in over his head with something particular to ENWP, like deletion review.--Chaser - T 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Just not enough experience yet. Jmlk17 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose No, sorry, but I don't feel you have enough experience at this time, as many of the above opposes note. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have felt the need to re-evaluate, and I have concluded that, despite lack of experience here, that an experience on commons is enough when the user wants to work with images here. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a point, but not an especially strong one. Check the diffs, the image work seems to be the smaller part of his contributions. And in one of his answers he said he would occasionally go beyond that. Imho it would be a much easier decison if there would be a way to limit admin rights to the image job. But there isn't, and we have to be aware of mission creep. I remain sceptical. Gray62 17:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - I'd never feel comfortable supporting an RfA like this. 19 edits to Wikipedia - if this passes I going to have to seriously gather my thoughts, for obvious reasons. :-S Lradrama 10:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, low level of edits to Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. I understand that you want to only work with images, but giving you adminship includes all the functions, not just image restoration (etc.) I would encourage you to work on them as much as you can as a regular user and get some all-round experience before coming back here in a few months. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose due to lack of experience in English wiki. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, sry. I appreciate Samulili's language skills and his friendly and respectful way in treating other users. I also understand what he wants admin rights for. However, I checked his diffs, and I don't see that much of image work there. I saw a handful of talk contributions, too, but, going back to the start of 2007, only a single one was really about discussing a problem. Sry, but as I already stated at candidate Aktron, imho mediation skills are very important for an admin. And I don't think his image work will succeed without the occasional need to argue the changes. I'm quite certain Samulili has those skills, but so far, he hasn't shown them here. I will probably support this candidate at a later point, when we have seen more of his work, but not yet. Gray62 17:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose due to answers to questions one and two. Sorry.  Mirandargh  23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. The candidate just has too little experience on this wiki to evaluate their contributions. Sorry. Espresso Addict 08:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Lack of experience and contributions - both overall and in admin-type areas on this Wiki. Zaxem 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Usually I'm not fussed if a user is inexperienced but has a quality contribution list (as is the case here) but I'm sorry, 678 total edits isn't enough to properly evaluate you yet. However it would be great to see you back here in a month or so, and if you keep up the good work, I would be happy to support. But in the meantime focus on spreading your name around on more page's history. --Benchat 05:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ben, just a note: you seem to have missed the part where Samulili mentions his other (abandoned) en wiki account, EnSamulili. - TwoOars (Rev) 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose. I don't have any issues related to trust here, but I don't see a net gain for the project. Without more experience on the English Wikipedia, I anticipate more good-faith mistakes with the tools than I'd want to see in an administrator. Dekimasuよ! 07:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No? How about the second paragraph of the original self-nomination, and the answers to question 4? -- Hoary 07:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that he seems to have expertise in this area and that doing such work would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. On reflection, my concern that there should be demonstrated evidence of EN policy doesn't seem appropriate in this case and, not inconsequentially, I respect your judgment. I'll strike my oppose. Dekimasuよ! 12:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose The user only cares about work relating to images, I was hoping for some more plans other than that. Does not have much xfd stuff either. --bobsmith319 00:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well he plans to work mostly on images because of his vast experience on Commons. The image backlogs are among the most time consuming for admins and I often wish I had admin access on Commons to do a better job of tidying things up. Even if he works only on images, his impact will be more than welcome by everyone there. Most admins, over time, tend to specialize on a certain area of work and there's nothing wrong with that: it just means they work where they can help out the most. Pascal.Tesson 01:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Oppose per lack of Wiki experience. Rackabello 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, am I just imagining this? -- Hoary 00:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let alone this! Experience on en.wiki is perhaps limited (though perhaps not as dramatically as some suggest) but Wiki experience is clearly not a problem. Pascal.Tesson 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I reckon I could trust this user, although I do hold reservations given English Wikipedia is so vastly different to other Wikipedias (one only has to look at some of the more notable ANI debates - IRC, civility blocks, deletion process, Arbitration Committee, etc.) that your inexperience may cause some issues. A generic sitting-on-the-fence comment here. Daniel 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd prefer that you spend a month or so getting to know en.wiki a bit better, as it does vary from other wikis, being particularly larger than other wikis. ~ Sebi [talk] 01:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose due to lack of experience, and not using appopriate edit summaries, although work on images can be helpful. Will you try in another few months, and get the red out of your edit summaries, so we can evaluate you better? Bearian 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Neutral changed from Oppose. After prodding by another user, I found the List of Finnish sysops on my own, and he's there, so my concerns are minimized somewhat. This is a change of "vote". Bearian 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: Obviously he is trusted on the fi Wiki, and people get promoted here with fewer credentials. That being the case, especially when nom says repeatedly that his activity here would be extremely limited in scope and sporadic, and given the comments of some others above, I just don't see a compelling case to give him the mop here beyond "Eh, he won't do any harm." That could be said about tens of thousands of editors here, and I'm perplexed that many of the Support voters making that argument would be -- and have been -- all over other candidates like white on rice for lack of experience or provable command of policy far less evident than in this case.  RGTraynor  08:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think if it can be said about anyone "Eh, he won't do any harm", they should be made an admin. If there are tens of thousands of such people, all the better. But that's just my opinion. :) - TwoOars (Rev) 08:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His stated main reason for nominating himself is that being able to see deleted image histories here on enwiki would make his work as a Commons admin much more efficient, and allow him to fix badly transwikied images that might otherwise end up deleted needlessly. Would that qualify as a compelling enough reason, given that we do benefit here indirectly from the work done on Commons? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending confirmation that this is the same user as on commons. (Question asked on common's talk page.) I can respect becoming an admin primarily to review deleted versions, as that was my primary reason, and an active commons admin would have plenty of occasion to review deleted image versions here without ever making an edit that the database records. GRBerry 17:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Now confirmed; now supporting. GRBerry 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[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