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

Tariqabjotu[edit]

Final (124/2/1) Ended Fri, 17 Nov 2006 03:22:56 (UTC)

edit nominations

Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) – Tariqabjotu (previously Joturner) has been editing Wikipedia since July 2005, and highly actively since December 2005. He is primarily active in editing Islam and Current events articles, as well as helping in the GA process.

He has been responsible for one FA, Mosque, and is responsible for the current state of the Portal:Current events, following a comprehensive overhaul. He is also a major contributor to Moscow, Capital Area Food Bank, 2006 and Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina disaster relief, Abraj Al Bait Towers, List of caliphs, 2006 labour protests in France, April 2006 in science, Montgomery Blair High School and a very impressive map Image:Cartoonmap-key.png. He is heavily active in updating the current events and date articles such as February 2006, etc ( [1] , [2], [3]).

He shows initiative and understanding of collaboration and organistaion, having been responsible for the formation of two WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Prophets of Islam, Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events.

In portal space he has created Portal:Current events/Middle East, Portal:Current events/Redesign and the contents therewithin such as Portal:Current events/More events, Portal:Current events/Calendar, etc and was instrumental in the success of the redesign, canvassing suggestions for improvements and discussing the changes effectively - ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9])

He also takes part in the grunt work, such as substituting off fair use Olympic rings [10]

Tariq is familiar with policy issues having created a few policy notice templates: ((Merge-multiple)), ((Split-apart)), ((Fuir)), ((POV-check-section)), ((FailedGA)), ((GAnominee)), ((Policy-change-warning)), ((Cleanup-restructure)),((PD-Finland)). Aside from this, he has made many technical template tweaks to improve their usability ([11]), such as Template:Infobox Holiday. He is also active in forumlating naming conventions, and is very adept at explaining his philosophies and proposals to other users ([12] [13], [14], [15], [16]) and floating a policy proposal Wikipedia:Copyright review.

He has a good understanding of image policy and tagging ([17], [18], [19], [20]) and in particular the fair use policy as shown by this and this.

He has a good understanding and application of POV ([21],[22]) and WP:OR ([23]) policy, which are the fundamentals of encyclopedic integrity.

He keeps his personal convictions at all times separate from his editing and can be seen pushing for NPOV on these Islam MOS guidelines ([24], [25], [26], [27]) and further explanations to other Muslim editors with regards to the Muhammad cartoons ( [28], [29]).

Despite editing very highly edited, and emotive religious topics such as Mosque, Ramadan, Allah and Qur'an. he is always calm, rational and NPOV, staying directly on topic even when others are being irrational, hostile or emotive - ([30], [31] [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38])

He discusses AfDs appropriately, rather than "voting", and the attached examples ( [39], Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/524_East_72nd_Street, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_athletes, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamic athletics, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamic_entertainment, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of Muslim Islamic jurists) show that there should be no POV concerns whatsoever in his conduct in debates as a participant or a closing admin.

He is active in reverting vandalism and spam, and warning and reporting the offenders appropriately ([40], [41], [42], [43]).

The edit counter shows that he has 250+ edits to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and 200+ at WP:RM ([44] ), so allowing him admin powers will substantially lessen the embarrassing gaffes on the main page as well as speeding up the move backlog.

He has a very calm temperament, explaining himself well at all times ([45], [46], [47]), is always polite and friendly in a tough area, and all the housekeeping requirements such as signature, userpage, email and edit summaries are in order.

The previous RfAs are at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2 and a declined one Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tariqabjotu - I feel that the issues raised then about POV, etc can be shown to not be a problem. Furthermore his conduct shows that he holds his own behaviour to a very high standard. Thus I am asking the community to approve Tariq's candidacy.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erstwhile opposer co-nomination. I just wanted to add my little two cents to this ridiculously exhasutive nomination by Blnguyen. I was in the opposer camp the last time Jordan/Tariq stood for adminship, and I must admit that working alongside him since then has proven that I was totally wrong. I have unconditional trust in this user's judgment and I abrogate my earlier words absolutely. It's election day, baby! I am - crz crztalk and I approved this message. 03:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Samir धर्म: Tariq's work here since he started editing in July 2005 has been nothing short of exceptional (as Blnguyen has well described). However, what has stuck me most has been his judgment and maturity, which has been best exhibited in how he deals with the oftentimes contentious issues involved in the articles he edits. He has an exceptional understanding of policy, and interprets the same in an always neutral fashion. I see Tariq as an administrator who can take a lead role in the amicable resolution of disputes, and do so in a fair and unbiased fashion. Samir धर्म 05:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Aguerriero: I am glad the day is finally here when I can stand up in support of this candidate. Like crz, I once opposed Tariq's candidacy. Since then, virtually every interaction I have had with the candidate have proven his maturity, terrific judgment, and best of all, his outstanding dedication to this project. I have no doubt that he will make a terrific administrator, and I vouch for him. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Bhadani: I feel privileged to co-nominate Tariqabjotu. The nominator and other co-nominators have said everything about him and very little has been left untold. Still I would love to add that I found him a real asset for the project; a mature and composed person displaying utmost civility and most appropriate style of interaction. We certainly require more administrators having these attributes to keep the show going-on on healthy lines and gain further depth and reliability. --Bhadani 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Computerjoe: I haven't dealt much with this user since he changed his username (which is in no way related). I've co-nominated him in previous a previous RfA, and although I have been somewhat absent from the Wikipedia of late, from the links Blnguyen provided and a glance at his contribs I see he's only improved. I have never had any negative experiences with this user. Computerjoe's talk 17:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much to all those who nominated me; your statements and support comments are greatly appreciated. I accept. -- tariqabjotu 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit nominations


Questions for the candidate
edit questions

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I realize that although there are over a thousand administrators on the English Wikipedia, there is still plenty of admin work to be done. For a couple months now I have been closing quite a few move requests as that has had a constant backlog (although it was much worse in July, August, and September), and they're not especially contentious. However, I would like to be able to fully work with the requested moves as I can currently only deal with nominations that either don't result in moves or result in are simple moves. I participate in articles for deletion discussions often enough to know how things work, and so I would love to assist in closing those debates as well. The copyright problems page now has a tremendous backlog, and so I would love to assist there. To be honest, my contributions to the page have been quite minimal, but much of the work there requires admin capabilities anyway. I did, however, create a proposal to restructure and merge the copyright assessment procedures underlined at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, and ((wrong license)) (the proposal never really picked up much steam, and thus I have let it fall dormant). If given admin capabilities, I would also help on the Main Page. I'm a frequent contributor to WP:ERRORS, and often times mistakes reported there go several hours unnoticed. Lastly, although this is quite cliché, I would assist in taking care of reports at WP:AIV. I wouldn't say I go on RC patrol everyday, but I have dealt with vandals with enough frequency to, in my opinion, have the experience to handle them. Nevertheless, with the plethora of semi-automatic vandal-fighting tools available today, this is not especially pressing. -- tariqabjotu 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I would still have to say one of my proudest contributions to Wikipedia is the Mosque article, on which I did a significant amount of work in December 2005 and April 2006 to bring up to featured status. Since that time, I have assisted in fixing problems that arose in June 2006 regarding the article's neutrality and factuality. After twice being delisted from the Main Page queue, it succeeded in appearing on the Main Page on July 27, 2006.
Prior to assisting with bringing Mosque to featured status in April 2006, the greater portion of my articles were to Islam-related articles. Although I still contribute to Islam-related articles, especially upon request, I have since ventured into working with other types of articles. In July 2006, I began to do a great amount of work on the Moscow article. This one was a bigger challenge since I didn’t really have any prior knowledge of Moscow and because many of the best sources for the subject are in Russian only. However, great improvements, with the help of others who had begun to take interest in the article, have still been made. Also in July 2006, I worked on creating the new design (and the backend) for the new Portal:Current events (which replaced the Current events article on July 1, 2006). The design received a decent amount of support from the community and, since July 12, has been at Portal:Current events, where I am one of the portal's maintainers. To go along with that, I often contribute to the articles related to current events, such as the 11 July 2006 Mumbai bombings and Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy articles. Lastly, most recently, I would have to say one of my favorite contributions is to the Capital Area Food Bank article. I was inspired to write the article after I visited the food bank on August 5; by the end of the evening, the article was completed. I had not really started an article from scratch before and I was quite pleased with the result (as well as quite surprised as to how much information was available on the food bank). It appeared on the Main Page under Did You Know on August 10.
You may notice given my work on Mosque during the (Northern Hemisphere) spring and Moscow during the summer that I aspire to significantly improve one article per season, preferably to featured status. As I noted previously, my work on Moscow did not produce a featured article, but I still feel it resulted in great positive changes. My article of interest for the (Northern Hemisphere) autumn is Babur, which I began working on this month, coming off my semi-wikibreak during late September and early October.
Outside of articles, and the current events portal, I would say I am quite pleased with my contributions to several templates. Mostly notably, I am happy with Template:Infobox Holiday (January 2006), Template:Prophets in the Qur'an (March 2006), Template:Infobox Airliner accident (June 2006), Template:Infobox terrorist attack (July 2006), and Template:Infobox Skyscraper (October 2006), which I worked with during the months provided. I have also contributed several images (mostly to Wikimedia Commons), of which some can be seen on my user page. -- tariqabjotu 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: I have, naturally, faced conflict throughout my time at Wikipedia, but I wouldn't really say I have been stressed out by it (after all, I'm still here). My two previous requests for adminship – in March 2006 and May 2006 – were quite interesting as both had a decent level of support, but failed. Most notably, in my second request for adminship, there were allegations from some that I had campaigned for adminship by thanking people for commenting on my first request for adminship, bringing Mosque up to featured status, and requesting comment on my user page, which had been a point of contention in my first request for adminship. Additionally, another editor, without my knowledge, had contacted several users about my ongoing RfA. I responded to these comments made by some, saying my actions were genuine attempts to improve Wikipedia and ensure I had adequately responded to complaints about my user page from my first RfA. There were a few comments regarding my user page in my second RfA, but I feel they have since been adequately rectified and felt little need to open another editor review regarding it. I have, however, put a notice at the top of my user page to indicate that I'm not trying to be divisive in using religious symbols on my page, and also created a page for comments on my user page, although I have yet to receive any.
However, if there is one thing that I especially regret from that last nomination, it was what happened close to the end of the RfA, when I noted where voting had stopped at the intended end time and contacted a few bureaucrats well after the close time. Although I never asked for votes to be discounted, several editors saw these actions as attempts to speedily get the nomination closed for a quick promotion. In 20/20 hindsight, it was clearly a terrible idea to even appear to be "gaming the system" considering there were already accusations of such. However, as I mentioned in my final statement, which I wrote after the conclusion of the RfA, I simply wanted the bureaucrats to be aware of the situation (particularly that on the talk page of the RfA) and hopefully have the unnecessarily heated discussion ended, whether that meant promotion or no promotion. I suppose I could have withdrawn at any time, but I didn't want to "throw in the towel" just because several oppose votes came my way. Nevertheless, as the RfA continued and accusations of gaming the system peaked, I felt the only option was indeed to withdraw as clearly no consensus was going to arise and there was no point in letting the heated discussion continue. Post-RfA, several people commented on the bureaucrat's noticeboard about the comments on my RfA regarding my contacting bureaucrats. You can, of course, read them, but there appeared to be some consensus that it was a legitimate thing to do considering it was so long after the nomination closed, although, like I said, giving off the appearance of "gaming the system" was not a wise idea. I apologize for giving that appearance and I sincerely hope you can recognize my intentions. Regardless, for this RfA, I honestly hope I have done nothing to give off the perception that I am campaigning or gaming the system, as those obviously are unethical tactics. Regardless, I'll file the end of RfA 2 under one of the mistakes from which I have learned.
Since then, I would have to say I encountered the most conflict when editing the Moscow article. One editor kept removing sources and ((fact)) templates from the article whenever I added them. After a bit, I entered a mediation cabal case and suggested a compromise for the situation. The other editor never responded to the case and appeared to lose interest in the Moscow article in general, and so since then I have not had any more problems with him on the Moscow article. As I implied earlier, in question one, there was a conflict at the Mosque article regarding the neutrality and factuality of two parts of the article. After much discussion, the neutrality and factuality issues have been resolved. I've run into a bit of frustration with a couple of editors there, but I believe I have worked out my differences with them to satisfaction.
Also of note may be a move request from September 2006 regarding moving Prime Minister to Prime minister (see Talk:Prime minister). There was one editor in particular who I felt was being incivil toward myself and others, describing the latter option as, among other things, illiterate bullshit. I and several other editors tried to talk to him and reason with him, so he could see the side of those supporting Prime minister over Prime Minister. Unfortunately, our entreaties were largely ignored, but in the end the debate came to a conclusion without causing me to lose my cool myself. -- tariqabjotu 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit questions


General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Suprised it's been so long since the last one. -- Steel 01:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. G.He 01:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong, strong support It was about time! Will be an outstanding admin.--Húsönd 01:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. He's done a superb job with current events. He would be a greater asset to Wikipedia as an admin. --Aude (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very Strong Support awesome editor. And would people queue up please? I've been edit-conflicted twice. Rama's arrow 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support a patient and dedicated editor who will make an exceptional admin. Tariqabjotu is dedicated to the project and is one of the smartest, most knowledgeable editors its been my pleasure to know here. He is calm, meticulous and insightful and shows a broad and deep understanding of Wikipedia policy. An excellent candidate. Gwernol 01:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support Can't miss this one. Well deserving candidate. -- Ganeshk (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as co-nom -- Samir धर्म 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mike | Talk 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Another breaking my wikibreak support. - Aksi_great (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support. I don't do many edits on the Middle East and Islam articles but I have read many of them. In a "corner" of Wikipedia where NPOV is very tricky, Tariqabjotu's edits have stood out as being neutral, and he is highly deserving of the mop. Jcam 02:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as nominator because it outnominates mine. - crz crztalk 02:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support - Outstanding contributor -- Lost(talk) 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strongest Possible Support Fantastic user, great person, will become one of the finer admins. Yanksox 02:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I won't make a cliche, I won't make a cliche, I won't...aw, forget it, I thought he was already one. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support, possibly my strongest ever. Tariqabjotu is a great editor, with plenty of article writing and wikipedia-space activity, and has always shown an enormous amount of maturity and judgement. And when it comes to use of the tools, he looks like he'll work very productively. Finally, It is very reassuring that he has never seemed even remotely overeager. Picaroon9288 02:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, strong candidate. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I can see no reason why not. Plus the stream of contributions seems to more than warrant adminship. James086 Talk | Contribs 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support. Always was qualified, always will be. I've been very impressed. I wish I could have conominated. Alphachimp 03:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Very pleased strong support after edit conflict Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong co-nom support --Aguerriero (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Always has thoughtful contributions. Seems to be very community oriented. Seems like a solid editor all around. David D. (Talk) 04:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support (edit conflict) what more can I really say, he's fully qualified and extremely impressive.-- danntm T C 04:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support Give this candidate the Gold Plated Mop, Please! Trumpets in the background… JungleCat talk/contrib 04:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support excellent work over at mosque. KazakhPol 04:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Great contributor, and well-qualified. ×Meegs 04:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support He's made a lot of usefull tools and wonderful edits here. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support for good work in one of the most emotive areas of WP --Steve 05:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Obviously very hard working in a very important area of wiki. Spinach Dip 05:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support very strong candidate for adminship. (aeropagitica) 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. What a no-brainer this was. riana_dzasta 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support. Without reservation. He is well qualified for the tools.--Dakota 05:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Why ever not? --210physicq (c) 05:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support well-rounded user, buttons are no big deal hoopydinkConas tá tú? 06:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, should have become an admin ages ago and does excellent administrative work already. Kusma (討論) 07:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Most definitely worthy. – Chacor 07:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Support. My dear. How long have I waited for this nomination. Some controversies in the past have cost the community of not having this wonderful editor as an admin before. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support. We've waited an absurdly long time for something that really should have been a forgone conclusion long ago. Per noms. Grandmasterka 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I also awaited this nom for a long time. I still think that the reasons that the previous RfA failed were pretty sad; Ambuj and Grandmasterka put it well. Duja► 08:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support It is time to give him the mop. A very good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. One of the best. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 08:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Nomination's too long support. Can we put the nom and questions on a subpage and transclude it here? It takes up a largist number of lines. :P Kavadi carrier 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, great user. He should be an admin long time ago. --Terence Ong (C | R) 09:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support Oh my God, yes, yes! ↔ ANAS - Talk 09:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Absolutely. >Radiant< 09:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I Supported before, but the contibutor even improved since. Agathoclea 09:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per above answers, an excellent choice for Admin. ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 10:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. El_C 10:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support of course.--Kchase T 10:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Zaxem 11:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, seen good things from this user. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Jaranda wat's sup 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Seeing as absurdity rules, I guess I'll support you for having a username that starts with T and ends with U ;) In all seriousness, you're a great editor, and I think you'd do well with the tools. Thε Halo Θ 16:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support semper fi — Moe 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support Truly remarkable editor, highly trustworthy. This promotion should have happened ages ago. Xoloz 17:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Opposed last time, IIRC. This editor has improved a lot and is now worthy of support in my view. I do not think too many co noms is a valid reason to oppose because I don't agree that co noms necessarily beat us over the head. Rather, at least often, they bring different facets to our attention we may have missed. I actually rather like a number of co noms as it shows strong support by folk who have done some research. But then I am biased on this point, I had 4 noms, including pschemp herself, although her nom didn't bring much new info about me to light, to be sure. Also I don't think that the candidate has a lot of control over conoms. C.f. Phaedriel's candidacy, there were a lot of co noms piling on after the fact. How does one politely tell co noms no? Not really fair to the candidate to oppose over this, IMHO. Support ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, has both the maturity and commitment required of an admin. ITAQALLAH 18:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate. - 18:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Copy and paste: Support -- Deserved. Szvest 20:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC) -- Szvest 19:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®[reply]
  64. Definitely, I thought the candidate already was one, and I'm disappointed in seeing that he previously was denied adminship solely for expressing his religious views on his user page. --Rory096 19:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Shine On - Support. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support. Very experienced editor; has contributed a lot to Islamic related articles.--TBCΦtalk? 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. For Sure. Very good editor; has contributed much to a niche category.--teh tennisman 20:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per above... Addhoc 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Qualified candidate who shouldn't have the excessive number of nominators held against him. Agent 86 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support I've been waiting for this to come up again. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Seems to pass all my criteria, and will sure not abuse admin tools. Nothing from the last three RfA I should worry about. Incivility is rare. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. I've supported before, and I'd gladly support again. More than meets my criteria, and will make a great admin if given the chance. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support per norm.Sharkface217 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strong, strong support Will be a welcome addition to the Wikipedia Community.--User:Kevinwong913
  75. Strong Support Great editor, who writes articles from NPOV, and is qualified to be an adminstrator. Hello32020 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong Support well balanced and positive/cooperative editor. Go Tariq! (→Netscott) 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Strong Support The arguments presented above are much more convincing than those in the oppose sectin. GizzaChat © 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Trust all the noms judgement --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Merovingian ※ Talk 01:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong Support Fantastic Wikipedian! Nishkid64 01:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Very impressed with this user's work, particularly on the Mosque article. Even complimented him on it at the time. He should make a fine admin. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. esoppO Editors who suffer from hypernominatia, hypoPOVia and a reflexive urge to respond to opposers in invisible ink must be treated with a dose of Admin-X. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support no evidence he will abuse admin tools and the userpage issues of the past have been addressed.--MONGO 08:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support as I did last time. DarthVader 08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Strong Support Edits, working and handling style of articles, dealing style with problems etc.Mustafa AkalpTC 10:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong Support. Very friendly user and excellent editor. I would be glad to see him in our company of admins. - Darwinek 14:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, long live Tariqabjotu the admin! You've made over 13,000 edits. Some people become admins with 1/13 of your edit count! Not only that, you do pretty much everything on Wikipedia. Support big time. SupaStarGirl 15:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Has dealt with criticism well, and shown restraint in waiting until now to run again. No serious issues identified by opposers. Easy support. --kingboyk 15:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Very strong Support- He is an editor who always tried to update wikipedia with current affairs. In addition to that incivility is rare.  Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 15:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support --thunderboltz(Deepu) 16:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Partially because I think you'll make a good admin, partially because those opposes are so ridiculous. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 16:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Decided to be sensible when his friends weren't. pschemp | talk 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Michael 17:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. My concerns from the last RfA have been completely addressed, and as I've seen only good or outstanding contributions from Tariqabjotu, I'm feeling slightly silly about them now. Sandstein 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (Er, the objections, not his contributions, obviously.) Sandstein 18:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support per nom. John254 18:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Yes. --Docg 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Strong support savidan(talk) (e@) 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Although I personally agree with what ALM Scientist said, the nature of Wikipedia is that it does not care if your main priority is your religion or Wikipedia. And as long as Wikipedia policies at least seem to be your main concern, other editors are okay with you. BhaiSaab talk 03:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support without reservations. NoSeptember 03:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    Strong Support Civil user, who won't abuse the tools. Hello32020 03:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate !vote (see number 75). -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Hook, line and sinker --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support: This time I again failed to be 100th. But, following Srikeit is it self great to support a great editor! --Bhadani 04:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Sandy (Talk) 15:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Strong Support — The current RfA nominations lineup is the best in Wikipedian history, bar none. — Deckiller 16:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Keep It Up! I can see him being very beneficial as a sysop here. Have not seen him around, but he'll help the admins with a lot of work if he gets the mop, bucket, and keys. I'm TrackerTV and I approve this message (sorry, Mailer Diablo, had to do it after the 2006 midterm elections). 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. support, always been good from this viewpoint/wangi 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Will make good sysop. -- Chez (Discuss / Email) 02:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. - BanyanTree 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Pepsidrinka supports. 03:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support, As per the nom. Shyam (T/C) 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Strong Support. I've remember tariqabjotu/joturner back in '05, and I've seen nothing but improvement since then. The man should've been promoted a long time ago. Khoikhoi 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. Not your typical candidate, I must admit, but after careful consideration I see no real reason to oppose. —freak(talk) 06:20, Nov. 13, 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support, same as first time! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Strong Support I've had only positive interactions with this user in the past, all of which lead me to believe that they will be an excellent admin. TewfikTalk 16:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Super strong support - I'm tired of seeing his reports at WP:ERRORS and him only being able to close "no consensus" votes at WP:RM. Nothing but respect for this excellent user and soon-to-be administrator. —Mets501 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Long overdue. the wub "?!" 23:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support per all the above comments.--Jersey Devil 01:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support I'v not seen him but his edits look good all around. He should be good at being an administrator.--John Lake 01:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support. It's nice to see that the - frankly, vile - opposition to has last RFA, based purely on Jo's religious beliefs, and not based at all on his actions on Wikipedia, has finally died down. Proto::type 09:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Another-little-note-on-my-talk-page-support. ^^ - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support --Ligulem 11:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support: Obviously. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Co-nom support Computerjoe's talk 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - Been here a while, should be an asset. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Strong Support Promotes civility as a means to dispute resolution. KP Botany 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - incivil user, makes comments calling another user a 'paedophile' --[[User:Gabinger|Phaedriel]] 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC) imposter blocked indef
Oppose Incivil, currently under ArbCom probation on the Solar system article. --[[User:Velcorx|Phaedriel]] 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
User blocked indefinately as an evil impersonator of Phaedriel. ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Last time I voted for support. Have to see what he has been doing since last time. Since last time he is no more member of The_Muslim_Guild and stopped working actively in Islamic article. WHY? He removed everything he had in his userpage disputed or pro-Islamic. WHY? Now he rarely comes to Islamic articles and if he comments on talk pages of Islamic related article, he tries to become so neutral that it beats non-Muslim editors too. I want to know people with their personalities. Like for example a person X is a Jew and love his religion however, when exposed to facts he will accept them. I love to support such a person X for adminiship. I hate that idea that a User has to leave his own personality and identity (like in this case) just to be an admin. Why it is so important to be a stupid admin that he changed his beautiful userpage and good set of ideas written on them? I am very confused about Tariqabjotu now and do not know his personality anymore. If something is wrong and we cannot say it wrong LOUD and CLEAR just to be an admin then such a post is ugly post. --- ابراهيم 11:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinions, ALM; but Wikipedia is not about religion at all, it is about citing reliable sources and verifiability. Don't you think that an administrator should upkeep the policy of neutrality? And if you don't think so, I am sorry to say, you do not understand what adminship is all about. The pages (including your userpages) are provided to users for the furtherance of the cause of making this encyclopedia, they are not to be used as a tool of propaganda. Now he rarely comes to Islamic articles and if he comments on talk pages of Islamic related article, he tries to become so neutral that it beats non-Muslim editors too. – I request the users participating in this RfA take this statement as a testimony from a fellow user who has known Tariqabjotu since a long time. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We first are humans with emotions and thinking. I love Muhammad more than my life but when a user gives me new facts about Muhammad death that was not pleasant for me being a Muslims. I updated Muhammad page myself with the facts I received. That is neutrality which I can accept. However, if neutrality means I should not have any love associated with Muhammad, Islam etc and I should be an emotionless, dead person then sorry that what I never wish to be. Thanks for point my userpage as a tool of propaganda. A year ago Tariqabjotu user page was also like that (may be even more pro-Islamic). However, he had changed it, just to be an admin and I will never do that. Believe me I could be neutral, nice and sincere with wikipedia, even with my propaganda user-page. So could be Tariqabjotu but alas he decided to choose the different path. --- ابراهيم 14:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen him in Muhammad, Islam and other Islamic article since long time. That was his primary area of interest. May be his interest are changed now dramatically or may be he wanted so bad to be an admin? In both case I am confused about his personality. He give comments like We, as an encyclopaedia, should be trying to avoid the appearance of promoting one holy book over all others. Wrong that is not neutrality and we should present facts and only fact. For example if Bible in some sense is better than Quran then so be it and vica versa. We should be neutral in accepting all sort of facts with open mind but neutral does not mean to present all A=B. We should not try to make all people happpy with us but should try to be on the right side always (even that make all against us). --- ابراهيم 14:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I immensely respect the views of ALM, and he has every right to hold his views. However, I do not believe that Tariqabjotu has changed his user page to become an administrator. I do believe that Tariqabjotu has all the right to keep his user page in anyway he likes unless the style and contents violate the general principles and policies of wikipedia. Moreover, no one should display an attitude of holier than thou as it is perhaps a self-befooling process, and serves no purpose. I also request ALM to contribute more actively to wikipedia in whatever way he feels comfortable to make this a true encyclopedia. I also apologize in advance if he feels offended though I am sure that he is mature and is not touchy. --Bhadani 15:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Changed to support after candidate showed some sense - Since ALM thinks that not being a religious fanatic is a valid reason to oppose, I'm going to oppose because there are too many co-noms. Seems about the same level of absurdity. pschemp | talk 14:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointed you have chosen to do this. WP:POINT. This is ridiculous, and I must strongly urge you to reconsider the disruptive point you're trying to make with this !vote. – Chacor 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not point. See my opinion above. I honestly believe there are too many co-noms and find that extremely off-putting. The fact that I acknowledged my view to be absurd doesn't mean I don't believe it. pschemp | talk 15:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter whether strongly supportive comments are listed under "co-nomination" or in the "support" section? And why should a candidate be opposed on the basis of admittedly absurd belief? In this case the result won't be affected but is it your view that the candidate really should be denied otherwise deserved adminship on this basis? Newyorkbrad 22:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Brad (and others), I feel we shouldn't question pschemp about her !vote any longer. -- tariqabjotu 22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll accept your recommendation. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect pschemp, I'd bring ur attention to this [48]. Tariq did not ask for so many people to nominate him. He also made it clear that it was ok if the offers were not followed through, so I'd say nobody realized it was never decided there would be 6 co-noms until well after the nom was created by Blnguyen. Rama's arrow 18:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rama, it was Tarq who added the nomination to the RFA page when it was ready. He could have at any point requested only a few co-noms, or removed the excess ones. His decision to leave them in when the practice of excessive nomination has been consistently frowned upon makes me wonder if he is willing to stand up for anything he believes in, or will just go along with the crowd as an admin. Tarq had final say on what the nom page looked like, yet he chose to leave it that way. No one forced him to leave all the noms on, therefore, he is responsible. I know many many other people who had the good sense to say tahnk you anyway, 2 or 3 is enough, yet Tarq did not do this. It makes me wonder why. pschemp | talk 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misrepresent me. I will vote support even for a person who is atheist and I am not saying one should be a religious fanatic or even religious at all. However, I should know a person and I should be sure about his personality. Not like Tariqabjotu about whom I could say only one thing for sure now. He loves to be an admin. I do not know who he is anymore. --- ابراهيم 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so you would support an atheist but not someone who you think is a bad Muslim? That's incredibly hypocritical. Religion should have *nothing* to do with a vote here as it has *nothing* to do with adminship. If Tarq quit being Muslim and became Buddhist, why should you care? Its his personal decision and in no way affects his ability to be an admin. pschemp | talk 15:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will also support for some person who is bad Muslim; however he should stand for what he is. It is not like he is so desperate to be an admin that he removes from his user page his views. He changes his dislike and likes for being an admin. Then I might give vote against him. --- ابراهيم 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think that it is not wise to enquire along this line of thought. ALM is entitled to his rationale and the rationale is not irrational at all. Kavadi carrier 15:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - per most of the concerns brought up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2, also per pschemp --T-rex 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the last AfD is now history though I admire you for your conviction. As regards the concerns of pschemp, I would like to add a point. I do not believe her views declared as absurd by herself: she is entitled to her views. I was just thinking of a better absurd scenario. A nomination receives 100 co-nominations and 0 support but 2 opposes and 2 neutrals. For persons who follow the beaten path, it would be a failed nomination, but for the more enlightened ones the nomination would have perhaps been a success ab initio and though I am not sure as regards the co-nomination(s) being interpreted as an implicit support, may be the closing bureaucrat would most likely interpret in this way and promote the nominee in such a scenario! There is no such live case, but wikipedia is highly dynamic and situations like the one imagined by me may happen. Moreover, punishing the nominee for the misdeeds of the co-nominators (by co-nominating) looks an amazing reason to do so! Like pschemp as asserted on her user page, "I get confused easily" too. :) --Bhadani 18:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response to you above. Basically, Tarq was the person to add this page, he could have removed or refused as many co-noms as he wished, yet did not do so even though excessive co-noms are frowned upon. This makes me wonder about him. pschemp | talk 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (Fine. BTW, please do not presume that I have not read your comments above. I read the comments many times! --Bhadani 02:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    Then please consider this, I had expressed an interest in adding a co-nomination, but he chose to email me to discuss my co-nom, in which he asked me to (re)consider adding a nomination. I'd likely have tagged on a co-nom myself, but chose not to following the email. He still has my strongest support. I cannot fathom how other people adding noms at their own free will (of course, Tariq could choose to remove any of them, but that'd be downright impolite, and tbh not what many of us would want in an admin) should influence this. – Chacor 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that although I find the multiple noms to be annoying that is not my actual reason for opposing --T-rex 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I think that potential admins who respond to every oppose vote are not secure enough, and cannot accept an oppose vote, so they should not be admins. Diez2 18:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate has not responded to a single oppose till now! -- Lost(talk) 18:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Darn, I spent that long looking for Tariqabjotu's responses to each Oppose vote, you managed to get in first and point out Tariqabjotu hasn't (upto now) made any replies to anyone who has voted 'Oppose'. I don't like to see someone getting a raw deal out of RfA so I'll vote in Support of the candidate. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I change my vote to Neutral because I am more interested in presenting only my views against him which I have done. --- ابراهيم 16:26, 10 November 2006 (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