Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ekabhishek

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

Ekabhishek

Final (78/12/10); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 07:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination by Titodutta

Ekabhishek (talk · contribs) –

• Number of edits: 106,000 (almost)
• Been here: Since Feb 24, 2007 16:30:42
• Enabled edit counter: Yes
• This editor works silently but steadily. When I was new editor after creating articles I found many times that this editor correcting my formatting errors or expanding the article. This editor's behaviour is polite too. I am nominating his name as admin. Tito Dutta ✉ 04:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination by TheSpecialUser

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm delighted to offer Ekabhishek a co-nom! Ekabhishek has been editing Wikipedia since February 2007 but he started editing on regular basis from September 2007 and has managed to get a big sum of 100,000+ edits. His editing has always been dedicated towards the main space and it accounts for majority of his edits. What impresses me about him is his civility and willingness to help any newbie or improve any article which is in a poor state. His edits revolve around India related topics- Tomb of Humayun, Hindi theatre (cinema related topics are one of his favorite ones), and Criminal Tribes Act (pretty tough job) are just few examples of his content creation skills. He is not the kind of editor who helps articles to get to GA status or FA or DYK, but still manages to keep 88% of his edits in the main space that is 91,000+ (wow!). He deals with unsourced BLPs, copyright issues, fixes neutrality regarding problems, improving refs, expands articles, fixes errors etc; though it is not so glamorous as FA-GA-DYK-thing, it is equally necessary and pretty tedious job which he does really well. He has been one of the tireless editors who love editing in article space as he has dealt with more then 1500 different articles. Another quality about him is politeness; whenever I came across him, I've seen him in a civil and helpful manner. I've never seen him loosing his cool or being rude or making insults or any kind of offence. In short, he is a good and trustworthy editor who is friendly and ready to help as far as he can. His contributions tell the same story in a better way and I see no trouble with his editing or in trusting him with admin rights. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 07:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Strike Eagle

I'm glad to co-nominate Abhishek for adminship. Abhishek has been here for over 5 years now and has amassed over a hundred thousand edits. He is always civil and does the right thing. As TheSpecialUser already said, he has managed over 90000 edits in mainspace which is an amazing thing. Ekabhishek is a silent and tireless contributor whom I'm sure will be a good and sensible admin. Assured, he won't delete the main page :) TheStrikeΣagle 14:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Much gratitude to Titodutta and to all those who have added to my learning, I accept the nomination. -Ekabhishek^talk 06:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The area I intend to work most is vandalism, wherein I would like to aid in page protection and handle requests for page protection besides handling specific interventions in vandalism. On many occasions, many users have asked me for help, in such cases I direct them to various noticeboards, now I would be able to help them directly. In doing so, I might be able to pay forward the immeasurable kindness of many admins, who timely intervened and helped in vandalism related issues, restoring not just valuable labour of love, but also faith in innate goodness of us all. Though adminship might not be as glamorous as a DYK or a FA, but then without those silent workers, we see the edit history, would there be a wiki tomorrow.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My most satisfying contributions have been in India-related new articles, Unreferenced BLPs and sometimes the last chance XFD, wherever I find an article I can rescue, I pitch in. Often they are new users, who in good faith and right boldness create improperly referenced articles or with copyrighted text, which need quick referencing or a rewrite. I believe within every first-timer lies the possibility of a future excellent editor. Content-wise I have worked on arts, literature and cinema related article, especially biographies, as reading them is one of my passions. So, in terms of main namespace, articles, my best contributions have been Tomb of Humayun, Hindi theatre (Andha Yug, Habib Tanvir, Amal Allana), Baroda State, Manoj-Babli honour killing case, as they have turned out to be informative.

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 am sure I must have in the early years (been here since 2007), though cannot recall the exact events (perhaps someone can point out). I soon realized reverting doesn't help much, nor does feeling unnecessary ownership in the ephemeral realm; most often I only needed to get down from my high horse and withdraw. Sometimes this also requires giving up the need to make a point, perhaps revisiting the subject again later with a more NPOV helps or working on something else all together, there is always something new to work on, to cool off shift some images to commons, address some other backlog to realise how much more I still have to learn here, as in real life. I have reverted edits in good faith many times, where they were incorrect or superfluous, not to be mention some hilarious one from school IPs, though when properly explained in summary, most people are considerate enough to respect the changes, so I would continue the same in the future as well, unless of course something kinder and equally efficient strikes.

Additional questions from Master&Expert

4. Consider the following scenario — an editor registers an account, vandalizes a page (let's say... "generic", for the sake of simplicity), continues despite being warned, and ultimately winds up blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, with autoblock enabled and account creation disabled. Once the account creation block expires a few days later, the same person registers yet another account, vandalizes the page yet again, and is once again indeffed, account creation blocked and autoblock enabled. A bystander notices the spree of vandalism and reports it to RFPP requesting temporary semi-protection. Aside from the serial offender, the page has been completely free of vandalism. How do you proceed?

A: Under WP:PP multiple user vandalism warrant a semi protection, in this case since the problem seems to be arising from a single user, we can handle it at the level of the editor level, we can block IP address. Next he should be given a chance to redeem himself, place under probation etc., if that too doesn’t work ONLY then a banning exercise need be initiated, there again a article ban would be my first suggestion. The user who reported at RFPP also be informed of the situation when denying semi-protection for the time being..--Ekabhishek^talk 13:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

5. When is it appropriate to indefinitely semi-protect an article?

A: When a high-profile and high-quality article, especially WP:BLP, faces consistent and high vandalism from various IP users or new users, each time the semi-protection gets over.--Ekabhishek^talk 13:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

6. Consider this scenario — A number of users, let's say three editors, are active on a certain page (let's say "controversy"), all with registered autoconfirmed accounts. Two of the editors are engaged in an edit war, both violate the three-revert rule, and wind up blocked for somewhere between 12-36 hours each. One of the blocked editors evades the block using a sockpuppet account to re-add contentious material to the article, the account is blocked indefinitely, and the parent account's block is reset. The third editor has not been involved in the edit war and is peacefully editing away at an entirely separate section; they have tried but failed to get the other two parties to discuss the disputed content on the article's talk page. A bystander notices the frequent edit warring and sockpuppetry, and requests full protection at RFPP. How do you proceed?

A: If the third editor makes changes, with or without awareness of the edit war and hasn't managed to resolve the issue directly or indirectly, he can be suggested to arrive at a consensus, even asking for third opinion for dispute resolution taking into account the points of contention to arrive at a WP:NPOV, before proceeding ahead, as his edits would be fruitful only then. Here again the bystander who the post request at RFPP would be duly explained the reasons of denial of full protection, as this isn't an ideal candidate for it. However, in case the third editor also fails to address the situation amicably only then temporary full protection is advisable, till the issue is resolved on the talk page.--Ekabhishek^talk 14:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Callanecc

7. This scenario, I believe, is something which you may encounter as an admin. Please read the following and answer the questions.

An IP user completely changes a large section of a non-BLP article from being unreferenced to completely referenced. However on the talk page, the community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information. Acting with this consensus, an experienced registered user manually uses rollback (with default edit summary) to revert the change and issues a level {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning (just the template by itself) to the IP user (the IP user has made 10 edits on 6 different pages all of which were good edits). The IP user asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted the referenced edits.

Following the rollback & warning and request for the rollbacker to explain their actions (which, after an hour of the rollbacker being active on Wikipedia hadn't yet been answered), the IP user undid the revert and added the referenced information back. The same registered user rollbacks again, and leaves a duplicate 4im warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding to the IP (during this time the rollbacker is still active on Wikipedia), the IP adds the information in again. The rollbacker uses rollback again then reports the IP to WP:AIV.

You see the request at AIV; outline all the steps you would take, and the policy basis for those actions.

I suggest that you structure your answer into the following format (but it's completely up to you): (a) request at AIV (decline/accept, any other actions & why); (b) the revert including use of rollback, warning, unanswered message on rollbacker's talk page, possible 3RR vio (for all - implications, your actions and policy basis); (c) change to the article (your actions (and possible actions) and policy basis).

A: I see two mistakes here, first I would be surprised if the community forms a consensus over adding unreferenced information, secondly that an experienced user feels a false sense of ownership, rollbacks what is evidently a good faith edit, especially a referenced one. If it happens, then these actions, especially "rollback without explain one's actions" and "not answering the IP's queries", are against wiki etiquette and common sense, and then jumping the gun and straight away adding Level 4 VAD warning is totally uncalled for and constitute biting a new comer. With these reason, the WP:AIV would be declined. Clearly the editor in question, needs to reflect upon his work ethics, I would suggest a re-read of crucial wiki policies like WP:3RR, WP:WARN, WP:EQ and yes, get clarity on rollback situations, or he just might loose his rollback rights. No point becoming a good editor or admin if in the process we loose our humanity and compassion, as we loose no matter how good wiki reads outwardly. There after, I would restore the referenced and 'good faith' content by IP user, and suggest that the community of editors be careful in future, and following wiki guidelines instead of approving unreferenced text. --Ekabhishek^talk 17:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hats off! Sorry I could not stop myself from posting here --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Achowat

8. In light of the concern over lack of WP:Space edits, I propose a hypothetical. A registered User sets up his Userpage, formatting it in a similiar way to an article. He uses {{Infobox football biography}} and includes a Commons-hosted picture (that he uploaded). The page has the general layout of an article (Lede, Early Life, etc) and mentions a number of Youth Clubs and such that he is on. There is no information concerning Wikipedia in any way.

• How would you handle this userpage?

I firmly believe in the Golden Rule, especially the part in wiki that says, We were all new once. In line with this I would gently advise the user concerning rule that wiki is not a social networking site, and add on {{subst:uw-userpage}} if need be.--Ekabhishek^talk 02:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Would your actions change if the User had 0 Mainspace edits? A History of good contributions?

The same actions will apply, in either case.--Ekabhishek^talk 02:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Would your actions be any different if the User listed his birthday as 9/6/1996?

A: I have much younger nephews, who are held responsible for their choices and at par with adults in real life as well, so the same would apply here. By the way, 1996 is not that young, quite old/mature already, especially if you meet kids these days. --Ekabhishek^talk 02:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Jorgath

9. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A: How we behave as an admin or as an editor is a good reflection of how we behave in real life, so if have issue of power or anger in real life, they would show up here as well. This is where my not having enough main space edit till now becomes an advantage as I have worked on the other side, as an editor long enough to know the damage a power hungry editor or admin can cause, it not only damages content, creates a harsh environment, but also dissuades many new comers. So if as an editor while indulging in edit warring a user felt disempowered, he or she would repeat the same again as WW, no surprise there. I am glad I waited long enough. To understand, power is always to serve others and not our ego. When we forget this, we get trapped in such scenarios, which invariably lead to our downfall, be it in real life or out here.--Ekabhishek^talk 03:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

10. Given your relative lack of experience outside of article space, how would you deal with an administrative situation in which you were unsure of the best course of action? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A: We are all new somewhere and here again, I will proceed to WP:AN, where experienced admins can help me out, its better to ask for directions than get lost, above that we all have inner guidance.--Ekabhishek^talk 03:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Hahc21

11. This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.

A: I am really delighted to read the question as it shows a compassionate and empathetic heart, one quality I look for in a human being and a wikipedian.WP:BP clearly states that blocking should never be punitive so should be used sparingly, with much deliberation and proper explanation to have any positive effect in the long run. Such snubbing can be detrimental otherwise not just to wiki content but to the user personally. As it might aggravate the user further, no wonder often such users indulge in sock puppetry etc. His temporary lack of judgment or composure might be held against him, here after. My first response comes from the Golden rule itself - how would I feel, if someone thus blocked me in real life, for some mistake of mine. I am also wondering about the real life consequences on a person, what if he or she is emotional fragile or vulnerable and a wiki block might take away their last respite from a harsh real life..A better way out in warring situations is implementing restorative justice within wikipedia as well. Thereafter we can offer a clean start whenever possible, life does so too willingly, what we call grace.--Ekabhishek^talk 05:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

12. If a a user gets mad at you because of some admin-related action you have made and starts vandalizing your userpage at the point on which they receive a level 4 warning, would you directly block the user? Or will you prefer to protect your page and wait until another unrelated admin makes the final decision?

A: You are right, sometimes admins do have to make difficult blocks, and such a scenario might appear, but then there is no need to take it personally, as the block user is only venting, and might have done the same with anybody else, and other admins have had it far worse, namely off-site attacks etc. So it would be far wiser to go for the second option, wherein we protect the userpage and ask an uninvolved admin to intervene.--Ekabhishek^talk 06:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Mrmatiko

13. You notice that an editor has been blocked for edit warring after making 2 reverts to Singaporean general election, 2011. They had previously edited the article but had never made a revert until that day. An editor placed an edit warring template on their talk page after the first revert. Is this a valid block? Under what circumstances would you unblock?

A: Since the admin in this case didn't follow the 3RR rule, the block is invalid and should be revoked.--Ekabhishek^talk 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I mistook the question to be a hypothetical one as previous questions, nevertheless I did check the page history, but didn't check its talk page as I should have, where the 1RR rule is clearly stated, so this shows I need a thorough understanding of EW, more study and alertness. Though I must admit I had this nagging feeling while typing, I am missing something...it is too simple an answer..might be a trick question..and responded against my better judgment. I apologize..didn't follow my own rule to go slow, promise to do so as an admin. Luckily as in my early days as an editor, here again senior admins will lend a helping hand in guiding my early steps, and would have a forgiving and compassionate community behind me, as I already see here. --Ekabhishek^talk 03:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky

14. In the area you have stated you intend to work and require tools, vandalism & page protection, what work have you performed as an editor?

A: Would you specify the actions, please. Or do you mean the usual reverting, restoring? --Ekabhishek^talk 07:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You have stated that you intend to work as an Administrator in the area of vandalism and page protection. I want you to tell me what work you have already done in those areas during your time as an editor. Leaky Caldron 09:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC) answered in original O#1 discussion. Leaky Caldron 16:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Bill william compton

15. Consider a hypothetical situation when you come across an article which you find to be eligible (by the tone of the article) for G12 but can't find the original source on internet. What will be your immediate reaction? Alternate situation, you found the original source and deleted it under the G12 criterion, but you are approached by the author of the article and says that he holds the copyrights of the source. What will you do now?

A: Today, is 15th August, our independence day!...For the first scenario: I am confused, without finding any online source or original source online myself (even if the BOT fails), how would I conclude just by the tone that the article falls under G12, i.e. unambiguous copyright infringement, am I missing something here? Some articles come with valid reliable offline sources as well. If am not sure of G12, and it doesn't come under G1-11, I would give the author ample time to respond, or ask reference desk to help out, if all fails, and it meets PROD criterion, this option be used, I wouldn't take CSD lightly. Rather I'd ask another admin for an opinion, no harm there. For the second scenario, if the author also holds copyright to the source, and if there are no reliable secondary sources available or notable ones, it would amount to promotion and even original research, I would ask the author to wait till the information appears in secondary sources as well, and offer the give him a copy of the deleted article, in case...--Ekabhishek^talk 05:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry to intrude but i suppose RfA is not taken as seriously as a papal conclave and my intrusion will be forgiven. I came across this article Malegaon recently and to me it's tone is fully G12. But i couldn't find any online source to support my suspicion. I would usually go to User:SpacemanSpiff and nag him. But then i saw this question here and thought of waiting. So.... @Ekabhishek, the first part of your "hypothetical" situation is no longer so. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky

16. I opposed your application (#O10) so feel free to disregard this supplementary question since it will not alter my !vote. I do not understand the level of support given your complete lack of work in your chosen area (or for that matter any Admin area) and the rather vague answers to some of the questions designed presumably to assess your suitability/readiness. So, why do YOU believe that you are a suitable Admin. candidate? Why have you not worked in any of the Admin-related areas you are interested in before allowing yourself to be nominated? Thanks.

A:

General comments

• Links for Ekabhishek: Ekabhishek (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Ekabhishek can be found here.
• Stats are on the talk page. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 07:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• To opposes over experience: I want to pose same question I posed to WormThatTurned. What is most important in a sysop? Trust or experience? With trust comes that a user will not intentionally get involved in areas where they lack experience. Also, adminship is no big deal. It costs us nothing to flip the switch to hand out the tools. Let's say that Ekabhishek makes a promise to never ever use the admin bit at all...ever. What's the big deal about giving it to them anyway? We trust them. There is no reason that any trusted user shouldn't have the bit. We use factors such as edit count, time in service, and experience in admin related areas to judge the integrity, trustworthiness, and character of the editor. But are those things absolutely necessary or just have become the easiest factors to judge? Please don't oppose this candidate over issues that can be fixed by a simple explanation such as question 13. Such a lesson is easy to learn. I humbly ask all of the opposers to look deeply into the candidate and find a reason to oppose rather than a reason to withhold support. RFA needs to change and adminship needs to be easier to gain. I beg of you all to let that start here, right now.--v/r - TP 14:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this (why the heck am I getting involved!). Too often we worry about things like "need the tools" or "experience in admin areas" when evaluating an RfA candidacy. But are those really relevant? Any candidate who has shown that the care about the encyclopedia and that they care about and honor consensus would be a plus as an admin. And the idea of forcing a long term content contributor to show that they care about being an admin by haunting AIV or AN (or, heaven forbid, ANI!) just seems counterproductive to me. --regentspark (comment) 15:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The idea of an editor with no exposure to Admin areas relying on "inner guidance" (Q10) is not a direction I want to take. Trust AND experience for me. If Admin was as easy to remove as it is to obtain in the above philosophy I might be convinced, but it isn't. Leaky Caldron 17:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If the candidate is not going to use their tools in an area where they have no experience, then (at least initially) they are not going to use their tools at all. Adminship isn't a reward, or a badge of honour. It isn't handed out to experienced editors as a token of appreciation. It's a tool, and it is given to people who are going to use it. It isn't at all unreasonable to ask for some kind of evidence that the candidate is capable of using some of the admin tools responsibly before they are given them. And this isn't a case of forcing a long term content contributor to show that they care about being an admin by haunting AIV - the candidate has already said (Q1) that they want to work at AIV. Hut 8.5 18:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Granting the tools doesn't have to depend on an editor using them. Maybe someday the editor will need to move over a redirect, maybe someday they'll stumble on an article that needs to be protected. It is my philosophy that the toolset is so cheap to grant that it should be a natural progression of any editor based on their level of trust and attitude. Maybe this editor won't ever use them. So what? Prove to me that granting them and the user never using them would be detrimental to the 'pedia. What is the big deal if they use them or not? Just give 'em the tools. They arn't gonna break anything.--v/r - TP 20:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Derailment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an inappropriate place to discuss this non-candidate specific subject. The candidate's RFA could easily be compromised by a lengthy discussion which is focused on a matter not of his making. Leaky Caldron 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC) I can't imagine how in the world you've come to that conclusion. This is candidate specific. I am expressly addressing this candidate's trustworthiness and suggesting other editors reconsider based on that. His trustworthiness is a matter directly of his making.--v/r - TP 21:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC) The following statements are certainly not specific to the candidate: "Also, adminship is no big deal. It costs us nothing to flip the switch to hand out the tools.", "There is no reason that any trusted user shouldn't have the bit.", "RFA needs to change and adminship needs to be easier to gain. I beg of you all to let that start here, right now". Leaky Caldron 21:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Please go ahead and do a per-character analysis of everything I have said in the above and tell me the percentage of on-topic versus off-topic discussion. You've got to be kidding me.--v/r - TP 21:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You could look at it the other way round. If the candidate isn't going to use the tools, then there is no identifiable benefit to the project from granting them. Yes, there might be a (very) small benefit if they have to perform the occasional trivial admin task, but there's also a risk that they will try to get involved in something over their head and screw up. In my experience many really bizarre admin actions turn out to be performed by admins who were promoted a very long time ago and haven't use their tools much since. In any case such considerations are somewhat off-topic here, as the candidate is asking for the tools in order to get involved in counter-vandalism work rather than to move articles over redirects (or other similar work). Hut 8.5 22:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. From a purely technical point of view, we could run a bureaucrat bot to give admin rights to all accounts; it's not as if we have a limited number of admins. The encyclopedia doesn't suffer from having an admin who doesn't use tools. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - per co-nom. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 07:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Excellent editor,experienced.Has been around since 2007 and with 280 articles.Feel the project will gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Support I can see a general need of the tools. Admin tools are not only to help in admin-related fields, but also to help newbies, and this user will do that nicely. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Experienced editor, can't find any problems in their history. Opposes are fundamentally bizarre; "Spends all their time creating and improving content", "Doesn't try to find drama" are reasons to support, not oppose. WilyD 10:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Cannot see this experienced editor misusing the tools and another pair of hands to help with admin backlogs would be welcome. I would say that top content creators are likely to be more conversant with policy than others. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
6. 91,000 articlespace contributions and a candidate is getting NOTNOWs. Wow. Unless there is actual evidence to suggest that Ekabhishek will misuse the tools then five years of service, 100k edits and a clean block log should be more than enough proof that he knows what he's doing, and the tools he's suggested he needs access to are basic aids to keeping articles kicking along. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Support - trustworthy editor. Agree with WilyD and Black Kite about the opposes. PhilKnight (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Per WilyD, Black Kite and Chris Cunningham. Jenks24 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose Not a single sysop among the co-noms. This is an attempt by the non-sysop cabal to overtake the admin corps by force.--v/r - TP 13:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Is this meant as a support or oppose? --99of9 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   He supports the candidate. It is a sarcastic and somewhat ironic statement regarding the nominators. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

10. Support user's adminship for his huge experience in creation. He could be of good help in redefining Administrator. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Strong Support A trustworthy editor with a long history of content contributions. I suspect he'll use his admin tools wisely but sparingly and am not concerned about the lack of Wikispace contributions. A bit of a plus actually. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    Strong support. I really like this editor's approach as evidenced by his answers to the questions. Well worth a read with reminders for all of us. --regentspark (comment) 15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

12. Support A content contributor is quite a rarity these days and Black Kite, WilyD, Chris Cunningham speak for me on this. —SpacemanSpiff 15:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. An excellent content-contributor. No problems in edit history. Clean, very helping, has huge experience in the project, and trustworthy.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Support. 100K edits, almost all to namespace, and no trail of dead bodies or maimings. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Support An experienced, trustworthy and helpful editor. Agree with WilyD, Black Kite, Chris Cunningham and regentspark about the opposes. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Support no concerns -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Support Everything looks good.Torreslfchero (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Support. To the opposers, he's been here long enough that he can be presumed to have some knowledge of every major policy. Vandalism and page protection are not areas that require getting really nitty-gritty with policies and guidelines. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Support per Chris Cunningham. AutomaticStrikeout 17:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Per noms. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Support - Per nom and because most people competent enough to write featured articles are competent enough to read WP:PROTECT, WP:BLOCK, WP:DELETE, WP:REVDEL, WP:ADMIN, and whatever other admin policy pages are applicable to the scenario. (By the way, if you haven't read these core policies, go read them now. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
22. You don't have to be know it all type editor to become an admin. I really don't think that Ekabhishek would use the tools that often, and if he does its a clear necessary. I strongly support giving the tools to experts in their fields as they can see if a certain user is doing constructive editors in the area they work with and join the discussion when necessary. Secret ^account 19:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Support. Good luck! Mysterytrey 20:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
24. Support because all I really want to see is a good level of competence; I see it here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
25. Support Clueful and trustworthy. More experience in admin areas would be nice but it's not like our policies are that hard to comprehend. I'm sure Ekabhishek will do just fine. Pichpich (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
26. Those are terrific answers to my questions, and demonstrate to me that Ekabhishek has the judgement and the policy knowledge to do good work with the admin toolset. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
27. I frankly think that, despite not much project-space experience, Ekabhishek has plenty of clue. David1217 ^{What I've done} 00:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Support moved from oppose. It doesn't matter if this editor has no experience in projectspace. He's obviously trustworthy and clueful. I can't think of any scenario where giving him the bit wouldn't be a net positive. Trusilver 02:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
29. Support Repear Eternal, King of Hearts, Vaibhav Jain, and Black Kite sum it up pretty well. --~ScholarlyBreeze~ 05:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
30. Support Excellent answers to all the questions above. EngineerFromVega^★ 06:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
31. Support Highly experienced and trustworthy. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
32. Support The candidate is generally clueful, very experienced and above all trustworthy. Suraj T 08:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
33. Support Fine with me - Mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
34. Support (moved from neutral.) User is clueful, sympathetic, and is willing to seek assistance to learn what they don't already know. All excellent qualities in an admin. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
35. Support - superb candidate. Clean block log, deleted edits look OK and a commendable concentration on article space. I don't agree with the concerns of the Oppose section, especially the bit about admins needing 1000 WP space edits ϢereSpielChequers 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Clue, temperament, and experienced enough at building an encyclopedia that any remaining knowledge gaps will, I'm sure, be smoothly and quickly filled. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
37. Support Rzuwig^► 17:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
38. Support prolific and clueful content contributors per "we are writing an encyclopedia after all." Combining that with the right temperament makes this even more obvious. First Light (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Obviously. —Hahc21 20:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
40. Support - Experienced and knowledgeable, looks like another great nom. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
41. Support. Per BlackKite above. Lord Roem (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
42. Support He is such a gem. Will make a brilliant administrator .Shyamsunder (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
43. Support His contributions are good enough for me. --LemonTwinkle 23:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
44. Support I acknowledge that you did make mistakes here, but I trust that you will learn from those mistakes and thus support you today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
45. Weak Support I would definitely like to see more Wikipedia space edits; these would indicate a stronger desire to serve as an admin and would evidence this user has the knowledge necessary to handle the tools. Nonetheless, this user's contributions are impressive, and I see no way in which serving as an admin would necessarily cause this user to harm the project if the tools are used with care. Michael (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
46. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Well over the bar in time and editorial contributions. Wants to work on anti-vandalism and thus can use tools. Admin buttons should be no big deal. Carrite (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
47. Support – A good editor. Can be trusted with the tools. — Abhishek  ^Talk 06:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
48. Support Per nom (finally) --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Pretty fast ;) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Ha(d/ve)doubt whether a nominator should vote or not! In some other nominations I have seen nominators voting, since every vote will be counted I added my vote too (finally). But, I don't think nominators and co-noms should vote. They are nominating– that clearly indicates they are supporting too. --Tito Dutta ✉ 09:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Yeah but in terms of a straw poll it's easier to say "noms can vote" than have police a rule that they can't. Plus if there is any possible doubt in the nom statement (as to whether they support or not) then a support vote clears that up. And there will always be people who, if they don't see a nominator support vote, will use that as a reason to oppose. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Hello, Callanecc , what's up? Well, I disagree. If you see the nomination statements here, surely you'll understand we are supporting. So, voting again is unnecessary. I was not sure whether my vote will be counted if I don't vote (it should be– number of votes + number of nominators (if they have not voted)). It is expected that a nominator is also supporting, on the other if all the nominators oppose the candidate (for example after seeing candidate's answers), it may create a complex situation since oppose of all nominators may be similar to withdrawing the nomination. --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

49. I really want to see some hands on experience in admin areas (especially when that candidate has said it's an area they want to work in) so I decided to hang back and see how the candidate answered policy questions. Considering the nomination statements and the great answers to questions I have no issue with a support vote. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
50. Obvious Support as nom! ;) I was away from wiki due to lack of internet hence couldn't vote TheStrikeΣagle 14:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
51. No concerns PumpkinSky talk 03:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
52. Support - no major issues. GiantSnowman 09:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
53. Support No issues, opposes unconvincing. Giving a clueful editor the mop means we trust him with it, not a concern that he hasn't worked heavily in AIV. Are we short on mops?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
54. Support, there's absolutely nothing in the Oppose section that makes me think even for a second that this user would abuse the tools. We need more content-focused admins like Ekabhishek. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
55. Support per Dennis Brown's response to TruPepitoM. I'm uncomfortable with some things, such as the comparative lack of projectspace edits and the candidate's requirement that a page be high-profile before semiprotecting. However, what I'm seeing here suggests that the candidate might be a little hesitant to act in such situations, which is far better than acting the wrong way. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Actually, his response was to WormTT. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 12:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Whatever :-) This edit, to resolve any existing ambiguity. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

56. Support. I've been torn here. On the one hand, I see an editor who has made great contributions to content, who clearly has plenty of clue about the project and the way it works, and is calm, compassionate, and very collegial in interactions with others. On the other hand, I don't see the contributions to admin-related areas that I would normally require in order to support a candidate. So I have been wavering around "Neutral" for the past few days. But I've decided to support, because further examination of Ekabhishek's contributions to discussion and of the questions and answers above convince me that this is not someone who would act rashly in incidents they did not fully understand, and I'm convinced that Ekabhishek will seek appropriate guidance in unfamiliar admin areas. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
57. Support - Looks like a good candidate. Plenty of edits, clean history, non contentious. I do wonder if the user has kept such a low profile if they really need the tools but that's not a reason to oppose. Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
58. Support Callanec is pretty convincing, as is Black Kite (and others, don't feel bad if I didn't mention you). I don't see any downside to this and a definite bonus for Wikipedia Ekabhishek becomes an Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
59. Support -- great contributor and wonderfully thoughtful answers to the questions. The editor's careful work on WP in general leads me to believe that adding the admin tools is No Big Deal. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
60. Support Seems thoughtful and trustworthy to me. Content editors are well suited to dealing with vandalism and page protection sensitively. --99of9 (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
61. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
62. Support I appreciate your friendly userspace. I have no concerns about your relative lack of experience in Wikipedia space because I think you have demonstrated an understanding of community norms. I have encountered you enough in India-related articles to know how you treat other users. Thank you for doing what you do. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
63. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 02:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
64. Support - Wonderful candidate (appears to be a content admin). TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
65. Support - A slight sparseness of Wikipedia-space work can be entirely forgiven when a user has sufficient contributions and general experience with the encyclopedia. I'm confident that you won't go wading into any admin areas you aren't familiar with without some research. ~ mazca ^talk 13:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
66. Support: Just what we need! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
67. Support Why not. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 21:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
68. Stephen 04:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
69. Support If Ekabhishek doesn't get the mop than I have no idea how any of us ever will. Most important thing in an admin is common sense combined with civility, and he certainly has those. Doesn't bother me he hasn't done much AIV stuff etc. because it is really not that complicated and when he makes a mistake, based on his history I'm confident he will handle it with professionalism. RoboCop 05:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
70. Support per Mr. Cuthbert. – SJ + 08:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
71. Support – Ekabhishek may not be a star candidate of this "not a big deal" process but I don't see any harm if he gets the tools. He is mature and have shown a keen interest to learn new things or consulting others. And, Happy Independence Day to Ekabhishek and other fellow Indian Wikipidians! — Bill william compton^Talk 13:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
72. Support breadth of content-work and experience will put Ekabhishek in good stead when considering tool use. Highly likely to be net positive.Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
73. Support. The basic premise of most of the opposition – that the candidate is new to the kinds of issues with which administrators deal, in spite of the strong experience in content building – seems to me to be reasonable. What leaves me, however, in the support column is my sense that someone who is smart enough to have done this much content editing without blowing the place up is smart enough to learn what they need to do if and when they use the administrator tools, and sensible enough not to misuse the tools. Worst case scenario: they end up only occasionally venturing into administrative work, and continue to do good content work, and that's good enough for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
74. + ShoesssS ^Talk 20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
75. Weak support. I'm not happy with Q1 and Q3. I want at least one story about actual conflict; without one, I'm unsure about how a candidate will react under pressure. I'm mindful of the opposes and even sympathetic. Significantly, I don't understand why this editor seeks the privilege. The editor avoids controversy. That means little personal experience with a significant content dispute or edit war. The editor wants to help out with vandalism, but has little presence in that effort (e.g., AIV). My sense is the bit will see little use. Some answers need improvement, but the editor appears cautious, so the bit should not be abused. I'm here under the no big deal banner. Glrx (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
76. Support. A fine candidate. Hopefully admin tasks won't detract too much from the work he does in other areas, as anyone who has spent much time in India-related articles would know.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
77. Support The ability to good far outweighs the concerns of abuse, admin powers are easier to remove then they are to acquire and the editor's 'faults' sound pretty weak and concern an unproven experience simply because they haven't yet had the tools. 'Good judgement' is one thing, but I don't expect the editor to go on a banning spree or act out of line, the good for the article space and general AIV care would be more then enough to warrant giving the tools. After all, adminship is not a big deal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
78. Support Likely to use the tool box well. DocTree (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose The vast majority (89%) of edits are to articles and there are only 175 edits to Wikipedia space pages. If you're best at articles, by all means continue at them. If you do want to administrate, get more experience in the administration areas and try again later. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose was too harsh; switching to Neutral

I thought this would be considered as a plus point! 89% mainspace edits!--Tito Dutta ✉ 08:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It merely marks a strength in content creation. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 10:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge your and general concerns regarding the absence of namespace edits, which might reflect as a lack of understanding of wiki policies, however I’d say in the course of editing and encountering vandalism over the years, I have gained not just adequate perspective on the issue, but genuine concerns as well. This I believe would aid me in learning the administrative procedures involved in RFPP and PP response. Right now, I am offering a helping hand in WP:VAN handling. I am in no way claiming expertise in any other area than this, and even here I admit I have plenty to learn, and just as when I first started editing articles here in 2007, so many able people came forward to help out, I am sure yet again equal number would come forward as admins, to guide me. After all we are all part of the same inclusive community, building wikipedia, one edit at a time, no matter where it is.--Ekabhishek^talk 16:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I have no doubt you are an excellent contributor to Wikipedia, but I cannot see anything that tells me your understanding of policy, with the exception of how to write a featured article. You have very few contributions to XFD, no work on new page patrol, no edits to AIV/RFPP/UAA or to the conduct noticeboards. Don't get me wrong - I think the editor who can avoid all of those places is probably more valuable to Wikipedia than some schmuck admin like myself. But being a great editor doesn't mean you'll make a great admin, and I'm not convinced of the latter. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Also from the opposite point of view you can not see anything which tells you candidates' not understanding of policy! Why don't you ask the candidate couple of additional questions which will be helpful for the other voters too! --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose (on Floating Boat's vote) It's going down to eighty-eight and a half, rounded to the nearest tenths. It's purely on articles (not really), with 5.64 average edits per page. Ever been friendly around here? I'd love it if you are, but I'm sticking to my comment. TruPepitoM (Commentary Board) 09:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose Yes, I'm absolutely stunned by the 90k odd article edits, thank you so much for that! However, I see a lot of little problems that worry me. You don't contribute to any admin areas, indeed, you've made less than 15 edits to Wikipedia space this year, and 50 edits go back to 2010. For an editor who claims he intends to work in Vandal fighting... no edits to AIV is pretty worrying. Looking further, there's little or no evidence of interacting with other users, making it difficult for me to judge that ability. I also see a distinct lack of edit summaries, not a major issue, but worth mentioning. I'm sorry, despite the years of good work, I just don't see the necessary experience in the relevant areas. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Moved to Neutral, comments there Worm^TT(talk) 07:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   It's very rare that I disagree with you, but I'd like to ask one thing. As a leader of RFA reform, do you believe an admin should be more trustworthy or experienced?--v/r - TP 16:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   I didn't realise I was a leader of RFA reform! I believe the two concepts are inter-related, but I do believe in a need for the tools before passing them on. I could point out the "for life" concept since we cannot know how he will perform in those administrative areas, or the fact that I look for attitude and temperment under pressure and I've seen nothing from this candidate that shows strength in either. The total lack of edit summaries is also a problem for me, it's made reviewing the editor much more difficult, and shows a significant disregard for community norms. Worm^TT(talk) 16:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   I share your concerns, but neutral because I don't think he would harm the encyclopedia, even if I don't think he is quite ready for the responsibility yet. Hard to oppose such a worthwhile editor, even if I can't support yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose I think this editor is a fantastic contributor. The only thing that keeps this from being a wholehearted support is the lack of participation in admin-related functions. I don't ask for a comprehensive knowledge of how EVERYTHING works, but I do feel that every admin candidate should be able to demonstrate that experience with at least one or two administrative tasks before asking for the tools. I will be a strong supporter next time around if this is done... and I don't mean six months down the road. I would be totally willing to support after a month or two of projectspace experience. Trusilver 20:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Striking oppose and moving to support. Way too clueful of an editor to oppose. As much as I would like to see some kind of administrative experience, there is no way that giving this editor the mop could NOT be a net positive. Even if they are given the tools and never do a single administrative function with them, there is nothing to be lost here and a great deal to be gained if the do. Trusilver 02:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   Nothing odd about this, but is Trusilver talking about me or some other guy? TruPepitoM (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   He is talking about User:Ekabhishek and has stated the reason why he has changed his !vote. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 09:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   Regretful Oppose While I greatly appreciate your article contributions, you said that you would like to work in anti-vandalism. You barely have any edits to WP space, including AIV or UAA. Also, you barely have any edits to user talk space, so I doubt that you warn the vandals. Again, please don't be offended by this. I greatly appreciate your content work, however, no edits to AIV makes me a bit concerned. Moving to neutral. Electric Catfish 21:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

3. Regretful oppose due to the lack of admin-like tasks. We need more admins that will patrol AIV, but as worm says, there's not a lot of activity therefrom you. Maybe if there was more experience in admin related areas I could support in the future. Shadowjams (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose, I'm sorry, but such few WP namespace edits are clearly not enough. Even on Chinese wikipedia (with much fewer active editors and only ~80 admins), people would generally oppose the RFA if the user has less than 1000 WP name space edits.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose(moved from neutral, original comment) I have moved to oppose because of the answer to question 13. I chose Singaporean general election, 2011 because it is currently subject to a community determined 1 revert rule. I appreciate that this was a bit of a "trick" question but I was unsatisfied with the answer to question 9. While undoing a block is not wheel warring, I was expecting at least some indication that the editor would do some investigation first and maybe state that they consult with the blocking admin before reversing it. I'm also concerned that Ekabhishek appears to consider edit warring solely relating to the 3 revert rule.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Moved back to neutral-- Mrmatiko (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   As I just noted under the next oppose, the candidate's answer doesn't say he would unilaterally lift the block; it is equally consistent with his raising his concern with the blocking admin, or asking for a review on ANI. As for the fact that this particular article is on 1RR, the talkpage notice to that effect is pretty darn well buried in the infoboxes on the top of the page, and it must be easy for good-faith editors to miss it. While the question indicates that an edit-warring template was placed on the user's page, that template says nothing about the 1RR either. The 1RR restriction states that warnings or blocks may be given at administrator discretion, and unless the editor has a history of edit-warring (which it sounds like he or she doesn't on this article), a warning sounds sufficient for this first violation of a restriction that the editor may not even have known about. Based on the limited information provided in the hypothetical question, I'd say that the candidate's concern that this block sounds like an overreaction is entirely justified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose Ignoring the 1RR restriction on the article, wheel warring an edit warring block is pretty ridiculous. 3RR is a bright line rule and Ekabhishek doesn't show understanding of that. Ryan Vesey 19:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   I agree that the answer to 13 is wrong. But, here's a question, do we want to force a well established content editor to go to school to learn something that he'll probably figure out during the RfA? The way I see it, Ekabhishek is less likely to jump right in blocking edit warriors and is more likely to keep editing on content while occasionally using his bits, probably to block a vandal or two or protect a page or two while he figures things out. What we have here is clueful, cautious, encyclopedia writing editor who hasn't bothered hanging out in the 'social' part of Wikipedia and, consequently, doesn't know everything an admin should know. But, we have more than enough evidence that his, dare I call it "encyclopedic heart" is in the right place. Could we go wrong with such a person? I don't mean to say your oppose is wrong but that this case is unusual enough to require a different set of standards. --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   I recently supported a candidate on the assumption that he would fix the aspect that I believed was lacking. In this case, the aspect that is lacking is policy knowledge and evidence of that. I don't expect candidates to be 100% correct on every possible question, mistakes happen. In this case, the answer was very wrong, and has shown that Ekabhishek hasn't gained policy knowledge solely through his career length. Ryan Vesey 19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   (responding to Ryan Vesey's oppose) I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The candidate's answer didn't say that he would "wheel war" by reversing the block; he simply said that the block "should be revoked." That could just as easily mean that he would urge the original blocking administrator to lift the block or would bring it to ANI and seek consensus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   This still shows a lack of policy understanding in my mind. I promise that I will continue evaluating this editor and I've shown that I'm willing to readjust. Ryan Vesey 21:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   I am in agreement with Newyorkbrad. In this oppose and the last, many things have been assumed based on a vague question. Nowhere did the candidate express that he would have wheel warred in this situation. He only stated that he found the block to be incorrect. Personally, I disagree with the candidate's assessment on the block... but that's the beauty of the system! We are permitted to disagree with each other on policy and somehow the world doesn't end. Personally, I am far less concerned with the concept of someone disagreeing with me on policy than I am about editors who feel that the only acceptable admin candidate are those that think and react to things the exact same way they do. Trusilver 00:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

   Actually, merely undoing a single block made by another admin is not wheel warring (Ryan is mistaken in that conclusion). Ekabhishek's mistake is in assuming that edit warring only occurs when the 3RR rule is broken - an understandable mistake on the part of someone who never edit wars! I don't think it is a big deal. If anything, an admin who errs on the side of undoing blocks is a far better one than an admin who errs on the side of making blocks. --regentspark (comment) 03:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

   You are correct, I was mistaken on wheel warring. Ryan Vesey 04:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

   Why I'm striking my oppose As promised, I am reviewing my oppose, I took some time so I could evaluate all the arguments. There are two things we must evaluate when !voting for an administrator hopeful. Trust and experience. In this case, I have full trust that the editor will not maliciously cause harm with the tools. That being said, I am not entirely confident that the editor has enough experience even to understand when they don't understand and should seek advice. I feel the argument that an editor who has been here so long automatically understands the policies is incorrect, especially those policies that don't apply directly to the article space. All of this aside, there are a number of things I like about this user. He has an optimistic outlook that I feel is important and lacking in many editors. In addition, he treats views new editors exactly as they should be viewed and I commend him for that. While I am still not confident enough to give him my support, my rationale for striking my oppose comes back to trust. In this case, the trust placed in him by a large amount of other editors shows that he is un-opposeworthy. Ekabhishek, I hope you will ease your way into this and please keep your attitude the same, it is your greatest asset. On a side note, the correct answer to the first half of question 15 would be to ask Moonriddengirl. Good luck and don't delete the main page, Ryan Vesey 04:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose The candidate has basically zero experience in the key Admin areas - never once having seen their input/judgement, it's impossible to see their composure, or reactions as a whole. A candidate who wants to enforce policy needs to both understand them AND prove their understanding dangerouspanda 23:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose potential administrators need to have substantial experience in areas which involve the use of administrative tools. This ensures that the candidate knows how to use such tools properly and that RfA commenters can verify this. This candidate seems to have concentrated almost entirely on content creation. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's not enough by itself to demonstrate that they would make a good administrator. I find it difficult to entrust someone with handling requests at WP:AIV or WP:RFPP when they have no experience at all with either. Hut 8.5 12:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose User is outstanding at article namespace. but, lacking the work at areas of Wikipedia namespace. It clearly denotes that User doesn't require mop for his task. GiantBluePanda (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

7. Per lack of Wikipedia-space experience required for an admin. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 14:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
8. I was not convinced by the candidate’s answer to Q5 which is incomplete. Q14 was intended to reveal relevant experience in their chosen area of Admin work. I was looking for evidence that they have used escalating vandalism messages in an appropriate way, referred cases to WP:RPP correctly and reported accurately formatted cases for Admin action at WP:AIV. As far as I can see the candidate has done no such work. If the candidate has no experience he is unsuitable at this stage. Although the downside risk might be low, I see no reason to risk pages being protected (or not) and editors being blocked (or not) because the candidate does not have sufficient grasp of relevant policy. They have no experience gained through performing a few simple but important janitorial tasks during the many years they have been here and especially in the period prior to RFA. A request for tools in an area where they can demonstrate no aptitude makes no sense. Tools are for life and RFA candidates should demonstrate respect for the rest of us by coming here with evidence of their competence in their chosen areas. This RFA is at best premature. Leaky Caldron 16:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose The editor is a prolific contributor. While some of the editor's article creations could use secondary sources, the reason this oppose comes is to encourage the editor to indulge in vandalism related areas for a few months, perhaps three, before applying again. In the last six months that I checked, the editor has had just one edit that identified vandalism; and there too I did not view any particular warning message left on the IP's page by this editor. It could be possible that I might be missing reverts/undos exercised by this editor while reverting vandalism, but given my current review, I cannot trust the editor's command with the tools, especially given his (quite valid) intent to use the tools in vandalism related areas, unless I am sure the editor has a good experiential understanding of identifying vandalism. I would be uncomfortable granting rollback to editors who do not display at least cursory experience of identifying vandalism; more so if the question is about admin tools. Three months, even less perhaps, of experience and I can support the editor without any qualms given his brilliant commitment otherwise to the project. Wifione ^Message 03:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Ekabhishek is a very active editor, a large credit to the encyclopedia, and arguably of greater overall benefit as an editor than most administrators (including myself), so my criticisms are purely directed at the merits of this candidacy, not this editor's net positive to the project. Like many opposers, I see little work in admin-related areas to judge how he would act with the tools. I did a cursory review of contributions to AfD (one of the few Wikipedia-space areas where I saw participation) and I saw an alarming Inclusionist trend, where he has only ever participated in deletion discussion to argue to keep an article. In his own words, his participation in deletion discussions has been limited to "the last chance XFD, wherever I find an article I can rescue, I pitch in". I'm uncomfortable giving the right to determine deletion discussions to an editor with an unbalanced view of article inclusion criteria, whether they are too eager to either keep or delete articles. -- Atama頭 20:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose - Switched from neutral (see comments there). Atama's reasoning pushed me off the fence, as the concerns are selective participation echoed some of my concerns. --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Regretful oppose due to not meeting my criteria. Get some more experience in admin-like areas and come back in a few months, please. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Your editcount and content work really impress me but your lack of admin-related work and edits on project namespace makes me unable to support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   A lack of Wikipedia-space related edits may not necessarily indicate a lack of policy knowledge. Nevertheless, I'd like to see him demonstrate that he has sound judgement in the areas he has specified, to see if he is affluent enough for the bit at this time. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Indenting my neutral comment to support this user for adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

2. Neutral with a lot of respect. In some ways, you are the polar opposite of me. I have worked the policy side of Wikipedia for years and have a good grasp, but will likely never be an exceptional editor in creating GA and featured articles. Not everyone has those skills. To your benefit, your lack of experience can be overcome with some time spent working in admin related areas, allowing others to see your demeanor and handling, as well as your understanding of the nuances of policy. So this isn't a NOTNOW as you are clearly experienced in the most important aspect of Wikipedia, writing articles. It is more of a "are you sure you want to be an admin?" since you haven't shown any inclination to mopping up before. Try it out by working a little in Wikispace and I am confident that everyone would be very open minded to reconsidering you at a later date. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Neutral You've got great contributions to articles but there are only 175 edits to Wikipedia space pages. If you're best at articles, by all means continue at them. If you do want to administrate, get more experience in the administration areas and try again later. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral Amazing content work, but there just isn't enough edits in areas admins deal with for me to be able to judge upon. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral, borderline support. Answers to questions so far are good, but I need to double-check my gut feeling of "yes, of course." I'm hoping answers to currently unanswered questions will put me over the line. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Moving to support - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

5. Neutral, mostly based on questions. I never had concerns that the editors would maliciously blow up the encyclopedia, he's been round long enough and done enough good work that it was clearly not a problem. My concerns stemmed from two things - I had no idea if he would be able to handle the tools and his lack of edit summaries. His questions prove to me that he will be cautious with use of the tools and has a good knowledge of how things work around here, so that leaves the edit summaries. Edit summaries usage is a really stupid reason to base your vote, I've always believed that. I can't support this user, because I believe actions are more important than words, and there's just not enough for me to judge his actions, but at the same time, I see no reason to oppose. Worm^TT(talk) 07:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Neutral - Although the candidate has a decent answer to my question, hir answer was not based on any relevant policies, mentioned no attempt to rectify the situation through, for instance, engaging the user. There are also WP:CHILDPROTECT issues that seem glossed over. Great editor, but hir answer suggests what we all feared, a misunderstanding of policy. Achowat (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Neutral. While I have no reason to believe Ekabhishek would misuse the tools, I need to see some significant work in meta areas where admins are expected to do plenty of research and use their judgement, especially on deletions. There are some valid comments in the oppose section, but I have no evidence on which I could oppose the candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Neutral (again) I find myself back in the neutral section because it is now clear that Ekabhishek will take their time and work very carefully. I still remain concerned by the lack of contribution to discussions, particularly regarding the administrative areas they wish to help out with, and therefore am unable to give my full support. I cannot continue to oppose without assuming that this editor will deliberately abuse the tools (unlikely), because they have stated that they will only work in specific administrative areas and will take advice from others in situations where they aren't sure. I expect those administrators placing themselves in the support section, particularly those who have made statements in other sections of this RFA, to provide significantly more assistance to Ekabhishek than they would to most other successful candidates. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral (I have not formed an opinion yet). I looked at this user's history to try to remember where I've encountered him. I found Template:Did you know nominations/Contemplative Practices in Action, where I had questioned the notability and promotional nature of the nominated article, and Ekabhishek showed up and declared it "OK" (no details of the reasoning). I was surprised to find that Ekabhishek does not have other history of involvement in DYK, then I found this diff, which troubles me. --Orlady (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   I do have some experience in DYK, in 2009 and 2010.--Ekabhishek^talk 17:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   Indeed you do. Further checking revealed my error -- I regret that I commented before checking thoroughly -- that wasn't fair to you. I also looked at other areas where we have interacted, and I find that I've seen you a few other times at DYK and that we have also met on articles such as University Grants Commission.

   I'm still on the fence about this RfA. I see a very productive contributor who has been supportive of newbies and other contributors in his main areas of interest (which areas I identify as topics related to India and spirituality), has honorable intentions in his work, and is knowledgable about how Wikipedia works -- and how it should work. However, I also see a general absence of communication -- evidenced by the consistent absence of edit summaries (other than automated ones), talk-page posts, and posts in the "Wikipedia" name space. Communication among users is important, and it is particularly important that administrators and other leaders take time to communicate. I now realize that I have wished for more communication from this particular user in connection with articles about topics like government oversight of higher education in India, as it is clear that those articles are subject to a lot of fraudulent editing, but outsiders like myself have a difficult time figuring out which content is valid and which is fraudulent. When users like Ekabhishek, who presumably have fairly solid knowledge of the topic, don't bother to leave edit summaries, it makes it harder to tell good content from bad.

   That January 2012 DYK interaction that I noted earlier is still a source of concern because Ekabhishek was doing a favor for another user in response to a bit of WP:CANVASSING and because the review comment on the DYK review neither acknowledged the canvassing nor provided the kind of review documentation that DYK participants had been emphasizing for several months before that review and that is still a current issue at DYK.

   I see potential value from giving this user additional tools, but I think admins need to be far more collegial and communicative than this user has been. --Orlady (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   Switched to oppose. --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

9. Neutral. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Limited experience in admin-related areas. Ekabhishek is a great editor with many valuable contributions, but not heading towards admin-related activity. Incidentally, the nomination statement by Titodutta is particularly poor. Strike Eagle's nomination statement is mediocre. TheSpecialUser's statement is better, but fails to mention how Wikipedia would benefit if Ekabhishek becomes an administrator. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Neutral Moved from oppose. Electric Catfish 01:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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.