Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rjanag

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

Rjanag

Final: (133/1/1); closed as successful by User:Kingturtle at 13:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

Nomination

Rjanag (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to introduce to you Rjanag. Rjanag started editing last August under the username User:Politizer, and since then has gone on to become an important asset to the community. I first came across Rjanag last November while working at DYK, and to this day I am continually impressed with his work ethic and commitment to this project. Not only is he a member of WP:HAU, his work at DYK is exemplary; he has been and continues to be an extremely proactive and energetic reviewer of nominations and is always willing to provide assistance. He is a talented template coder, being the creator of the {{DYKproblem}}, {{DYK welcome}} and most importantly, the invaluable {{NewDYKnomination}} templates, all of which widely-used in the project. That's not all - Rjanag has been trusted with Rollback privileges, is two edits shy of having made 100 edits to WP:AIV, and has participated in numerous WP:AFD discussions.

But what about article work you ask? Rjanag certainly pulls his weight when it comes to building the encyclopaedia. With 26 DYKs and 6 GAs - many on poorly-covered topics such as Chinese culture, linguistics and journalism - alongside an impressive effort in getting Street newspaper to Featured Article status, his article contributions speak volumes about his devotion.

In short, Rjanag has exhibited all the qualities fitting of an administrator, and I'm completely confident that he is responsible enough and capable enough to wield the tools competently. ∗ \ / (⁂) 13:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also I should probably note: you may notice I have a disturbingly high edit count for someone who's been around less than a year. It's not because I use automated tools (unless rollback counts as automated). Part of it is because for writing/debugging templates I have to test it in sandboxes over and over, so I have hundreds of edits that are nothing more than adding or removing a curly brace here and there. Another part is that I like to do gnomish edits to stuff I review at DYK. And the other reason is that when I post on talk pages and stuff I seem to always make typos and have to go back and fix them right away, so what should be 1 post ends up being more like 3; so if you take my actual edit count and divide it by 3 or so, that might be a good approximation of what my edit count would be if I weren't an idiot. Just in case anyone is concerned about edit count. Thanks. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: DYK: it's always useful to have someone else who can edit the protected queues to fix spelling errors, etc., that people notice and point out, or to update the template if it's overdue.

CSD: just something I happen to have experience in (sometimes when I'm bored I lurk at Special:Log/newusers, which is where a lot of vandalism and bad articles come from, so I'm used to CSD-tagging and vandalism-reverting); it would be nice to be able to speedily delete copyvios, attack pages, and nonsense, although in the beginning at least I would be more cautious with A7 and stuff like that.

Other areas where I would be qualified to help out are the givens, AIV and AfD, both of which I am relatively familiar with. Being able to edit protected templates would also be nice, because I do a lot of template work and in the past I have often had to write code in a sandbox and then ask an admin friend to make the actual edit for me.

Basically, I'm not so much interested in "being an admin", to be honest; I just want to have tools that would help me be a more productive member of the project. Acting like an admin and having tools is enough for me, it doesn't matter what I'm called.

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

A: I have an FA and some GAs that I feel pretty good about; honestly, though, comments like this and this from editors I respect mean more to me than the FA star or GA symbol—if people are interested or enlightened by something I worked on, I feel I've done my job right. As for specific articles I'm proud of, there is Re-education through labor (my first experience writing on a topic in which I was unfamiliar and pretty much learning as I go), Street newspaper (the subject of the comments above) and Nothing To My Name (fun little article on a pretty important topic, I was shocked that WP didn't have an article on it before this February when I started it). I have also been working with User:Apoc2400 on building articles under the "street newspaper" topic, which we are coordinating here. Finally, one of the things I am most happy about one of my silly little projects, User:Rjanag/WikiBirthday display (which I use to keep track of Wikipedians who, on a given day, are having their "anniversary" of joining Wikipedia; generally every morning I check it and then send some little congratulatory messages). It's more or less meaningless, but I have fun doing it.

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: My first major conflict was a series of content disagreements with User:Bobby fletcher, in September/October 2008, spanned over several China-related articles, including One-child policy, He Kexin and related articles on Chinese gymnasts (not long after the Beijing olympics); we had a rather nasty back-and-forth over some plagiarized content he added to one article, but then after taking a few days off from each other I think we more or less dropped it and were able to work collaboratively on User:Rjanag/One-child policy by province (until he disappeared from WP). I have also, as a lot of people reading this probably know, been in several disputes with Ottava Rima, which I won't rehash here unless asked to. We had several not-too-friendly encounters at DYK between December 2008 and February (possibly early March, I don't remember) 2009. I said some things that I guess were pretty incivil, which I believed were justified because I felt Ottava was being out of line, but in retrospect no one is going to want to dig through pages and pages of arguments to see who was "right" and who was "wrong"--the fact of the matter was that I reacted aggressively several times, no matter who was "right". In the past two months or so I have gotten along decently with Ottava (we mostly just stay out of each other's way...but in the last several weeks we have had a couple interactions at DYK without getting worked up, I just try to close my eyes and pretend I'm dealing with someone else). I don't expect us to be inviting one another to our kids' baptisms anytime soon, but I think we have both lost interest in seeking out fights. All in all, I know I have been volatile on a few occasions in the past, but over the past several months I have been making an effort to keep my cool in stressful situations, and I think I have gotten better at striking back when I see a potential fight starting to brew.

correction, added in late Oh wow, that was supposed to say not striking back. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Tempodivalse

4. What is your understanding of consensus? How would you determine if consensus does or does not exist in different situations? I'm asking this because, as an admin, you will inevitably come across a situation where you will need to weigh consensus in order to take a certain action, such as in an AfD, article content disupte, et cetera.

A: General agreement among a group of editors over what to do with an article, policy, etc.; built up through open discussion (as in XfDs) or long-standing precedent (as in DYK, where a lot of the consensus on how to treat nominations was "unwritten" until several months ago and had just grown out of dealing with hundreds of noms for a while). A majority isn't necessarily needed to generate a consensus, but it helps; the best way to determine it, though, is by weighing the strength of the arguments given on each side (not just the strength as I perceive it, but as how everyone in the discussion perceives it—I might think a particular argument is bunk, but if everyone around is persuaded by it and has started agreeing, then obviously it generated consensus among most of the people involved).

Question from Stifle

5. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a person who is still alive be uploaded to Wikipedia?

A. To illustrate the person itself in the biography article, pretty much never. (I believe exceptions have been made in the past, though, for people who were famous for something a long time ago and no replacement would be possible today; I've also seen them used to illustrate a particular issue or controversy with that person, as in Jessica Alba, if the image itself is the subject of that issue. But the bottom line is, if all you want is a to show what the person looks like, a non-free image isn't ok; you can only use the non-free one if there's a specific and compelling reason.) For articles not about the person, but about something else (like a work of art, a political issue, etc.) where the person might happen to be in pictures that are used for other purposes, it's ok if the image has a good rationale anyway; for example, album covers on articles about music albums often contain the living person's image.

Anyway, to be honest, fair use is not an area I have a lot of WP experience in, and I wouldn't do anything drastic in this area (like deleting something) without first consulting one of the editors whom I know is an expert in this area. These are just my general feelings that might guide me to have concerns and then bring those concerns to someone better equipped to deal with it.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. (And one of my own.) They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

4. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A- Something like this is rare enough, and bad enough, that it should be handled on a case-by-case basis and there's no good blanket answer. But, assuming in this case that a CU has already been done and there's no question that the editor is a sock puppeteer, I would probably have to take it to a forum where people can decide what to do (such as AN or ANI...ultimately an indef-block or ban of an established user should probably go through something more formal, like RFC or RFAR, but just for a quick reaction right after discovering the socking then a noticeboard would be a faster way to decide what to do in the short-term). Because blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, I would not feel comfortable blocking the puppeteer and socks myself unless they were right in the middle of causing disruption. That being said, no matter how good the editor was, using sock puppets is serious and would probably warrant a ban (not necessarily indef, but that depends); even if the main account was doing nothing but good work, if the person behind that account is also socking on the side that's it. If I've learned anything from cases like Ecoleetage, it's that no matter how good an editor is in some area, if they commit a serious offense somewhere else then they need to be blocked or banned anyway.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A- Well, first of all, the most important thing here is talking openly to the other admin who did the blocking; whether I agree or disagree with his block, I wouldn't really do anything without at least letting him know that I have also been talking to the editors. Now, as for the rest of the questions...if I had already initiated communication with the two editors, then yeah, I would continue to communicate with them over e-mail or their talkpages (if they are able to edit them while blocked) if there was anything left to say. I would also leave a statement at the RFAR; I don't see that as disrespecting the other admin's decision, especially if he sent it to RFAR anyway. If RFAR rejects the case but I think there is still a need for something, I'd talk with the blocking admin about what to do (for example, if I think one of the guy's blocks could be shortened or lengthened, or if either or both of them should be unblocked but banned from that article, or who knows what). But yeah, the short answer is, if some other admin blocked them and I didn't think it was time for a block yet, I wouldn't do anything admin-y without at least first going to the other admin and saying "could you explain why you felt ____'s actions warranted a block? I thought....". Discussion is more pleasant than wheel-warring.

6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A- That's hard. There are plenty of things that I don't LIKE, like how inclusive WP:ATHLETE is, but they are here through consensus [more or less] so that's that. Maybe I wish I could change how much people care about those things (in my ideal world, everyone would like the things I like, and want to write tons and tons and tons of articles about them) but there that's what I'd like to change about people, not about Wikipedia. All in all, I'm pretty happy with how this project works. One thing that I do think needs to evolve at some point is the way DYK works (see this discussion at my talk page), but that's a big issue an I certainly don't have an easy one-sentence answer to it.

7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A- If it's a new account that's being used only for vandalism (and my threshhold for what warrants blocking would be a bit lower if it's slander/BLP vandalism) or is a CU-confirmed sock of a banned user. That's probably about it; I can't imagine any circumstance where a well-established account could be indef-blocked by someone like me without wider community consensus.

8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A- Weigh the validity of the arguments. I wouldn't necessarily discount the possible sockpuppet !votes, since it is possible for a new editor to show up and vote in a way that makes it look like a more established editor even though the established editor didn't do anything wrong (this has happened to me, in fact, once in the past), but at the same time I would not give them as much weight as votes from editors who have been around a while and know the policy, because even if they aren't socks they are still probably new; new users are welcome to be involved in the discussion, of course, but it's just a fact of life that their judgment won't carry as much weight as an established user, especially a user with experience in the area in question. Again, this is something that would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis and there's no one answer, but as a rule of thumb I would have to give someone the benefit of the doubt if there's no evidence of socking, but still follow the usual guidelines when it comes to weighing arguments. If something like this happened when I'm fairly new at admin-ing and the AfD were particularly close, it wouldn't hurt to ask for the opinion of a more experienced closer.

9. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

A- I'd rather just report them to AIV. There's no shortage of other admins who can make easy blocks like that, and even if it takes an extra 5 minutes for the block to happen then it's not difficult for me to continue rolling back their vandalism in the meantime. And if the blocking admin is someone other than me, hopefully we'd be less likely to give the vandal the impression that Wikipedia is an evil place where evil admins like me can block them with impunity; if a vandal gets that idea, we just risk creating more Grawps. So yeah, in short, if someone needs to be blocked I would prefer doing it in a way that is not likely to inspire them to become a persistent thorn in our side, and in this case the best way is probably to report at AIV rather than blocking on my own.

10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A- I think over the months I have gotten better at being able to control myself under stress, and at biting my tongue or going outside for a while when I see something that I'm tempted to start a fight about. There is enough I enjoy about this project that it balances out the stress, and in rare times when the stress does get overwhelming I can take a step back until things calm down.

11. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A Well, like I said in my answer to Q1, I don't so much like the idea of people "being an administrator"...I think having the tools would allow me to do better work for the project, and I think anyone who has the tools should act like administrators are expected to act. As for what I "am", I still consider myself an editor first and foremost; I'd just like to be an editor who can do handy stuff.

12.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?

A- It certainly makes a difference which criteria it meets. If a new article is an attack page, blatant vandalism, or is truly G1 nonsense, I wouldn't mind deleting on sight. I assume your first question there only applies to stuff like db-org, db-band, db-bio (the notability-related CSDs), in which case it may be better to do a quick look-around for sources, because of the possibility that the article is legitimate but the creator is a new editor and doesn't know about sourcing. If the article itself doesn't assert notability but sources seem to be out there, the best thing to do would be either to leave the creator a note and give him some amount of time (maybe 48 hours) to clean it up, or to userfy it and give the creator instructions for how to clean it up and how to get it moved to mainspace once it's ready.

Optional question from Protonk (talk)

13. You're a template editor, so this kind of question is simpler than the one I might normally ask. The protected edit request queue sees a fair number of requests for edits to protected templates (reason being that template vandalism forces us to protect/semi-protect more templates than we would were they just articles...but you know this). How much support would you expect on the talk page of a template prior to committing a protected edit request to the template? Would you accept an edit request over objections on the talk page? If yes, why? If no, why not? How would these answers change if you didn't fully understand what the change would do? How would they change if you felt you that the participants in the debate didn't really understand what the change would do?

A. It depends on the nature of the edit, of course—if it's just a request to change a hyphen to an ndash or something like that, I don't see a need for much talk page consensus—and the nature and use of the template itself. In general, for any edit that isn't uncontroversial maintenance or simple tweaking of punctuation and stuff like that, I would at least want to see evidence that the change had been proposed and discussed a bit at the template talk pages before being brought to PER. If there were objections at the talk page, then of course I would weigh them before making the edit; I won't say I'd categorically refuse to make an edit if someone objected, because maybe the objection is bunk, or maybe there's a good compromise (for example, when I had another admin edit {{User Wikipedian for}} to add some functionality and someone else objected, we compromised by adding the extra functionality but also creating an optout parameter so if people didn't want that in their userbox they could tell it not to happen). If, on the other hand, the objections raised good reasons not to make the change, I wouldn't do it until a better alternative had been found. Also, of course, I would want to see evidence that the person proposing the change had tested it in their userspace, or I would test it out myself before doing it. As for whether I didn't understand what the change would do...I'd handle things in pretty much the same way, only I would give more weight to objections (i.e., if I don't understand what a bit of code is going to do, I'm not going to assume I know better than the objectors; I wouldn't make the change unless there was 100% agreement it wouldn't destroy the wiki) and would be more insistent that the person proposing the change have tested it thoroughly (I might ask to see permalinks to the sandbox where they tested it, too). If it's not just the change I don't understand, but the entire template is over my head, I would probably refrain from editing it at all, and try to recommend a different admin who has more experience with that template and would be better able to handle the request.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

14a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: Probably about 24 hours after the creator is given a message explaining the possibility of deletion and giving links to WP guidelines and the tutorial, along with an offer to help if they have questions about how to expand the article. To be honest, if a "newbie" knows how to use the {{underconstruction}} tag then it's quite possible they're not a newbie and are just gaming the system, but without any proof we should at least give them a chance. 24 hours is just a rough estimate, it might vary depending on the nature of the article and the history of that editor, but anyway, after whatever amount of time I gave the editor has passed, if the article hasn't changed I would delete it as spam. If the editor has a history of creating bad articles like this, or of abusing the {{underconstruction}} tag, then I would be more likely to delete it immediately.

14b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: No. There's more possibility with this that it was a test, rather than intentional spam (although it still could be intentional spam), but it's still deletable.

14c. Given a choice, should Wikipedia(ns) spend more time retaining longer term contributors or newbies? What would you do as an admin to demonstrate the choice you make?

A: I don't think this is a zero sum; spending effort to welcome newbies doesn't mean I have to blow off existing editors, nor vice versa.

14d. In closing an AFD, all the comments and analyses of regular AFD participants and long time editors more weighty than those of newbies and anons?

A: Yes. That doesn't mean new editors aren't welcome to contribute. But in general, arguments editors who are known to have a good understanding of WP policy and who are trusted are given more weight by default. A newbie still might make a particularly compelling argument that deserves a lot of weight. But if it's just a matter of Newbie saying essentially "keep, it's notable" and Oldie saying "delete, it's not notable", I would pay more attention to the oldie. (That doesn't mean anyone should be using WP:JNN anyway...but you see my point.)

14e. If an athlete biography is nominated for deletion and the athlete passes WP:ATHLETE but fails WP:BIO, which governs? Is your answer the same if the athlete passes WP:BIO but fails WP:ATHLETE - assuming no other notability except sport?

A: According to the prevailing consensus right now, if it passes WP:ATHLETE then it's fine. As some people probably know, this is not a consensus that I agree with (see my nomination rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Schelle), but all an admin has the power to do at AfD is to gauge and enforce consensus, not to enact new policies or guidelines. According to WP:BIO#Additional criteria's "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", we should all use our noggins and not let WP:ATHLETE "govern" the more general notability guidelines, but most of the community does not seem to agree with that claim right now, so in the context of AfDs all I can do is whatever there was consensus for in a given discussion. I can't delete an article just because I don't like the way WP:ATHLETE is being invoked.

As for the case where an athlete passes WP:BIO and fails WP:ATHLETE...then yes, of course the athlete meets notability requirements. WP:BIO is stricter than WP:ATHLETE.

Optional questions from Cunard

15a. I want to know how well you know the CSD criteria, so I've posed a couple questions about CSD. Would you speedy delete Industrial and Financial Systems (permalink)? If so, under what criterion?

A: No, it makes a claim that the company is significant (even if that claim is unsourced and written in advertising-speak) and there's enough content and history that it deserves to go to AfD. This article as is stands, though, is terrible and I would certainly vote Delete if it were at an AfD (and, in fact, I might take it to AfD right after this, unless you need to keep it around as an example for RfAs ;) ). On a side note, it should also have been tagged with {{context}} years ago.

15b. Long Island Ping Pong League is a hoax and the article is at AfD (in this revision). A user tags the article as blatant vandalism. Should you speedy delete the article under {{db-vandalism}}?

A: Definitely not; this being vandalism, or a hoax, is not obvious to me at first glance. The fact that the external links don't work is a strong indicator, but without looking more closely, who's to say it's an intentional hoax and not just a "league" some guy and his friends made up one day in their garage? If that's the case, it would certainly be non-notable, but not intentional vandalism. Hoax is not a criterion for speedy deletion, and whether the page is vandalism could be debated, so AfD is the best place.

addendum Just re-read this question and realized maybe you were asking me about if someone tagged this for speedy deletion while it was at AfD. So I just wanted to add, no, that would not change my answer, I still would not delete it just with a tag. If enough people came to the AfD and all did looked around and agreed it was a hoax and !voted "speedy delete", then I might "speedy delete" it by closing the AfD early.

15c. Should Cabal (software) be speedy deleted? (Choose from one or more of the following criteria: A7, G1, and G11).

A: Absolutely not. A7 does not apply (Cabal is not an org. or a website), and even if it did I wouldn't delete this under it, since the external links are enough claim of significance. As for G1, this article is not even close to nonsense. As for G11, I don't see it as spam, it's probably just one editor's attempt to write about something they find interesting and important (and isn't that what we're all doing here?). Haskell is open source, so it's not like someone is gonna make big bucks from this article, and the article itself is comparable to similar software articles like NLTK. If someone wanted to delete this, they would have to bring it to AfD (I would decline any speedy tag and I would remove a PROD if I saw it), and to be honest it would require a lot of convincing to get me to even vote Delete.

15d. Does Journal of Germanic Mythology and Folklore meet any of the CSD criteria?

A: I was gonna say it's borderline, but come to think of it, it has an ISSN and shows up in the searches of some university libraries, which is enough to keep me from speedying it (that being said, I might not vote Keep at an AfD, given that the website appears to be inactive since 2007 and I don't see any evidence yet that it became a respected journal in the couple years it was around...but I don't know anything about the print version right now). In any case, imagining for the sake of argument that the ISSN weren't there, the only criterion that could arguably be used to delete it is A7 (if we assume that it is really "web-only" and thus counts as a website), but it's still borderline. This is a case that, for now, I would leave to someone with more experience (which, for all practical purposes, means I wouldn't speedy it, although I wouldn't outright decline it either...assuming, of course, no ISSN there).

Additional optional questions from Kingpin13

16. Soxred93's tools tell me you have 1,044 deleted edits but 0 pages patrolled. Is there a reason for this? What's your view on patrolling pages?

A: No special reason, I've just never tried it and never even really taken the time to find out how it works (I once skimmed the WP:NPP page, but that's about all). Most of my deleted edits are probably from the fact that sometimes I lurk around Special:Log/newusers to revert vandalism, CSD tag, and occasionally give welcome messages. So yeah, I don't really have any well-informed views on page patrolling, other than in principle it's good to have people paying attention to articles (obviously). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Smallman12q

17. Do you feel its appropriate to ask questions regarding the topic of an article going through WP:AFD or WP:CSD to see if the wikipedian understands the topic? In your opinion, is it necessary to understand the article prior to casting a vote in an AFD? Example:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tensor_of_a_quaternion

A: I don't have time to read the AfD right now, but in general, for CSD/AfD purposes I don't think it should be necessarily that someone understands the topic right now (I know I have written several articles on something that I barely understood before and learned as I was going, and that has always been sufficient for at least a sourced stub). If an article is at FAC or something, then of course the main editor needs to have a pretty deep understanding of it, but for determining whether or not an article should be deleted then I think in general that should be a non-issue; there are enough people around Wikipedia who do understand any given topic that an article, if its accuracy is a concern, can always be trimmed down to a stub and/or tagged with {expert-subject} or whatever other cleanup tag is necessary.

Question from Steve Crossin

18. Administrators, on a day-to-day basis, will likely have to resolve a dispute between one or more editors, in some form. What past experience do you have in dispute resolution? (MedCab, RFCs. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 04:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A. As for disputes between other editors, no, I don't have a whole lot of formal experience in that. I have informally mediated in disputes at several East Asia-related pages where edit wars are common, and a couple months ago I was asked to mediate in a content dispute at William Rodriguez—that one ended up in me getting a real-life phone call about the article, but by then the dispute had already turned into an ArbCom case so after the first couple days of talking to the various editors I eventually just had to pass the buck along the ArbCom. Other than that, I have sometimes lingered around ANI (usually when another thread brought me there and I am following it, I also watch the page briefly and respond to new threads as they start), but most of the things I have gotten with there have been very brief (often just along the lines of "no admin intervention needed in this, it's only a content dispute, take it to talkpage/WikiProject/dispute resolution/etc.").

General comments

• Links for Rjanag: Rjanag (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Rjanag can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Rjanag before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js — neuro^(talk) 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• This user should have been mopped a long time ago. I remember when I first encountered him several months ago (in December I think), and I was very impressed by his calm, sane demeanor and his helpful attitude. Even then, I was saying to myself, "Politizer would be a fantastic administrator." I'm glad to see he's getting such a pile-on of trust from the community — he really deserves it. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Well, you are better than most of the candidates that have passed lately, and you have a legitimate need. The area you would be working in primarily has tons of eyes on it and the screw up potential is not that damaging. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - He has the support of the guy he cites as having been his most recent Wikiconflict. He's technically capable, has a clean block log, and appears fairly self aware and willing to take advice. I see no problems. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong Support Not only an excellent content builder, but also one of the most prolific reviewers who keep the DYK system running and a vandal fighter in the East Asia field. His profound knowledge of Chinese language is very helpful to induce editors to resolve content disputes in one of hot zones in Wikipedia. (Hooah!, he has been acknowledged as "admin-material" by over 100 editors.23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC))--Caspian blue 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support (I completely disagree lack of edit summaries is "alarming" - perhaps, if your child was missing, or there was a severe earthquake, or your house was on fire, I would agree with it being "alarming" (or an alarm "going off). But a lack of edit summaries? Some people obviously spend too much time on here.) Majorly talk 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

   Of course you need to read it in context. Unless you have your children on wiki or your house, I doubt anyone would understand it as anything except "alarming (as in editing style)". Some people obviously spend too much time away from here SoWhy 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

5. No issues here, seems responsible and dedicated. As mentioned, the need is strong, and there's little risk of breaking the wiki. Best of luck to you. :) GlassCobra 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - Absolutely. Demonstrated need, and I don't see any reasons not to support. — neuro^(talk) 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - Essentially per Majorly. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - I've had a lot of interaction with Rjanag in connection with DYK and I have found him to be careful, trustworthy, and congenial -- and I put his RfA on my watchlist because I thought it would be a good idea for him to be handed a mop. --Orlady (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support All of my interactions with this user and the material above convince me that Rjanag is very mop-worthy. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support, despite my opinion that DYK is a highly overrated facet of the project. Editor has clue, is not drama-prone, and seems mature. Tan | 39 15:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Ooh, a template coder. Yes, definite need for the tools. In response to GlassCobra there is a significant risk of breaking the wiki. Coders sometimes end up becoming Developers and then can just change a single thing in the core, not only can they delete the main page, they can make it look like it never existed. :) Valley2city^‽ 15:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - A multi-talented, constructive editor. Calming and soothing in inflammatory situations. Willingly takes on responsibility. Open minded; does not take the actions of others personally. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support No worries re the talk or user pages, clean block log, broad experience and will soon overtake me on the contributions front. The low edit summary worried me but I'm happy with the explanation, Moah use of preview would be nice but it would be lame to oppose over that. ϢereSpielChequers 16:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support User is trusted, is civil and polite, has good knowledge of policy = good admin candidate. tempodivalse [☎] 16:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Good contributions in several areas, and always available to help. --J^mundo 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Good user PirateSmackK (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
18. My notorious "This user did something bad and I can't remember what it was" alarm went off when I saw your name here. On further review, it appears my sieve-like brain was remembering some of your Ottava Rima drama from a few months ago. I wasn't particularly impressed with that, but as you say in your answer to Q3 it appears to be well behind you now. Everything else seems good; I've seen nothing more recent to concern me and many excellent contributions. Best of luck. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support under the condition that Rjanag gives his word to always use edit summaries (hint: turn on the automatic reminder in your preferences). hmwithτ 17:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    No worries, you have my word. The automatic reminder is on; I turned it off specifically for that one incident described below, and turned it back on right after. If you look at the rest of my edits other than that one string of them, I'm pretty sure they all have summaries; and like I said to SoWhy below, if I have to do a mass edit like this again in the future, I'll do it with AWB so I can still have summaries when I do it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

20. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support' - Not enough administrators, currently. Hahaha! :) Looks like an awesome contributor, see some great mop wielding in the near-future. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 17:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
22. I rarely support candidates at RfA, but I have absolutely no compunctions about supporting this one. A fine editor. Skomorokh 17:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support No spam, please. --Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has no blocks but is a good article contributor. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - excellent user, and I can't see any issues or reasons to think that he's not capable of the extra bit. All I found was this, but it really doesn't concern me. Otherwise, he has been a great asset and a positive influence at DYK. A net positive, if I may link that, myself. ;) Good luck, Jamie^☆S93 18:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
27. My interactions with him (at Questionable Content) have always been positive, seems like a bright chap, and the user has significantly contributed to audited articles. He's here to improve the wiki, so I give my support. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Politizer. I have no idea who User:Rjanag is, but if Politizer is prepared to vouch for 'em, then that's good enough for me. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yep, I am User:Politizer. I changed my username a few months back, and I guess our paths haven't crossed recently because Nimbley6 has been quiet ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    Aha - that's how I know you/Politizer! Well then, add "elite sock fighting skills" to my (thus far) unstated reasons for my support. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

29. Support Impressive ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support per the flag guy. We could always some more help with keeping the sock drawers clean. —Travis^talk 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Strong support for best answers I've seen on my questions. Dlohcierekim 19:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Shows much by way of "clue". Rodhullandemu 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
34. "I just close my eyes and pretend that I'm dealing with someone else." Heh, good answer. Keegan^talk 20:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support mainly due to answers to questions 4-7. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Good lord yes.  GARDEN  20:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support because I see no reason not to. Timmeh! 20:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support (switch from neutral) I trust Rjanag's word that he will not do hundreds of edits without summary again. Other contributions, including CSD work, look fine to me. You might want to be a bit more informing on your summaries though, not only "db" but something like "tagging for speedy deletion X1 - etc." or "warning about speedy deletion of example", which will be very important as an admin (especially on declining speedies). Regards SoWhy 20:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support — Aitias // discussion 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Great work! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Nom support. ∗ \ / (⁂) 21:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support, no reason not to. Ironholds (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support, excellent at DYK, good sense of humor, does content work, listed at HAU, and per Ottava. Need I say more? Shubinator (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support for thoughtful and encouraging answers to questions posed. --Kateshortforbob 23:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Answers to questions are convincing. No strong reason to oppose offered. Always need more template admins! Protonk (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, this is Politizer. Well of course! Protonk (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

47. A name that generally brings positive recollections to mind. Of course I support Rjanag. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Excellent answers. DGG (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support I trust this user with the sysop tools. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Well developed answers show trustworthiness.  Marlith (Talk)  00:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support contributions look good, and the admin tools will come in useful when editing those protected templates. Hopefully Rjanag can get it right the first time! Good feedback to others on talk pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. I've interacted with r-something-or-other-anaG at a number of forums recently, and he's always impressed me with his even temper, his work ethic, and his solid grasp of policy. A linguist, a hard-core citer, and a template programmer too? I'm a fan. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Strong Support Of course. -download | sign! 01:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support absolutely no reason not to. Tavix |  Talk  01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Rjanag has shown excellent discussion abilities and has been extremely helpful at DYK. Ready for the mop! Royalbroil 02:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support He should have deserved this a long time ago. Renaissancee (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Solid. Keeper | 76 04:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
58. — R² 05:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Great work at DYK. Law _{type! snype?} 07:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
60. Support: Have worked with this user, and he knows enough to work well in the intended area. Though I noticed some heated discussions at the time he started working at DYK, he has improved a lot and you won't catch him doing that again. Chamal ^talk 07:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
61. Support  An impressive contributor. --StaniStani  09:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
62. Support A no nonsense editor. Perfect for stopping all kinds of vandalism. Just what we need. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
63. Support; overqualified. ;-) -- Mentifisto 11:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
64. Good stuff. You will make a good admin. Seraphim♥ 12:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
65. Support. Wow, the questions are getting pretty hard, and the answers are good. Candidate has shown good judgment in discussions. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
66. Support - No-brainier. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 13:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
67. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
68. Support can't find any reason not to support :-) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Strong support, not enough administrators currently :P. Seriously though, great contributions and a good attitude. Wizardman 15:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
70. Support good and thoughtful answers to questions, should be fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
71. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. The opposer's behavior has become tiresome and should be discontinued. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Support Major contributor, collegial and has good judgement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Definite support Rjanag asked me to give him a pre-RfA review a few weeks ago, and after looking him over, I asked via email, "Am I missing something? I don't see any major issues." He then told me about his encounters with Ottava and how they've adapted their working relationship with one another. I told him that I didn't see anything to worry about, but warned him that I didn't know if Ottava might know something from personal experience that I didn't. So now that Ottava was the first to support, how could I oppose? (I even offered to nom him :( )---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
74. Support. The right qualities. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
75. Support per interactions on my talk page, and after a review of your account. --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Since I met RJ, I knew right away he was the admin type. He pays meticulous attention to detail, but knows what he's doing along the way. Ceranthor 19:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
77. Strong support--Giants27 ^T/C 19:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
78. Support Good answers for all the questions I asked. While Rjanag's niche is at DYK, I hope that he can spend some time on CAT:CSD, since he will be an accurate CSD'er and will provide much help with the CSD backlog. I wouldn't nominate Industrial and Financial Systems for AfD though (see Q15a), since the company passes WP:CORP after examining a Google News Archive search. Best of luck, Cunard (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, I see. I did a Google News search but I forgot to check "all dates", so it was only searching April and I only got 4 hits, which led me to believe it wasn't notable. Looking at the result you have here, though, then yes, I probably would not AfD it, but would just plaster it with cleanup tags instead (and maybe trim some of the junk if I'm feeling bold). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

79. Support. Must. Pile. On. - Seriously, looks like a fine candidate to me. Yintaɳ  22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
80. Synergy 22:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
81. I remember being concerned about your interactions with Ottava several months ago, though thinking back, I cannot remember who exactly was at "fault" there. As Ottava was the first to support, however, and you have both the experience and the clue, I see no reason not to support. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
82. SupportFine canidate, and, as Hiberniantears and NuclearWarfare have said, the first support is from the other party in his most recent conflict. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
83. Strong support - one of the finest candidates at RfA I've seen in months. This long-time user has 25,000 edits, experience creating good articles, rollback rights, great answers to questions above, and a fine user page. We could use another sysop with an understanding of linguistics and "non-Western" languages. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
84. Support I can't believe he's not an admin already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameinc (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
85. Support Good candidate.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
86. Support While you haven't been here that long, you've shown clear capability. --Pstanton (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
87. Support: why not. South Bay (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
88. Support. The candidate is helpful and seems to have a clue. I don't see much risk in granting Rjanag the sysop gig. Majoreditor (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
89. Support Great content contribs and very helpful wikipedian. Basket of Puppies 05:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
90. Brilliant work in all fields. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 08:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
91. Support - You have a lot of good ideas, and I think you'd make a good admin. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
92. Support Absolutely. No alarms, great content work, thorough understanding of the important policies and procedures. --GedUK  14:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
93. Support Have had only good experiences with him. Seen him around alot and he is definitely administrator material.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
94. Support Good Luck Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
95. Support. Certainly doesn't sound any alarm bells for me. Would make good use of the tools and seems to be able to apply common sense. What more could you ask for? HJMitchell You rang? 17:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
96. Support - very strong candidate, obvious need for the tools, no worries. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
97. Support – Good user, and suggest discounting the lone oppose (too many admins). TheAE talk/sign 18:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
98. Support seen him round (more as Politizer), polite, helpful to the wiki. Although I would suggest reading the WP:NPP in more depth if you plan to work with CSD. Good luck :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
99. Support - An incredible knowledge of template syntax, a great help at DYK, and a very collegial editor—my whole-hearted support. —Eustress ^talk 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
100. Support. Seems like a fine candidate. Also, yay. — Σxplicit 21:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
101. Support Good content-related work, will be useful. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
102. Support Seems like a good candidate...Modernist (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
103. Support - As a template developer/editor, I completely understand how frustrating it can be to find those misplaced braces or missing colons. Your other answers are thoughtful, and you appear highly competent and reasonable. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 00:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
104. Support DougsTech is ruining a perfect RfA support. BJ^Talk 00:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

     It's still perfect in my eyes. I would quite frankly be offended if he didn't pop up in my Rfa, it's an almost complimentary oppose at this stage. :) --candle•wicke 02:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

105. Support. I only have had one encounter with this user, at my first DYK, and it was a very positive experience. He told me exactly what I would need to do for it to be approved, and was very friendly about it. Will make a great admin. Firestorm ^Talk 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
106. Support. No problems here. Malinaccier (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
107. Support--Some of the best answers I've seen. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
108. Support Nice answers, seems to have a good grasp of what's required. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
109. Support Seems very knowledgable and has a lot of experience under his belt. Another administrator would be welcomed! talk ProSpider 16:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
110. Definitely Civil, hardworking commonsensical content editor - quick give the poor bugger the mop before he creates any more content! :) Paxse (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
111. Support Kablammo (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
112. Support. Per 111 outstanding reasons and only one possible conclusion.--Preceding unsigned comment 19:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

     D'oh. I was gonna suggest that we stop after Kablammo so that the tally would be all 1s, but here you went and ruined it! Now the only choice is to dig up one more opposer, one more neutral, and 110 more supports, so it'll be all 2s. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

113. Strong Support The edit summary issue is the only smudge on an otherwise excellent resume for the thankless, exhausting exciting job as a mopwielder. - Dravecky (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
114. Support strongly per your answers. Not only were they clear and precise, but they were made with a sense of honesty which shows that you have nothing to hide. ThemFromSpace 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
115. Support Stop having boring tuna.. stop having a boring life. ;] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
116. Firm support due to being seen around (DYK, etc). I'm sure DYK needs more assistance, Wikipedia itself needs more assistance, I don't recall any negative encounters, one for the "isn't this user an admin already" category, really can't think of any reason why not, etc. etc. --candle•wicke 01:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

     Ah yes, Politizer!!! So that's where you've gotten to... :) you were going on holiday in December and you were involved in the DYK templates and then... :O well you disappeared... :( --candle•wicke 02:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

117. SupportNo doubt a support-good luck! dottydotdot (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
118. Support Participates at DYK, has 25,000 edits, helped fix and devolp a number of templates, and generally remains calm. Seems like a great candidate for adminship.Smallman12q (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
119. Oppose, fails my RFA criteria by not having 100,000 edits, not having 100 pieces of featured content, and not having thirty years experience. Might be willing to support sometime around 2028 if you keep up your current editing patterns though! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC).
120. Pile-on support - Hardly need to add to what has already been said but Rjanag is friendly, helpful and sensible as a collaborator and is also a profilic contributor of quality content who I'm sure will make a fine admin. Gatoclass (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
121. Support - I would've supported earlier if I'd known about this. I was considering offering to nominate Rjanag (back then he was Politizer) for adminship near the end of the last year but then I took a break. His work on DYK has been invaluable and we certainly need more admins there. ~ Ameliorate! 08:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
122. Support. Everything seems fine; the candidate should be a good administrator. I also strongly disagree with the only grounds for opposition presented, and I find no grounds myself. AGK 10:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
123. Support. I notice very positive contributions to issues relating to non-free content and potential copyvio files, both areas that could use more admins. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
124. Support, per all above, basically. A highly qualified candidate for admin. Robofish (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
125. Support because the oppose vote (not !vote, vote) is ridiculous, and the neutral vote might be even stupider. Oh, and because Rjanag's an excellent editor who deserves the tools. Had I mentioned that? -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
126. You have a good sense of humor, which not many people around here have, but I get a sense from you that you know that there's a time and a place to have fun, and a time to be serious. You've demonstrated adequately to me that you're capable to solve disputes between users, and that's good enough for me. Best of luck, Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
127. Support Very good potential as an administrator, answers to questions are substantial. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 04:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
128. Support. Fairly unequivocal net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
129. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
130. Support Good contribs, good answers to the questions - which simultaneously demonstrates an ability to explain difficult issues in a clear manner. Some nice work in conflicts too.  Chzz  ►  10:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
131. Support My interaction with Rjanag on street newspapers and other articles has been entirely positive. The answers to the questions are good too. I was not canvassed in any way either, I just saw him on the RfA list. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
132. Just figured out this was Politizer, Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
133. Support by default. I only did a cursory vetting, but looks good to me. Good Luck ;) — Ched :  ?  12:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   moved the expected response to the talk page

Neutral

Neutral for now (switch to support) I don't have time to check more now, but a big alarm goes off if I see someone like you making literally hundreds of minor edits without an edit summary. According to X!'s tools it's not the norm but very alarming nonetheless and a reason for me to withhold support unless you have a good explanation why you did that. Regards SoWhy 13:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That particular one was because I changed {{future public transportation}} after discussing it at Template talk:Future public transportation. Originally, there were several related templated (future australian PT, future Chinese PT, etc.), and we changed it so that one template would be able to handle all of them. I didn't feel like having a bot make the changes or finding someone with AWB, so I just did it all by hand (you can check the edits, they are all changing {{future australian public transportation}} to {{future public transportation|country=Australia}}). I turned off the edit summaries because, having make that same edit several hundred times, the extra click and typing would have made it take exponentially longer, and I figured it was such a small concern that it would only be a very minor inconvenience for people watching the articles. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, with minor articles, such edits are a major incovenience because people will check what you did, taking up their time. You should in future consider requesting a bot or AWB to do such things to avoid cluttering your history with such edits. There are a couple of bots ready for such tasks and you confuse maintenance bot work with real minor edits, something that should be avoided if possible in any way. Regards SoWhy 16:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did put in a bot request originally, but then I thought "why bother someone else with handling this when it's essentially my problem and I have time to take care of it." When I started doing the edits manually I was leaving edit summaries explaining it, but like I said, the extra click and paste was bothering me. But anyway, your point is a good one; I assumed that anyone whose watchlist I popped up on would check the edit at their particular article and ignore the rest, but I may have still incovenienced people anyway. If it means anything, this was a one-time thing (as far as I know, you won't find any other mass edits in my history without edit summaries) and if I ever have to do something like this again in the future I will take your advice and request AWB even if it means I have to wait a little longer before I can get started on making the edits. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if this RfA passes, you will automatically have AWB access, so you won't have to ask for it: see Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Bencherlite^Talk 01:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral-gravity-to-support I see a bunch of "Yay let's support with the typical support reasons, I like him, support, blah" in the support section, and in the oppose I see that ever-present oppose that screams "ignore this oppose and treat me like a rebel." Oh boy, a template coder. Not like we have any of those around here. Oh boy, editcount. I even have one of those, although his is a bit shinier. Oh boy, well-formulated answers to questions. That is a plus, although not a huge one. Ok, so you're Brad Pitt. The sheer gravity of the support section is dragging me over there, but for me that equates to a TLDR. flaminglawyer 02:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

   And I recognize the sig. Extra points for that. flaminglawyer 02:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

   So you're neutral because there are too many support !votes? Or because he's a template coder? Or because his edit count is shinier than yours? What is The sheer gravity of the support section is dragging me over there, but for me that equates to a TLDR. supposed to mean? AvN 10:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

   Antivenin, I think Flaming just means that he's not as impressed by the stuff above as the supporters are. As for your other question, TLDR stands for "too long; didn't read" ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   As soon as I saw this neutral, this song came to mind. You like Shania? (And I didn't see his wikilink :))Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   I think the real question is, you've got the moves but...have you got the touch? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   I think it's more a question of whether you have the touch :) Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yea, I know what TLDR means. I just don't understand how it applies here. I think Flaming is applying TLDR to the sheer magnitude of support !votes, but that doesn't make sense. At all. AvN 17:17, 4 May 2009 (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.