Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tinucherian

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Tinucherian[edit]

Final (174/2/1); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 12:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Tinucherian (talk · contribs) – I present Tinucherian for consideration as an administrator on the English wikipedia. Tinucherian is in many ways the quintessential example of what a wikipedian should be: a prodigious content creator and an energetic and active maintenance worker who cares about our encyclopedic mission. On the content side, he has over 30,000 mainspace article and talk edits and has created over 2000 new articles in the English wikipedia. He is an active contributor in many wikiprojects (too numerous to be listed here!) and his willingness to help with even the most tedious tasks is well respected in all of them. On the maintenance side, his TinucherianBot and TinucherianBot II are workhorses that are called in for tagging articles or delivering newsletters when needed, he is a member of the bot approval group, and willingly copes with the mind-numbing tedium of hand tagging and assessing articles. A wikipedian to the core, he contributes actively on several other language wikis and helps organize real life wikipedia events. Always affable, always available to answer questions and assist others, ever willing to role up his sleeves and get the work done, he is an excellent example of what we should look for in an administrator. RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Samir: There is little more to add to the excellent nomination statement offered by RegentsPark: Tinucherian is not only a brilliant contributor, but also a forceful worker here who crushes through the banal and tedious with a mirthful attitude and a workhorse's spirit. I can think of few if any others who would benefit the project more with the admin toolkit, and I expect that he will become one of our very best additions to the admin crew. I recommend him for adminship highly. -- Samir 02:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by John Carter: I have met few editors who display the commendable initiative and ability Tinucherian has. He more or less created the Indian Christianity project, has done remarkable work with his bot for several groups, and has shown the kind of dedication to the project that really inspires some of the rest of us. I can imagine few other individuals who I would think more deserving of adminship, and this includes many of the active admins, myself included. John Carter (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I humbly accept the nomination. Thank you RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for the kind words and nomination. I hope I can live up to your trust and confidence, regardless of the outcome of this RFA . -- Tinu Cherian - 06:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Essentially, there will not be much of different way I would be working with wikipedia even if I am granted the mop. But it really helps an active WikiProject member like me, if I can add codes to full-protected pages like {{WP India}} , instead of making request like this, when I could simply do it myself like this. I was active around WP:DYKs earlier, I wish to return back soon also with helping the selections of articles. As the DYK queues are protected, it requires an administrator to move updates from the prepration areas into them. While I have 1000s of pages on my watchlist which I monitor for POV or vandalism, I also hope to help out at administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) in tiny steps. In those situations when people came to me for small admin help requests earlier and I've had to say politely, "I'm sorry, I can't help you, I'm not an admin.", the mop flag will help me say "Thanq, I can help you". Now if I'm flagged as a sysop at wikipedia, I won't just start clicking on new links and buttons I have been given ( and no WP:DDMP ;) either ).And hah, I won't just go running to look for users to block, but if I run across someone who is doing Wikipedia really bad, I will follow the steps to warn and then only block them if it is really required. It will be to go to the new admin school, read every possible thing carefully and patiently, and when I have a good understanding of things, start using the tools wisely. And if I have any questions, I'll be sure to ask another friendly admin before blindly jumping forward..
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Much have been said above, thanks to my nominators. But I am WikiGnome essentially, with a huge passion for this encyclopedia. I usually create new articles on the subjects of my interest, develops DYK article creations/expansions, fixes article issues, does WikiProjects banner tagging and assessment, Stub Sorting, occassionaly saving articles from deletion, helping Wikiprojects and others with my bots, Bot task approvals, Account creations. I also operate 2 bots: TinucherianBot (talk · contribs · count) ( over 1,30,000+ edits in en.wiki) and TinucherianBot II (talk · contribs · count) (21,000 + edits in 133+ wikis). If it is really worth mentioning, I have 1 FL, 11 DYKs and 1 ITN articles to my credit. I have created quite a number of WikiProjects and one WikiPortal. I promote Wikipedia extensively in real life, be it organising WikiMeetups like WP:MBL3 or WP:MBL6, promoting wikipedia on social media or encouraging and introducting wikipedia to new people. If at all have done any value addition to wikipedia, it is because of the encouragement of a lot of good folks like this.I personally see my Rollback, Autoreviewer, Account creator, IP block exemption rights, an extension of the trust and love of the wikipedian community upon me. I have access to ACC tool, where I help create accounts to new users. By being a BAG member ( my BAG nomination) , it helps me to extend my technical capabilities to be benefit of wikipedia.
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 usually try to be on my best of my behaviours with other users,..but it would still be a lie, if I say I haven't really had any conflicts.. What comes closer, would be my disagreement with User:Davidgothberg (now retired) on my action of tagging with also WikiProject Computing banner,for some of articles ( essentially from Category:Cryptographic protocols) from his pet project Cryptography WikiProject scope and his unwillingness to unblock my bot on another ugly incident, inspite of many others asking him to do otherwise. I was relatively calm but also owning my mistakes and apologizing where I had possibly messed up things unintentionally. I also did have issues with User:Avineshjose in 2006 ( my initial year) over an AFD. While I don't carry any personal feelings later, I attempt humble efforts like this if it helps to remove any misunderstandings and bad feelings. Having said that, I think I have matured emotionally further than those days.On other hand, I may be unforgiving to those who try to push POV or vandalise wikipedia articles.
Additional optional questions from Pgallert
4. Which question would you like to be asked during your RfA, and what would be your answer?
A: Still thinking...! ;)
Additional optional questions from Bwilkins
5. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?
A: User:Tinucherian, User:TinucherianPublic, and User:TinucherianBot, User:TinucherianBot_II and User:TinucherianBot_III are more than enough accounts that I can possibly manage my own :). No "secret" account will be be created without the knowledge of the community.
Additional question from Leaky Caldron
6. Please set out your position with regards to Recall.
A: Certainly. I have this "title" [[Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall]] ready if this RFA succeeds. If the community gives the mop, why shouldn't the community ask to return it back if I am not fit for the job.
Follow up question from Leaky Caldron
6a. Thanks. What criteria would you be setting out?
A: If *anyone* really feels that I've been abusing the admin tools intentionally or unintentionally, please give me feedback.. If my answer is still unsatisfactory, just start a request for comment on the issue. If there is some consensus among editors in good standing that I was misusing the tools and that the misuse warrants giving up the said tools, I will resign them voluntarily. Having said that, being part of Wikipedian community is very much my life, I will still continue to contribute as a ordinary Wikipedian, just as before.
Optional question from Keepscases
7. You have a userbox that states you have issues with Wikipedia's image policy. Please explain in detail how you think that policy could be improved.
A:I am sorry, that was a very old userbox before my proper understanding of the image policy and is no longer valid.Thanks for pointing it out, I will remove it after the RFA is closed. I continue to upload scores of images to Wikipedia in accordance with the policy.
Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox
8. See this thread: Wikipedia:ANI#User:213.171.34.244 running an unapproved bot?. As a member of the bot approval group it seems appropriate to ask: what should I/we do here?
A: As per our bot policy, All bots that make any logged actions (such as editing a page, uploading files or creating accounts) must be approved before they may operate and I strongly agree to this. In the above case, what would have mostly happened is that the interwiki bot ( possibely approved ), that uses our pywikipedia framework, just got logged out due to connection issues. ( A checkuser can easily prove it). It is best to block the IP temporarily so to prevent any possible damage.If it is a genuine Bot operator, he will be able to see the error message and take remedial action.
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
9. What do you view as the greatest threat to Wikipedia's long-term future and why? What, if anything, can be done to address this issue?
A: IMHO, the greatest threat to Wikipedia's long-term future is losing lots of good editors over time. We are surely getting new editors, but we need to try to keep those great editors motivated and prevent disinterest.
10. What do you think is/are the best ways to combat Systemic bias?
A: Combating Systemic bias is actually a huge task. All we can do is to identify the missing areas and help creating articles on them. That is one reason I am particularly interested in helping WikiProjects of developing and under-developed nations of the world. And yea, we need more of likes of User:Blofeld.
Additional optional questions from Epeefleche
11. Hypo: An article passes AfD as "no consensus". As a result, the article is kept. The nom who was not successful then puts a notability tag on the article. An editor who felt that the article was notable, and had voted "keep", objects, feeling it scars the article without need, putting a Scarlet Letter on it when there was not consensus that it did in fact lack notability. How would you handle the issue?
A: It is a tricky situation. Engaging a healthy discussion on the talk page of the article is the best way to start with.


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Editing stats on talk page. -- Atama頭 16:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Message to a few other kind folks who had earlier offered for nominating me at RFA but I had thankfully declined then: Please understand that I won't be able to inform you now regarding this RFA due to WP:CANVASS rules. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 13:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, have you even read that page? It's fine to message people in a neutral way if they already offered. RfAs are not supposed to be a big secret. Majorly talk 15:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BWilkins' question asks about current or future alternative accounts, shouldn't it be about any past or current accounts? I don't care what future account an editor has. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and then it says "or may create in the future", that means, uh, in the future. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator? I read this as would you tell bureaucrats, if you become an admin, in private, about any alternate accounts i) that you have now ii) or that you might create in future. Am I misunderstanding your meaning? Why are you not asking about abandoned past accounts? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys :), I cannot make my answer for Q5 more clear. -- Tinu Cherian - 18:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Stephen 10:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely! It's way overdue. ceranthor 10:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ceranthor beat me to it. Tinu is a tireless contributor who lives Wikipedia even outside of it. I'm only concerned this might push him even further. :-) -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong supportTinu is really helpful and will make a gr8 admin-NotedGrant Talk 10:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - overdue - Aaroncrick (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Way overdue. We need more Indian admins ;) Pmlineditor ∞ 11:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support, wish I could have been a co-nom, Tinucherian will make a great administrator. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support Inspiring Wikipedian --naveenpf (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong candidate; will be a definite positive with the tools. NW (Talk) 11:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I have been waiting to see this so that I could support. Truly believe that this additional set of tools will help Tinu to further improve Wikipedia Fritzpoll (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. (edit conflict) Support - absolutely.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Wow...how has this not happened before? I've run into Tinucherian a few times over the years...great editor, lots of initiative. Lazulilasher (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Excellent candidate. Kablammo (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Brilliant candidate, as per co-nom -- Samir 12:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: I've been waiting for this. I even looked into nominating him a few months ago, but I saw that he had recently declined a request. Excellent editor with a calm temperament and a friendly attitude. Maedin\talk 12:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Honestly though you'd already passed an RFA. Excellent contributions and demeanour. Trusted and strong nominators with the experience to know who will do well with the tools. A pleasure to support. Pedro :  Chat  12:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: it's amazing the number of wikiprojects he has either helped out or is part of. the tools will come handy. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Agreed, this is an easy one. One only need look to his well-reasoned and calm interactions to see the quality of adminship we can expect from the candidate. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, fully qualified; seems to be the "perfect" candidate as far as I'm concerned. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support long due, very suitable candidate. --CarTick 13:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - happy to endorse this suitable candidate. Gazimoff 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - I have no concerns, been working with user for a long time. --Admrboltz (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Strong candidate, net positive. -SpacemanSpiff 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support: Will make a good admin. Pikiwyn talk 13:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Tinu is one of the most dedicated Wikipedians I have seen. His efforts, both on and off wiki, are highly commendable. This RfA is long overdue. --thunderboltz(TALK) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Pile-on support. An amazing and dedicated editor. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Obviously. Master&Expert (Talk) 14:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Tan | 39 14:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. AtheWeatherman 14:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. No misgivings at all. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Clearly qualified. MBisanz talk 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Majorly talk 15:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support with awe Even with AutoWikiBrowser, 10000 edits in a single month is an incredible investment of lifespan. RayTalk 15:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Seems to be an ideal candidate for adminship. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support He will definitely be a good admin. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Just an awesome candidate, the nomination itself explains why far better than I could. -- Atama頭 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support (as nom) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Tinu is a very perplexing editor; I have seen him around for years but still can't tell which nationalistic, regional, religious and sectarian cliques he belongs to - just look at the variety of wikiprojects, barnstars, and article-worked-on on his userpage! And he certainly works on some planet with more hours/day than the one I live on. I'll support him for adminship since he is a solid replacement for at least a dozen inactive/retired admins ... but I still have my suspicions and will keep looking for clues. :-) Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Per Pedro, are you absolutely sure you aren't already an admin? Check your wallet, is there a little card in there that says "cabal member?" Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support seems like a great candidate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support His involvement here has been a big positive - the admin tools will make it more so. Priyanath talk 18:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Absolutely. The perfect candidate in so many ways. JamieS93 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Totally and completely. I think Abecedare sums it up nicely - Tinu manages to do so much that giving the bit would really be a boom across many fronts. Tinucherian is well overdue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - editor has a need for the tools, appears to be trustworthy, and no opposes have raised any concerns that are serious enough for me to switch. (There are no opposes as I write this.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support without reservation. Killiondude (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Does excellent work; dedicated to the project; knows what he's doing. I trust him with the mop. Useight (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I can't remember if I've ever interacted with Tinucherian before, but I've seen his name around in many places, and I've always had a very good impression of him...I was thinking he would run for RfA this time last year, but he appears to have been patient and decided to wait for a while (as he said above, he has declined past offers). From what I've observed, Tinucherian is very helpful, experienced, civil, and also a positive person: I think he'll make a great administrator. Acalamari 20:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Seen him around, a nice person, a good editor, and almost definitely will be a great admin. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support- All round good guy. --Belasd (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Heck yeah! Oh, per above.Abce2|This isnot a test 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Good candidate, I'm sure he'll do well. ϢereSpielChequers 21:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Of course. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Everything looks good and Tinucherian's answers to the questions are great (particularly the answer to #1; few RfA candidates (including myself when I successfully ran) articulate such clear reasons for wanting to be an admin). Nick-D (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I can find no problems. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Thought-you-were Support Good luck. GlassCobra 22:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, why isn't he already? This should have been done earlier. –blurpeace (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support A superb choice! Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strongest possible support as co-nominator. Duh. :) But I wanted to add my name to the official count anyway because I very much believe that, based on how things are going, WP:100 and/or WP:200 are definite possibilities, maybe even unopposed at that, and I wanted to ensure that he didn't get "robbed" of my support if nominators aren't included in the final tally; I don't know about that one way or the other. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Both needs and deserves the tools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I like what I see. Warrah (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support --Srikeit 02:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, definitely upstateNYer 03:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support BrianY (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Seen him around all over the place. Lots of good coming from this editor. -- Ϫ 05:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support I am sorry. I do in fact support, and my attempt to be humorous and ‘different’ with an oppose has created far too much misunderstanding. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Genuine surprise that he isn't an admin already support. Great contributor. ~ mazca talk 08:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, decent enough. --Aqwis (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Borgarde (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Shimgray | talk | 10:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support seems to making a lot of useful contributions. One statment of error I noticed on the user page, was the first actual edit of this user was made on the day the user was registered, but it got deleted. So there is a bit more experience than he claims! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Graham87 11:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Need more admins. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support without a doubt. I've asked Tinu to request adminship before, and am happy to see he's finally going through with it. He has a great compassion for his work here, and is extremely helpful to all who approach him. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support absolutely no reason to oppose this RFA, and it will obviously pass, so good luck with the tools. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. yup. Keeper | 76 16:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong support - Solid contributor. AdjustShift (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support obviously. -- Banjeboi 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Just here for the pile on. Actually suprised to hear that Tin wasn't already one of 'them' anyway. Great candidate in both knowledge and attitude. And a hearty "Hear, Hear" to those who hunger for a roll. Depending on the bakery, they can be quite nice. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 18:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Excellent contributor and a Great Wikipedian. Salih (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Doesn't really need a rationale, does it.  GARDEN  19:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strongest possible support - Per nom and co-noms. Could have been an admin long ago. Almost pefect candidate, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I cannot find any reason why the candidate would be a bad admin. Regards SoWhy 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Looks good. Theleftorium 20:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. I was considering nominating Tinu myself. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Looks good. Malinaccier (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. TNXMan 22:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strongest possible support Great editor, and has been editing since 2007. December21st2012Freak chat 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - ayup! No problems here :) - Alison ❤ 01:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. A fine chap. bibliomaniac15 02:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, but perhaps overqualified... :) —Finn Casey * * * 02:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support per lots of fine work on both maintenance and, more importantly, articles. Heimstern:Away (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support No reason not to. BejinhanTalk 06:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100 Support. No problems. Tim Song (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Good luck with the mop. Dean B (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Boffo aces. Toddst1 (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support My question seems to be a bit tough to answer... never mind, I'll pile on here anyway. Good candidate, no worries, lots of clue. --Pgallert (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - I thought you had already ran for adminship and I had supported ... perhaps I am misremembering your RFBAG? Ah well, definite support. ♣ Ameliorate! 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was my BAG nom..:) Thanks for the continuing encouragement -- Tinu Cherian - 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. This RfA seems very unbalanced with all the humour in the "Neutral" section, so naturally I feel compelled to support in order to circumvent User:Crafty's cunning plan. Or something. Ben MacDui 19:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC) PS Long overdue.[reply]
  106. me three, or 106 or whatever. Not that there's much point at this stage!   pablohablo. 20:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong Support I can hardly think of anyone more qualified. A credit to the project in so many ways. Steven Walling 22:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - Great editor and certainly ready for the mop! Airplaneman talk 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - I could find no reason to oppose. Also he appealed to my vanity on my talkpage in the most shameless manner. :) Crafty (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Strong Support. Get ready, Tinucherian, to be an administrator! I like how you have created a few bots. You are going to be a great addition to Wikipedia! Keep up the good work.  Btilm  04:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. Great contributor. No concerns. Pcap ping 07:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. —Dark 11:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support of course! — JoJo • Talk • 12:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. I should have done this on the day he was nominated. --Bhadani (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - very friendly and helpful guy in my experience. Gatoclass (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Strong Support: Thanks for making yourself available to do this job. You handled some unfair comments in a calm and sensible fashion. I was particularly impressed with the comments you left on Crafty's home page [1] as opposed to mine. [2] You won his support while all I did was piss him off upset him. For me it was a teachable moment. I plan to work at following your great example. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Tools would compliment his role, also for his extensive experience and good judgement. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support There is a dearth of admins in WP:IN with most of them having retired or less active. User:Tinucherian perfectly fills the void, with his sufficient experience in editing and a great deal in maintenance and bot creation.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - ~SpK 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support per Ottawa4ever. Logan | Talk 21:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support -download ׀ sign! 00:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Excellent experience, impressive list of accomplishments, level head. Yes! Basket of Puppies 05:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Never came across you that I can recall, but a majority the admins I trust most (no names) voted in your support, and your list of accomplishments is impressive. You are the kind of person that can melt down all his awards and make a life sized statue of yourself, but you are much more the type of person that stashes the awards in a drawer for safekeeping (i.e. hardworking and powerful but not flashy or egotistical). I respect you for that. _Nezzadar_☎_ 06:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support I'll be happy to let another 'crat close this one. I've seen Tinucherian around a lot, and I admit, at first, I thought him to be somewhat role hungry. Over time; however, I have seen his work and his edits, and I am confident he will not abuse the tools. While we need to be careful of people who view adminship as a "prize", we DO want, nay need, enthusiastic, motivated people to handle our maintenance work, and I think Tinucherian will perform admirably. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - my first "that editor isn't already an admin?!" moment. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. strong support per noms. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  129. support A tireless contributor who'll use the tools well, and we clearly need more admins interested in South Asia. -- Arvind (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  130. support Should be a net positive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  131. strong support he is a familiar one & i remember to have worked with him in a few articles & hence i extend my strong support cuz i feel tht his service would be even more under this new post ...good luck...--Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 21:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support All the best! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. The candidate is a good contributor and helpful to others. He has my trust. Majoreditor (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support-A very courteous and modest candidate with fairly good answers for the above questions. I don't see why he can't be trusted...Smallman12q (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. Tinu Cherian is an excellent contributor with an excellent track record. I have no qualms whatsoever in supporting this candidate. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  136.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Tinucherian. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. I believe you have the necessary experience with creating content and with maintenance work. You have my trust. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support. From his track record, clear communication is not an issue. Otherwise a great candidate. decltype (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. I see no problems. I don't see communication being an issue either. --candle•wicke 02:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Strong support. It seems I'm late to the punch again from all the Diwali festivities. In any case, Outstanding work across the board; most particularly he's been a pleasure to work with at WikiProject India. I've never had issues in English communication with him, and I see no indication that there will be in the future. A net positive to this project. Best wishes, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support looking through edits and answers all I see is reasons to support ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Yup Definitely a net-positive, and no risk with the tools that I can see. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support C21Ktalk 15:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. Duh. Will make a great admin. Valley2city‽ 16:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Strong support - fully meets my standards: possibly the most over-qualified nominee in many months; huge edit counts including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits; rollback; great user page; etc. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. I can't add much to all of the above, but everything I see indicates he works hard, plays well with others and will continue to do so. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. Much experience, little drama, good content editor in an area where some more administrative firepower is greatly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support.Way overdue. Tinu has been of great help with WP:INDIA and giving him admin will only increase his positive contributions to the project. Srikanth (ping me) 00:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. See no reason to think Tinucherian will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. IMHO Tinucherian makes a perfectly good admin. May my arm fall off before my support waivers. ♠The Ace of Spades(talk) 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support - looks perfectly qualified.  7  02:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support, but the answers to some of the questions might benefit from minor copy-editing. Bwrs (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. Clearly qualified. — ξxplicit 04:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support An excellent editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Strong Support Great Editor both in technical and non technical areas.Great Track and one of the most committed users to Wikipedia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Strongest possible support. Lot of us have waited long enough to see Tinu become an admin. He has safest pair of hands for admin tools. --GPPande 10:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Last Minute Support, simply an all-around great candidate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Support per above comments, and no concerns evident. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Indenting mistaken double vote, sorry about that. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support - this RfA should have occurred long back. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Strong Support - long overdue.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Strong Support It took him long enough. lol. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support! This user wasn't an admin? Give him the mop. Now, I say! [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Wizardman 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  163. One two three... 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Oh, you're not one already? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support  Cargoking  talk  19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support miranda 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support No issues or worries over knowledge, experience, dedication, or civility. Will be fine admin. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support Seems to be well-qualified. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Yep - 'bout time you got the mop. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  171. It's a no-brainer, says zombie Danger (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support per the other 171. Sluggo | Talk 01:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support largely per this. Personally, I would prefer a bit strong English/communication skills, but Tinucherian's willingness to take criticism onboard easily overrides that. Also the reluctance to run mentioned by several is a plus, and his dedication to Wikipedia is beyond question. Overall a welcome addition to the admin team. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support per all above. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 11:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose: A fabulous editor, but I am concerned that this editor sees adminship as a goal in and of itself. Wanting to be an administrator for the sake of it doesn't seem descent. South Bay (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to think so (and oppose!) but the reality is that Tinucherian could have become an admin at any time over the last year or so with close to the amount of support he is getting here. But, despite being asked by numerous people, he refused. I don't think your conclusion 'wanting to be an administrator for the sake of it' is warranted at all. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, really, do you have anything to substantiate that? This one waited a lot longer than most to try for it, and did not self-nominate. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you justify that remark, when Tinucherian outlined in the answer to the first question what the admin tools would be used for (clearly not just to hold as a trophy), and also turned down a previous nomination to adminship? -- Atama頭 23:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering... did you judge from Crafty's comment in the neutral section below? Airplaneman talk 00:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing, Airplaneman. And, Atama, I think it was actually several previous times Tinucherian turned down offers to be nominated. He did say in answer to question one that he's apparently already been asked by several editors to perform administrative tasks, but couldn't do it and had to ask them to ask someone else or ask someone else himself. Considering that India is the subject of a huge number of articles, I think his request to, among other things, lighten the administrative workload of the other admins, as an editor who is already apparently thought to be one by seveal people (as per the comments above), that's a fairly reasonable cause for wanting to be an admin. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I recently removed my oppose as well… Irbisgreif (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think admins should really want to do the job and be willing to spend the time. Indeed enthusiasm is a good thing. Only having Admins who aren't interested in the job is "as dumb as a sack of hammers". Why does this candidate not "seem decent"??? Am I missing something? ( It would not be the first time) - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC) - - PS I just read Crafty's statement that the candidate - - "hungers for the role". Hell Heck, you are making him sound like a werewolf. I hope you are joking and I am just a bit slow![reply]
Looks like Crafty was craftily cracking a joke :). Airplaneman talk 03:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose this "member of the WikiProject Council" and all other vanity self-appointers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Vanity self-appointer"? I sure hope you have meaningful evidence to back that accusation up. —Dark 23:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you referring to one of my userboxes which says "This editor participates in the WikiProject Council", let me explain..At a time, WikiProject Council was yet another WikiProject, created to encourage and assist with the development of active WikiProjects, and to act as a central point for inter-WikiProject discussion and collaboration. Having said that it doesnt have any authority over neither WikiProjects nor Wikipedia / wikipedians and userbox meant nothing more than " I am member of this WikiProject". I guess you have misunderstood the word Council of WikiProject Council. Also WikiProject Council now no longer even maintains a formal list of members ( changes done in June 2009 and it came back to my attention just now) and even the userbox is no longer valid -- Tinu Cherian - 02:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pmanderson— just to set the record straight, there have been several previous attempts to twist Tinu's arm to run for admin. Here are three that I could find—1, 2, 3—but I believe there were more, before he was finally convinced to run this time. All of this after 30,000 mainspace article and talk edits, 2,000 new articles, and two busy bots. Your "Vanity" and "self-appointer" comment just doesn't make sense. Follow those three links and you'll see that "humble to a fault" and "had to have his arm twisted to run" are far more accurate. Priyanath talk 05:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not objecting to the self-nomination; I am objecting to the self-invented "membership". We are all members of any wikiproject or council we choose to join; it confers no authority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The userbox doesn't say it confers authority - only that he 'participates' in a project whose goal is (was) to "encourage—and assist with—the development of active WikiProjects". A good thing, imo. Priyanath talk 16:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the objection might be to the use of the word "member" to describe the various groups with which Tinu is involved near the bottom of his user page. I do think that that phrasing might have been there since the time the group actually did have a formal "membership", and that it might be possible that it just didn't occur to him to change the phrasing once the change in the Council's "membership" was itself altered. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pmanderson, As I had tried to clarify earlier, membership did exist once upon to time to WikiProject Council, just like any other WikiProject. Kindly donot confuse any authority or self-invented authority for this membership. WikiProject Council was just like anyother WikiProject, this being created to assist with the development of other active WikiProjects and collabration among them. While the membership style for the council was removed a very few months agao, which didnot come to my notice until this was brought up by you. At this point, I dont think I can do anything better than this and this -- Tinu Cherian - 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I still find myself wondering why membership/participation/involvement in a WikiProject is a minus just because of the terminology used to describe that involvement. If Tinu had said he was King, Lord, or Ruler for Life, I would understand, but ...'member'? I know it's not going to derail his RfA, so I've probably already reacted too much.... Priyanath talk 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per "if I run across someone who is doing Wikipedia really bad" etc... Sounds like he's a good contributor with some technical skills that are useful, but the quality of written English is insufficient to have a position of responsibility at an English language encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not judge based on variety of English, this is not the SAE or British English Wikipedia; it's just the English Wikipedia. This user appears to speak SIE natively, and opposing him for his English is, to put it simply, prejudiced. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Prejudice? Nonsense. His written communication skills are very poor. Much of what he's written on this page is difficult to decipher. Clearly this will pass, but lots of unqualified folks are admins.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)To be fair, to oppose due to a lack of clarity in communication is fine. This is, after all, en.wikipeddia and one would expect the ability to converse in English at a proficent level. Having said that Bali has dug out one example (from this RFA - read that both ways) but not demonstrated any long term issues and more importantly why it may be an issue for this candidate in the first place. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tinu's English is absolutely fine. Bali is showing his prejudice against less prestigious varieties of English. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite lost as to how "if I run across someone who is doing Wikipedia really bad" is "bad english", now it might be fast english, or informal english, but it definitely isn't bad english; in fact I use statements like this all the time. Unless you can link me to more worrisome incidents, where Tinucherian has done Wikipedia bad, by english problems, I don't see how this is a valid oppose reason. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a few more examples from this RFA (RFA’s are like job interviews, remember. I shudder to think what his writing is like when there is less scrutiny): "there will not be much of different way I would be working…" “But I am WikiGnome essentially…” “I usually create new articles on the subjects of my interest, develops DYK article creations/expansions, fixes article issues…” “It will be to go to the new admin school…” “If at all have done any value addition to wikipedia, it…” “If the community gives the mop, why shouldn't the community ask to return it back if I am not fit for the job.” If you don’t understand why this fellow’s written English is weak, please keep your hands off the prose. I suppose it's par for the course at wikipedia that someone whose writting and editing skills are insufficient for the lowest level copy editing position at any newspaper or publisher is being made an admin, virtually unopposed. Horses for courses.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That really smacks of linguistic imperialism. We need editors to function in at least one language and be able to communicate in English. No one expects admins to write at a FA or even GA level. If language skills are in any way preventing them from doing the job I trust this user will seek help - not guess if a red or green button should be pushed. -- Banjeboi 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Geez, I'm a journalist and even I screw up English on a regular basis. I certainly would never oppose based on English being a second or third language. Yeah, even Admins are editors first and foremost, but really ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Imperialism? You're absurd. I want noun/verb agreement -- not "FA level writing" whatever that is. Yes there's a lot of awful english written in India (particularly in the tabloids) but plenty of indians write like angels. Not this fellow (by the way, there's plenty of people who write terribly in the US and the UK -- I don't want them as admins either). The fact that many people have poor writing skills is no defense for a wikipedia editor's poor writing skills. The fact that you want admins who need help with their language skills is yet more evidence for the quality of your judgement. I would not trust this editor's advice or comments in any content dispute since I'm not convinced he has mastered the nuances of written english. This is all moot, this will clearly pass. But I will of course respond to any and all comments using coded language accusing me being racist (this is what is meant by these uses of "imperialist" and "prejudice) for pointing out the candidate can't write.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Noun-Verb agreement‽ This really is linguistic imperialism, and pure prejudice. “I will point out that in your own sample, you failed to capitalize both Indian and English. If you can't even capitalize correctly, you shouldn't comment on RfA's.” Finally, consider educating yourself, Indian_English#Grammar_quirks is a good jumping point for understanding how ignorant you are being. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok,Bali.. I will try to improve my writing skills in English. -- Tinu Cherian - 15:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, I think, if the worst we can find is a bit of minor grammar and english, I believe that speaks volumes in itself. AtheWeatherman 15:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, there's more. The candidate doesn't understand notability, particularly as applied to BLPs, per Craig Bardenheuer. I don't have the skills to evaluate all of those Indian language movie stubs and village stubs (though I generally dislike serial stub creation, since I think it degrades overall quality), but a few created articles that it was easy for me to evaluate clearly looked non-notable as well. I won't be nomming those, as I really can't be bothered; but I'm amending my oppose to include my concerns that he does not understand the notability guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bali ultimate, I took the liberty of improving your grammar in that last comment. Keepscases (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    School, little fishies, school. There are too many admins whose writing skills are weak as it is. We don't need more. The folks badgering me clearly don't agree, but that doesn't make them right. We don't use the quirks of Indian English, or Jamaican English, or Cockney English or any of dozens of other flavors on Wikipedia, and for good reason. I am most definitely prejudiced against bad grammar and tortured syntax, but the implication that it's some sort of racial or imperialist prejudice is cuckoo. After further review, as I've pointed out, the fellow also appears to have a shaky grasp of our notability guidelines. But really, the racial overtones being laid on this by a few are pathetic.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added my 2c at the talk page. Perhaps, further discussion, if any, can be moved there. Abecedare (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
I'm strongly neutral about this candidate. He hungers for the role, yet I cannot find a reason to oppose him. Yet. Crafty (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Shifting to support. Crafty (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are being sarcastic, right, because that is genuinely funny. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself rabidly apathetic in response to this neutral comment. -- Atama頭 19:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This request, if I may be so bold, might just exceed WP:200 with 44 supports already. Probably more like 170, though. And yet you're going neutral because Tinu "hungers for the role"? ceranthor 19:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really blame him, it's lunchtime where I'm at. I'm enjoying a very nutritious meal at the moment in fact. -- Atama頭 19:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about this.Abce2|This isnot a test 21:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a bit of light humor. Wouldn't worry over it. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has he made any substantial mainspace contributions? What I see mostly are minor fixes? Any paragraphs of prose? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of them are stubs of the sort Ala,_Alappuzha, which is about a village. All credit to him for creating software tools that tag articles etc., but the impression I get is that there is very little depth in these contributions. It is shallow coverage of a wide area. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is really worth mentioning, I have created 1 FL, 11 DYKs and 1 ITN articles till date -- Tinu Cherian - 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is from his user page:
Featured list: List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks
DYK: Swadeshabhimani Ramakrishna Pillai, Akkamma Cherian, Malankara Church, Fathima Beevi, JUNOS, St. George Orthodox Church, Chandanapally, Vakkom Moulavi amongst several others
Over 50 substantive article contributions are listed on his user page. There certainly is evidence of more than just minor fixes. -- Samir 20:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for clarifying! Changing to support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I cannot support candidates who claim to be open to recall, but this editor's positive contributions leave me unable to oppose. Skinwalker (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. I realize that there is widespread agreement that the recall process is seriously screwed up, but are you saying that anyone who would agree to voluntary recall criteria is unfit to be an admin? (Not trying to pester you, or even change your mind, I'm just not sure I understand the point you are making.) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Skinwalker craftily worded this neutral comment. He does not say that the candidate is unfit; merely that he cannot support him. To the contrary, it appears that Skinwalker generally supports the candidacy, notwithstanding his concerns regarding voluntary recall (this is my interpretation, at least). I would not fret over the comment, Beeblebrox :) I suspect that Skinwalker knowledgeably constructed his comment with such delicate wording... Lazulilasher (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tinucherian&oldid=1200440195"