Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AA

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

AA

Final (42/7/1); Originally scheduled to end 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AA (talk · contribs) - A cool head, a clam heart and a helping hand are some of the stuff that defines AA. Always a perfectionist, his passion for quality, neutrality and credibility is hard to match. Very active in a quite a number of areas, interacting with editors who represent a wide spectrum of attitudes and dispositions. Has a fine command of wikicodes, and is innovative enough to already contribute a good deal to that end. He may be especially important when mediation is needed between editors of South Asian origin, as he'll become the second editor from Bangladesh if found worthy. In the 7 months he has been working on WP, he has handled conflicts like a wizard of peace and consistently made amazingly positive contributions to every place he's been to. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. → AA ^(talk) — 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been an editor since March 2007 and in the 7+ months of my tenure, I have edited a wide variety of articles, been involved in a few conflicts, done many vandalism reversions and nominated many articles for deletion (via CSD, PROD, XfD processes).

I am somewhat of a perfectionist and aim to follow the GA/FA criterias in all of my edits which hopefully makes the end result easier to get through the GA/FA process. I have also met some wonderful editors along the way and helped where I can to the best of my abilities.

I have tried to contribute widely and gain experience in multiple areas and think I have developed a fairly comprehensive understanding of policies and guidelines to make best use of the admin tools. → AA ^(talk) — 14:47, 2 October 2007 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to assist mainly with CSD & PROD. As an editor I have tagged many articles which have been deleted and it would be much more efficient to be able to tackle the task myself instead of adding to the burden of existing admins. On a related note, I would also assist in AfDs (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) - initially focusing on ones where the outcome is clear-cut.

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

A: I would consider sourcing to be one of my key traits; to push Wikipedia towards becoming a reliable source. Article wise, Biman Bangladesh Airlines is undoubtedly my best contribution. It was the first article I gave my full attention to which enabled me to aquire a broad range of experiences as an editor since the article went through GA review (ando became GA) followed by A-Class review, Peer Review, FAC and is now FA. Fatimah is another article which was a highly biased non-neutral article when I encountered it. I spent considerable time using resources at the library to source and rewrite the article to meet NPOV and verifiability policies. I hope to take this towards GA/FA in the next few months. On the template front, {{cite quran}} is one of my creations which sought to combine multiple individual templates into one standardised citation template for Qur'anic quotations. I also made some useful changes to the League of CopyEditors project when I sought their help with the Biman article.

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: Only one noteworthy incident with an editor engaged in disruptive editing. The editing patterns of the editor was predominantly to revert other's changes and on the whole did not provide many "encyclopedia building" edits. I tried to reason with the editor and coax him into collaborating constructively so that we could collectively enhance the article. However, it did not prove fruitful as his revert-warring and incivility continued extending to uninvolved admins who eventually indef blocked him for making personal attacks. Reviewers may wish to see the following diffs/links for further history A, B, C. Personal attacks and userpage vandalism has also been directed at me at times in response to my RC patrolling but this has never caused by any upsets and I take this as part of the "job" (see D).

Question by Archtransit

4. Do you see a potential conflict of interest or ethical violation in your username? AA is a common abbreviation for American Airlines. You note an airline article as one of your proud contributions as well as being a member of Wikiproject Airlines. WP policy says "Usernames that match the name of a company or group" are inappropriate user names. Yet, as an administrator, you will be tasked to enforce wikipedia policy, including indefinite blocking of people who use inappropriate user names. What is your solution? Grant yourself an exemption? Change your name? Pledge not to enforce wikipedia rules in certain areas? Place a disclaimer on your userpage that you have no affiliation with American Airlines? Good luck in your RFA! Archtransit 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I do realise that AA is a common abbreviation, not only of American Airlines, but Alcoholics Anonymous and many others. The username was usurped and therefore I did not consider it to be inappropriate since a bureaucrat fulfilled my request. I am not promoting any organisation or product who's abbreviation is AA nor am I editing any American Airlines related articles and as such believe the statement, "usernames satisfying one or more examples are not necessarily inappropriate", applies. However, as with all issues on Wikipedia, if there is consensus the username is inappropriate, I have no issues with picking another one. Thanks for the concern (It actually hadn't even crossed my mind). → AA ^(talk) — 16:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Question by Septentrionalis

5. So what experience with dispute resolution do you have? Your efforts to settle disputes would be more persuasive than your own disputes with others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I would say being able to deal with your own disputes in a civil manner is more important for an admin than being able to mediate others' disputes (unless one is joining the mediation committee or ArbCom). As an admin, it is a given fact that one's actions will be questioned by editors and admins alike and being able to justify your actions and settle them in a civil manner is a key trait that we should look for in an admin. You have a choice whether to get involved in dispute resolution between other editors. You have no choice when the dispute involves you. Nevertheless, I do have some minimal experience and will look to build upon this over time. → AA ^(talk) — 09:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Question by Arrow740

6. Given your past history with him (however one views it), would you be willing to recuse yourself from decisions to use admin tools in situations involving User:Prester John? Arrow740 06:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Thank you for your question. I'd just like to say that I do not have a "history" with User:Prester John. I did not revert any of his edits which would not have been an unreasonable action for someone acting in bad faith towards him. Had I not come across this edit summary which was a striking resemblance to this and this from a DY sock, I would not have given it a second look. Until Prester's comments on this page, I had not had any other noteworthy interactions with him. I fully respect his comments (as I do everyone elses) on this page and hope to be able to work together if the situation arises in future. → AA ^(talk) — 14:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See AA's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for AA: AA (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• Only 9 edits to AIV. That shouldn't be too much of a problem if you use the block button correctly, but if you are in doubt, please be a little hesitant during the first few days of your adminship (if you are promoted). Melsaran (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly continue to use existing methods to start with (i.e. reporting to AIV/RFPP etc.) until I am proficient in the relevant area. I believe having the tools places extra responsibility to ensure their correct use and therefore it's preferable to tread cautiously and if in doubt leave it for a more experienced admin to deal with while watching the outcome from behind the scenes as part of the learning experience. → AA ^(talk) — 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned about having an admin with "a clam heart". That sounds worryingly invertebrate to me. Can you confirm you are warm-blooded and have an internal skeleton? --John 05:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have a fully-functioning heart - although I've not seen it and can't cite any sources :) → AA ^(talk) — 08:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

May be we can apply WP:CK here.^{Sorry for the typo, though.} :) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As Radiant!'s admin classification page shows us, though, we have long since gone down the road of sysop(p)ing various amphibians, reptiles, and fish, but AA would, I think, be our first two-letter admin; perhaps we need to get a WP:DLG going... Joe 03:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Well, that should be apparent. I was the nominator, right? I have already wrote a good deal about the reasons to support him while nominating (and also at his editor review). Never mind the flowery language. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support A review of the last 1500 contributions shows nothing but good work. In addition your deleted edits show a raft of accurate CSD tags, so I have no concerns on your policy knowledge. You answers are clear cut. Basically ticks all the boxes for me. Pedro :  Chat  15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   How do you check deleted edits? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Deleted edits for a user are listed at Special:DeletedContributions, which is limited to administrators. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Support Glad to give my support. I am confident that this candidate would not abuse the added tools given to him as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Seems to be a solid editor. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Nothing to suggest this editor will do anything but good with the tools. Phgao 17:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Sure, looks good. A great variety of contributions in many places, would do fine with the tools. Melsaran (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support No reason not to. I looked through some of your contributions from March, and they were all really good. I did notice, however, that you maybe made some typo's (Please don't bite my head off for writing this! It's only constructive criticism - and I hope it will be treated as such :-), e.g. "existance" instead of "existence". I honestly don't mean to be nasty or picky about it... Okay, I'll stop. I'm scared that people will interpret it wrong :-( But anyway! You have my full and complete, unwavering support! Scarian^Talk 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   I do appreciate constructive criticism and appreciate your efforts in reviewing my contribs. I do try to be vigilent and double check my work a few times - even after submission but, unfortunately, some errors do get through and this is where the collaboration element of Wikipedia is so beneficial. Having observed the League of Copyeditors in action, I have great admiration for their work. → AA ^(talk) — 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for the reply! I thought I was out of place with my comments. All the best! Scarian^Talk 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Support No reason to oppose, no concerns with him/her having the tools. east.718 at 19:34, October 2, 2007
9. Support had a look at your edit account and your most recent edits. You've got edits across the namespaces and according to Pedro (I'm not an admin) you know how to Speedy delete. All in all, a good user and you'll make a great admin--Phoenix 15 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Well-balanced and experienced editor. Seems to know what he is doing and I trust he will do well with the tools. Useight 21:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support User has plenty of experience, and demonstrates an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia. Good Luck!--bobsmith319 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Too few MediaWiki edits for my liking, but o well. CO₂ 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Only administrators can edit MediaWiki pages, because the whole MediaWiki namespace is protected. ~ Sebi _[talk] 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    I believe that was a joke. AntiVMan 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Oh I see. ~ Sebi _[talk] 05:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed :) Carbon Monoxide 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

13. Support No reason to oppose. Not very many reports to AIV, but like he said, he's done a lot of deletion work. —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 23:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Qualified, and wants to help out in areas that need it. Hell yes! :) Jmlk17 00:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Seems like a reasonable, well-balanced individual who learns from mistakes and is unlikely to misuse the tools. Ronnotel 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Fine with me. — aldebaer⁠ 01:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
17. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support looks fine - good luck :) --Ben^chat 05:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Good examples that show the kind of spirit we need here in our admins. I'm a bit concerned about the "perfectionist" stance, I hope the candidate won't go so far as to discourage the typically not-perfect contributions of newbs and occasional editors, and I do hope that I don't vote for a delitionist here. Also, more experience would be nice. However, I don't see facts seriously supporting my doubts, and the work done so far speaks for the candidate. Keep it up, and good luck, AA! Gray62 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you for your support. Just wanted to comment on your concerns on the "perfectionist" stance. I enjoy working with new editors and helping them "learn the ropes".[1], [2]. The comment applies to my own work and is not meant for judging others' contributions. I remember distinctly how it felt when I was new and did not know much about WP:AGF and therefore try to put that experience to good use. → AA ^(talk) — 13:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

20. Support. Majoreditor 13:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. No problems that I can see. --John 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support A good editor worthy of becoming administrator. We all have flaws but AA's don't seem notable. Archtransit 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - Achieved a good lot since starting here, well done. :-) Lradrama 17:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - Even inspired me to joing Leeg of Copietidorz. Hiberniantears 19:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Good editor that is very unlikely to abuse admin tools. (AA is also the initials of one of my friends) NHRHS2010 ^Talk 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Article work looks pretty darn decent, and this fella appears to be a reasonable person who I can work with. That's all that's necessary. Moreschi ^Talk 23:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Purely based on my personal experience of interaction with this user. On several occassions I requested help from him and got immediate assistance. This is the right kind of attitude I'd expect from an admin. Arman ^(Talk) 02:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - Seen his name frequently on my watchlist probably due to some common watchlisted articles. He'll do good — Lost^(talk) 08:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. Administrators who will make a close in favor of consensus despite their own disagreement are in just as short a supply as administrators who will perform unpopular actions that need to be done. Dekimasuよ! 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. Good all round contributor with a variety of excellent contributions. Respectfully with regard to the "oppose" section below, I think the reading of WP:V is too strict, since the word is "verifiable", not "verified". "Unsourced" is not the same as "unverifiable", although it can be a serious indication. In many cases, the problem unsourced articles can and should be solved by sourcing them. The fact that AA has contributed to the Biman Bangladesh's promotion to featured status is a far more reliable measure that the user "gets" the core content policies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. Lots of good edits - seems very competent and positive. Good luck! Folic^Acid 03:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. conducive to 'pedia building. I like people erring on the side of keeping rather than deleting in AfD debates. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Won't abuse the tools. Plus, seems to have a good sense of humor, which is always (well, usually) a good thing. нмŵוτнτ 17:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Great user with lots of experience in all areas of the project. --Kudret abi^Talk 05:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. He did good work on the article at Biman Bangladesh Airlines, and his ability to deal reasonably with content disputes is seen at Talk:Fatimah. I looked at the AfDs mentioned below, including this one, and I do agree that you should not close a debate you have also voted in. In the discussion about Template:Islam mentioned by Yahel Guhan, I think AA's demeanor was quite reasonable. In general AA seems patient and civil. EdJohnston 15:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. Great work on FAs, and level-headed user. Recurring dreams 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Great edits, cool temper, lots of experience, a fine wikipedian. AA has my confidence.Bless sins 04:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Good "clam" editor. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Seems to have a good grasp on policy and a very even keel (as evidenced by response to criticism below). Good reason to have the tools, very low risk to abuse them, and has made a positive difference on Wikipedia, so user has my support. Plus, we could definitely use more clams as admins. Ashdog137 05:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support An experienced, civil and level-headed editor. --Aminz 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support See nothing that persuades me this user will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for apparently insufficient knowledge of core policies. On two current AfDs (1, 2) the nominee recommended to keep two articles on reasonable notability grounds, which is fine – but he did not notice or care that the articles utterly fail WP:V, an overriding core policy. One article (now deleted) was not sourced at all, and the other is currently sourced to the article subject's website and to Wikipedia itself. I have not reviewed the nominee beyond these AfDs, so feel free to take this vote with a grain of salt. Sandstein 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you for you comments and, although I do not wish to discuss a closed AfD here, I feel I should clarify for the reviewers since my knowledge of policies has been brought up. I believe your arguments are that the articles were not sourced - which I believe is not a reason for deletion. My comments on the AfD were based on the potential verifiability. To this end, I gave a few examples where the article in question (Airpoints) was the subject of non-trivial news coverage ([3], [4], [5], [6]). At worst, it was borderline and I respect your closure of the AfDs. → AA ^(talk) — 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   I disagree. If challenged material is not being sourced, that very much is a reason for deletion. This is the core meaning of WP:V, and admins must be able to apply it. I've elaborated more in responding to your comment on my talk. Sandstein 05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   While I won't pass judgment here, the information in the sources you mention bears little resemblance to the actual contents of the (now-deleted) article, which was mostly a link repository and list of rules. If you felt the news coverage showed notability, why didn't you incorporate it into the article? Dekimasuよ! 07:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Please see my comments and discuss further on Sandstein's talk page. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 08:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough, but I hope you don't mind if I ask for a little more clarification. If you were happening upon the Airpoints AfD for the first time and decided to close it after reading through the same discussion Sandstein did, would you have deleted the article? Dekimasuよ! 13:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

   As I mentioned, I fully respect the closure and there was consensus to delete and I would've done the same. I had provided the links on the basis that others might agree on the notability based on the news refs and add references from primary and secondary sources. I did not have any strong opinions on the article either way and, with hindsight, it would've been better for me to have suggested it as a "comment" rather than !vote "keep". → AA ^(talk) — 14:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose in my many revert conflicts with AA, I can say I have concerns about WP:CIVIL from this user. Based on some of his edits, he/she probably will use his admin tools in articles he/she is actively editing. I find it ironic User:AA use as examples of afd's he/she'd close are on topics he/she normally edits. Yahel Guhan 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   Can you provide some diffs to support your concerns? Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 17:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Certianly. For example, AA is actively involved in Islam related articles, pushing his/her bias on the articles, and has closed this AFD debate only recently, dispite involvement on the topic. He/she closed this merge discussion in which he/she is an active participant in. Other than that, my main recent contact with this user was a dispute on Template:Islam, where this user, rather than providing reasons for why a certian article shouldn't be included, argued it shouldn't because there wasn't consensus, demanding removial.[7] Then stated I was being uncivil for pointing out this demand. [8] Here are examples of this user edit warring (on a dispute which involved many users): [9][10] (enough to get a page protected) More to come later. Yahel Guhan 00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

   I leave it up to reviewers to judge if my two closes were wrong (and if necessary to review the ratio of AfD noms from Yahel which were kept). Also, see this comment regarding the particular AfD which was closed by me on the grounds of WP:SNOW and unanimous consensus. Regarding the discussion on Template:Islam, I was just trying to highlight the process for building consensus and that my comments (interpreted as a demand by Yahel) were not "pure nonsense" as I followed up with the link to the relevant guideline (note I did not join in the edit war unlike Yahel). On the subject of the other one, I refer reviewers to the article history (showing my one edit) and the talk page discussions (NB: Yahel was previously Sefringle). → AA ^(talk) — 09:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

   Can't locate the reason for concern along the lines of WP:CIVIL in the given examples. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Weak oppose I deny, as the principal author of today's featured article, that getting an article to FA shows anything much about knowledge of policy, especially this one, which had a softball review even by the current standards of that overburdened page; the chief FAC commentator was the nominator for this RfA. I do not think that handling your own CSD's is desirable; CSD's really should be reviewed by two people. There are no signs of knowledge or ability to handle dispute resolution, which every admin will be expected to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose This user has shown a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia guidelines here. The user has stated that in arguing that a source is unreliable for articles relating to Islam, one must adhere to guidelines for editing articles. Arrow740 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Asking for a verified RS before declaring an RS sanctioned by the policies unreliable, and commenting that without such a citation we can't declare a source unreliable (especially on grounds of OR) doesn't look like a misunderstanding of the policies. On the contrary it looks very much like an example of thorough understanding. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   WP:RS is not a policy, and does not apply to discussion about sources. It applies to sources. Arrow740 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   But, WP:V and WP:OR are, and the discussion was about an RS. All I can see is AA raising a question about a claim about a certain historian's authority, and reminding that such claims may be supported by appropriate sources (especially if there is evidence in contradiction to the claim), and he didn't even pass a conclusive statement. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Yahel Guhan -- Karl Meier 11:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I have no faith in the ability of AA to follow basic wikipedia admin procedures or to follow elementary manual of style rules. My first experience with him was when I noticed he was mass reverting articles in direct contradiction to the manual of style (Islam related). See this, this, and this. Upon taking it upon myself to rectify the encyclopedia AA, without bothering to talk to me about it, then filed a bogus sock report. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   Regarding the reverts, as the edit summaries indicate, I was simply enforcing the ban on confirmed socks of a banned user without looking at the merits of the edit per WP:BAN. Regarding the checkuser, I did not revert any of your own edits (as far as I remember) - even ones where the edit summary could easily have been mistaken for one written by DY71 (e.g. [11]) and in the ANI discussion at least one other editor mentioned that there had been confusion previously between User:DavidYork71 and yourself, so it was in your best interests to clear the confusion. However, following this incident, I thought it best to leave this aspect to experienced editors and have not sought to pursue this further nor do I intend to do so in the future. → AA ^(talk) — 23:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   If you wish to become an admin, you are saying you are an experienced enough editor to make important admin decisions. If you don't think you are an experienced enough editor to make a decision about sockpuppetry, you certianly can't be trusted with the tools at this time; you simply can't handle the decision making. Yahel Guhan 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   And now we see the web starting to unravel. Your claim of "at least one editor" is in fact confined to a single editor, User:Merbabu. He claimed to have held a private suspicion about DYK and myself, yet made no formal announcements of it. This makes your claim of "previous confusion" patently false and a deliberate misrepresentation that disqualifies you from this post. I must add AA's assertion that "it was in your best interests to clear the confusion", both now and at the bogus checkuser show a stunning disregard for the process of checkuser and it's declared intent. Checkuser states quite clearly, warning everyone before posting, that checkuser is NOT for "fishing", and that unfounded requests to "clear confusion" are dismissed. His reply above doesn't really install any confidence in his ability. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   For the record, I never supported the DY71 = PJ suggestion or held any "private suspicions" about it (much less commented publically) as has just been suggested. What I did say was that said this suggestion had been made before (by another unrelated editor), but that I doubted it. In fact, when the RFCU was filed by AA, I promptly expressed my doubts. I did support the request for check user to confirm those doubts, which indeed were confirmed. kind regards --Merbabu 01:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Based on your edit summary usage (as shown above) and editing patterns, there was a possibility of User:Prester John being a sock of User:Ultrabias (aka User:DavidYork71) which is why the RFCU was filed. It was not a fishing exercise. I shall leave it to the community to judge for themselves. → AA ^(talk) — 01:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Had you even bothered to do a cursory background check on my history, it might have come to your attention that I began editing a full 6 months before DY71. That fact might have piqued your curiosity to given that DY was indef blocked, how was it possible that I was able to continue editing? No you decided that someone adhering to wikipedia's manual of style (of which there are many) was indication of a sockpuppet needing a block. It is this abuse of process and lack of basic checking skills which prove you do not have the abilities to hold admin tools for this project. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Is there a possibility that the "bogus" checkuser may be referred to as a "mistaken" checkuser? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Like I said, you have got wonder why an editor with thousands of more edits and many many more months of service would not have been picked up and indentified when DY71 was fully investigated and banned. Even a basic check of our histories would have revealed I was editing long before DY71, not to mention our two totally different editing histories. The fact is that AA ignored this, failed to discuss or interact with me, and went straight to checkuser. Not really assuming good faith there is it? He has already admitted that he was reverting the edits of a banned user. Was he even looking to see if those edits were valid or not? Even when I reverted them back to conform to the Manual of Style, did he notice they were valid then? Why would he just jump to the checkuser page? All sounds very suspect to me. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed, this is just the way an admin should never act. Arrow740 05:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose Per Yahel Guhan and Arrow740's points.--C.Logan 00:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, AA, but some of the above opposes have provided reasonable evidence that you become a little more experienced when interacting with others. I really hate to oppose you just for that because you've made some very important contributions, but I'm afraid I can't give you my full support. *Cremepuff222* 14:32, 9 October 2007 (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.