Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2

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

Biruitorul

Final (71/38/9); Closed as consensus not reached by WjBscribe at 22:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Biruitorul (talk · contribs) - is a good example for Wikipedians to follow: he has displayed encyclopedic depth of knowledge about a broad variety of topics, his writing is succinct, informative, and in plain English, he seeks out a wide range of sources, and he develops articles in a manner worthy of a professional writer and scholar. His manner of contributing attracts other editors, and his example tacitly urges that their contributions be of equally high quality. He is knowledgeable of WP tools, procedures, conventions, and is very open to lend a helping hand, even if that means days of work on an article the original creator did not think much about.

Biruitorul's article Barthélemy Boganda will shortly be considered for WP:FA. He wrote numerous WP:DYKs, has a record of 31,000 edits, including 26,000 in the mainspace. Among these are many articles about the broad area of Central and Eastern Europe, a topic area that has generated many heated debates over the years. He has earned a reputation there as a person who has brought consensus, an outstanding example of professionalism, dedication, and focus on matters of encyclopedic importance, as opposed to superficiality, partisanship, and ephemeral interest. Without putting on a mask of false neutrality, his edits are a formidable example how a informative neutral tone and proper sourcing for the views of both—or even more—sides in a disagreement can accommodate conflicting opinions, without imposing upon the reader any favoritism towards one side.

Biruitorul demonstrates an openness to hear all arguments, meaning that when you get an admonishment from him, it is a fair bet that you are way out of line. Yet a simple warning, when disposed of with good judgment and restraint, usually has a greater effect than a more ferocious threat. This is especially so when that warning comes from a person who patiently bore all rudeness to sort through to the smallest grain of substance that a user might be bringing. This openness of his to hear 99% rubbish in order to earn the 1% of information in order to enrich WP caused Biruitorul to receive some criticism 15 months ago, when he was first proposed for sysop. Biruitorul said then he would follow through on giving more warnings to vandals, and more readily. The other criticism of his at the time was lack of experience as a registered user (just under a year back then), something long since met, as his record shows.

This is a joint proposal by several users who sign in a random order. Dc76\^talk 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC), Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To this I would like to add: my politics are almost diametrically opposed to Biruitorul's, but his edits are so evenhanded that I known only because we got into an explicitly political discussion on the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. It speaks volumes when you can read the writing on controversial topics by a person with whom you would personally disagree (strongly) about those topics, and find nothing to criticize (and much to praise) in those edits. I cannot think of a contributor to Wikipedia I would more expect to "do the right thing" at all times. I cannot think of a contributor I would more trust with the responsibilities of an administrator. - Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The issues raised at the previous RFA have been resolved by now. This user shows remarkable restraint in controversial topics and does not let his POV interfere with his edits. I may disagree with him on certain issues, but I do not believe that he will abuse administrator privileges, once granted them. In fact, considering the vast number of useful edits he has made, I think he should've been granted adminship a long time ago. Additional responsibility will only do him good. Therefore, I join Dc76 and Jmabel in this proposal. --Illythr (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I was going to delay until mid-April, but the crush of support has induced me, like my equally-unwilling predecessor, to humbly accept the poisoned chalice of power. Biruitorul (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional statement: (I'll use this space to address some of the concerns raised by opposing voters.) 1. Yes, I did take a break in February, which is why this RfA should have waited a bit, but I am back in action, and usually am. 2. Since my previous RfA (November 2006), I have used edit summaries for probably 99.5% of my non-minor mainspace edits (the other 0.5% being due to hitting "save page" too early). I simply do not consider it necessary to write "removed stray comma" or "added diacritic" but if that is the petty criterion that keeps me off the admin team, then so be it. I have now committed to using summaries for all edits. 3. I admit to being a nationalist, but I challenge users to bring forward a single example of where that has coloured my mainspace edits (those that really matter). Biruitorul (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (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: Closing AfDs (I do lean in the deletionist direction but, ceteris paribus, intend to respect consensus in discussions), carefully applying WP:CSD to new pages that deserve it, taking care of prods. Moreover, almost two years into my wiki-career, I find there's stuff I want to do quickly but ends up being an inconvenience because I don't have the tools - moving pages that can't normally be moved, making minor edits to protected pages, deleting orphaned images... Sure, one can always bother administrators to do the job, but by now I think I know what I'm doing and can be trusted. Of course, I'd also be glad to help with such tasks should users ask. In sum: I'm not dying for this position, but I can be of some use in it, and there's no real question of my acting erratically in it. Biruitorul (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

A: Well, aside from the above-mentioned Boganda piece, this stuff is pretty good: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, plus an FL. I'm glad to have been able to take part in improving our coverage of Romania with such varied articles as Dealul Mitropoliei, Union Monument, Iaşi and July Theses. (All articles here.) I enjoy translating well-written articles from French and Romanian (translation is something we should be doing more of), as well as constructing articles on my own. I try and make sure my contributions aren't repetitive, boring, or transitory in nature, but instead add some lasting value to the encyclopedia. Biruitorul (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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 was involved in a long and bitter dispute with User:Anonimu. He was banned by the ArbCom and indefinitely blocked, while I was found to have committed no wrongdoing. As a rule, when I do enter into an editing dispute, I reason over the matter until some acceptable solution is found - sometimes quite congenially, other times more robustly. Biruitorul (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!) Partially lifted from Wisdom89, Dlohcierekim, Tawker, Benon, Tiptoey, and everyone else.

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

A: This isn't a massive change like banning IP editors would be (though on balance that should continue to at least be discussed), and wouldn't have a dramatic impact, but I think making new users wait 4 days before allowing them to create a page (like we make them wait to edit semi-protected pages) would be a common-sense step that would help cut down substantially on the number of junk & advertising pages being uploaded here. Biruitorul (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

5. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? When would the "snowball clause" apply to an AFD or a RFA, if at all?

A: I'm an enormous supporter of WP:IAR - I think Wikipedia is becoming more and more bogged down by patently pettifogging pedants who revel in the minutiae of guidelines while easily losing sight of the big picture, and who dismiss IAR whenever it is brought up (which is, sadly, with increasing rarity). Rules are important, but it's important not to lose sight of the big picture that building an encyclopedia is, and to be relaxed, to have fun doing it - there's altogether too much stringency and lack of camaraderie these days. WP:SNOW can often be useful, but there's always the Twelve Angry Men possibility - the chance that the one dogged opponent has the correct argument and might be able to bring the others to his side. Biruitorul (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

6. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol 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 behavior?

A: Yes, I think I have generally shown myself to be quite level-headed under pressure. Biruitorul (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Will you list yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open for recall?

A: I intend to. I'd ask for serious reasons for recall, but if there were consensus in its favour, I would not stand in the way. To be precise, a written paragraph (no more than 3-4 sentences would suffice) from five users explaining their demand for a recall would trigger one for me. Biruitorul (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from Malinaccier (talk)

8. Should there be an age limit for editing Wikipedia? For requesting adminship? Bureaucratship?

A. I think 10, 12 and 16 respectively would be appropriate limits; however, given the nature of the Internet, "emotional maturity" can and should suffice as limits. Biruitorul (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from Argyriou (talk)

9. Several editors have brought up your support for Romanian nationalism. Nationalists from southeast Europe have been one of the worst plagues of Wikipedia, and many (inluding me) are justifiably concerned that you might place your POV over the interests of creating a high-quality article, despite the assurance by your co-nom Illythr that you don't. Can you show cases of "editing against interest" - places where you've made edits which have the effect of weakening the case for your political views or strengthening the case for your political opponents, where the edit was not undoing crudely obvious spam/vandalism/POV ?

A: By all means: see my votes here, here, here and here. Rest assured, I have always sought to apply Wikipedia policy, not my personal views. Biruitorul (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly

10. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A. No. Biruitorul (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

11. Why do you think that?

A. No question is stupid. Biruitorul (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

12. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A. Never mind. Biruitorul (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorly (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from OhanaUnited Inspired by optional RfA questions on Chinese Wikipedia

13. What are your views on admins who are not of legal age?

A. I believe User:Anonymous Dissident became an administrator at 12, and he's been superb, and if I recall correctly, the excellent User:Nishkid64 was 17 when promoted. So I would say that adolescents can make great administrators, provided they show emotional and intellectual maturity prior to promotion. Biruitorul (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

14. Should a mentally ill editor become an admin? Why? Do you think this would affect the creditability of Wikipedia?

A. I think a lot of that depends on the mental illness in question. For instance, if the person has bipolar disorder but is regularly taking medication, I would support such a candidate, provided his editing behaviour had been consistent with that of what I would expect from any potential admin. On the other hand, a user who had schizophrenia and was untreated at the time of his RfA would probably not make a suitable candidate, given that adminship really does require sound judgment. In sum: I judge these matters on a case-by-case basis and cannot make a blanket pronouncement. If the illness allowed the individual to perform admin duties reasonably well, then I do not believe it should be a bar to holding the position, given that such individuals can still make positive contributions here. No, I don't think this would impact our credibility: procedures are in place to sack rogue admins, and if a mentally ill admin were doing her job responsibly, I think that would actually be a testament to our open-mindedness, to our enriching human knowledge through people of all sorts of backgrounds. Biruitorul (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Relata refero

15 Would you think it wise to recuse yourself from performing administrative functions in any areas of the encyclopaedia? If so, which areas would those be and why?

A. Yes, if I had a conflict of interest. For instance, if someone nominated an article of mine for deletion, I would not be the one to close the AfD on it. The rationale behind this is WP:COI. Biruitorul (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Dweller

16. For the sake of those (like me) who might be curious but lacking time to trawl your contrib history, could you please list links to the last five XfDs you made significant contributions to before this RfA began. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A. Yes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Illythr

17. What do you think about the vote in support of your adminship by a banned user via a sockpuppet account? :-) --Illythr (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A. I presume innocence, but in case guilt is found, I would sadly call for that vote to be struck. Biruitorul (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18. to quote yourself: "I admit to being a nationalist, but I challenge users to bring forward a single example of where that has coloured my mainspace edits (those that really matter).", which edits don't really matter, and why is it ok then? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A. Sorry, that statement of mine was slightly off. XfD & RM votes also matter, as they affect the mainspace, and serious talk page discussions that end up in mainspace changes also matter. Other stuff, like this edit helpfully supplied by Illythr, is merely incidental. Of course, WP:FORUM, and I think you'll see the great majority of my edits are serious contributions, but if I throw out some talk-page or noticeboard comments every once in a while that reflect my personal opinions, as long as it's done in a tasteful, restrained and putatively erudite manner, I think that's quite inoffensive. Biruitorul (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from thright 19. Its 3am no one is around. You come to a red light. There is no chance of hitting another car nor is there any chance of gettiing a ticket. Do you go through the red light?Thright (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright

A. I don't drive. Biruitorul (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

20. It's 3am and the phone rings, who do you want to pick up the phone? -- AdrianTM (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (strike: immature joke)

A. Lyndon LaRouche. (Well, that's an immature joke too, but who knows, it could bring me a couple of LaRouchite votes...) Biruitorul (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Mrg3105 20. You are aware of the current issues in naming the article Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive. How would you resolve them?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A. As with most other debates, this one can and should be solved through argumentation, debate, logic, facts and reason - as well as a calm, civil deportment. So far that appears to be happening, and seems a great example of persuasive reasoning in action. Of course the poll gives us a quick idea of where editors' preferences lie, but relying on it alone can be dangerous, and the bulk of consideration should be given to the source-based debate, over multiple paragraphs and many days, whereby a broad consensus by involved editors will hopefully be reached at some point. Should the debate stall intractably, one might consider mediation or arbitration, but as those avenues generally do not hinge on content disputes, and as the dispute is at this stage content-based alone (ie, policy is not being violated), those requests would likely fail. There is also the option of a content RfC, bringing in more outside views, and that might be a happy choice - not everyone here has heard of the dispute, and a fresh perspective might yield new solutions, allowing the matter to go forward. Biruitorul (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

21. You are aware though that during the first attempt to move the page (in which you participated) after it was summarily renamed into Romanian with no discussion or even a formal request to move, despite sources offered and arguments presented the outcome was ended by a poll where those opposing the move were predominantly Romanian editors, some of whom only contribute in Romanian Wiki, and had contributed noting to the discussion. Do you think consensus is defined by numbers alone?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A: I gave you a fair answer the first time, but you went ahead and voted against me anyway, because for two months now you've been relentlessly pushing this trivial vendetta about I-C/J-K and "deduced", from one policy, source and logic-based answer I gave there, that I don't "practice what I preach", which is nonsense, given I have always sought to promote such arguments. I just stated, and I state again: "relying on [polls] alone can be dangerous". However, your assertion that Romanian editors can't be trusted to weigh in impartially on the topic is disgusting. Biruitorul (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

22. What do you think is more important in evaluating an argument: a) objective consideration of the supporting evidence, how evidence is presented (with possible incivility), how you interpret Wikipedia policy and guidelines?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A: I think ideally, both work in tandem. You need evidence objectively, but you also need adherence to policy. Being right doesn't excuse incivility, but following process can sometimes obscure the wider historiographical picture. Biruitorul (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

23 How would you treat a user like user:mrg3105 who renames in a day 50+ pages removing all diacritics with the argument that "English doesn't have diacritics"? -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A: I would warn him a couple of times not to make mass page moves, to discuss the issue first, and if he persisted, block for disruption. Biruitorul (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Biruitorul
• Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support -- Contributor of encyclopedic breadth, shown good judgement, good person to collaborate with. AdrianTM (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - as nom. Illythr (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I supported the previous time and it was not a "weak" support. This time he has improved in all aspects, but adjectives in votes work like advertisements, so I'll refrain. NikoSilver 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
4. I have had the pleasure of editing alongside Biruitorul for a long while now. He is a highly competent, highly intelligent, and unmistakably gentlemanly contributor, who has the rare trait of actively seeking to build bridges between editors of all nationalities, creeds, and mainstream political opinions, with the evident goal of generating superior and well-balanced content. I, like others who have expressed support for him, share little of his views on politics, but I have never seen him seeping in any content that would have been solely favored by his political opinions (or any political opinions for that matter), and I have witnessed him actively collecting and introducing reliable sources of all colors and presenting them neutrally and informatively. I have also seen him removing content that did not fit with wikipedia's policies, regardless of its political POV (or of his supposed one). Whenever we did elaborate on our respective political options (which is how I got to know his), it was amiably, and only around the various topics we discussed on our talk pages (or a select few other talk pages), and certainly not in mainspace. In the process, I had the pleasure to discover that, although we could never agree on political issues, his opinions are by no means extreme (under any definition of the term), and his outlook on life is more tolerant than that of many users who declare themselves more to the center. Dahn (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Now, I am saddened by the number of voters so far who have rejected this candidate based solely or mostly on his political preferences, especially given that those political preferences are speculated, and, as stated, have nothing to do with his or their task of writing an encyclopedia. Biruitorul and all other users should not be rejected because of what they believe in, but because of how they act, and act where it matters. Furthermore, aside from a couple of political choices I imagine exclude themselves (such as being a racist, a fascist or a self-declared supporter of Hamas), no ideology should be invoked in rejecting a candidature. There are many ideologies I do not agree with (and with which few others do) who are nonetheless represented in the admin community, and wo do not interfere with the way wikipedia works.

   With due apologies for taking up this much space here, allow me to note two other things. One is that being "a nationalist" is not a problematic stance in itself, and may even place that person in a middle-of-the-road position (depending on what accompanies it). The other is that perhaps most Romanian wikpedians would state they are nationalists, and would therefore be "excluded" from being elected - but, in my opinion, none but Biruitorul have the competences required or implied. Aside from being competent, Biruitorul is a welcoming, neutral editor who masters the English language to perfection. In my view, he is one of the less tan a dozen Romanian editors who display all these traits together. Dahn (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Dahn, I thought I made it clear in my comment that what concerns me is not Biru's political preferences but their effect on his Wikipedia actions. I saw him acting upon his beliefs rather than the spirit of WP policies. That's not uncommon among the editors and, as an editor he does not raise my concerns. Please allow for the possibility that my objections are honest, well considered and not at all adversary to Biru. Thanks, --Irpen 02:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Irpen, I never meant to imply you're dishonest, ill-considered, or a man with an agenda. It was clear to me you meant to say that these supposed opinions of his had a consequence on the project. But I do believe you're wrong, and that no such conclusion could be drawn from Biruitorul's actions. Dahn (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Whoever added this comment needs to sign it or it may be discarded. !votes need to signed.Balloonman (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Support Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Just out of curiosity, why is no one giving a reason for support? Not that its a big deal... Tiptoety ^talk 01:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC) looks like someone expanded upon their support. Tiptoety ^talk 02:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   • Don't know about the others, but I made my comments above, where I nominated him. - Jmabel | Talk 07:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

6. Support Strong opinions (in and of themselves) do nothing to harm the credibility of an admin candidate. These are the stuff of Dragons, and with a level head make for great admins. I have minor reservations about edit summaries (sure you know why you made the edit, but what about the editor tracking down vandalism?) but it's not exactly disqualification material. Adam McCormick (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Support. This was an RfA I was disappointed to see fail last time, I would support enthusiastically now. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 02:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Weak Support. Good user, good contribs, not 100% confident though. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Dlohcierekim 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support --Hillock65 (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong Support. Biruitorul is one of the finest Wikipedians I've had the pleasure to work with in my year and a half on this project. He is a gentleman of exceptional intelligence, breadth of knowledge, integrity, honesty and diligence. His contributions are of a consistently high quality and his seriousness and dedication to this project can hardly be called into question. The complaints that his strong political opinions would be a detriment to his skill as an admin are ludicrous: in all the time I have known Biru, well over a year, I have always been struck by his ability to keep his personal views and his mainspace contributions separate. From the first time I encountered him (killing time by reading a freewheeling political discussion on the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board) to our tentative early association (mostly bickering amicably about Székely autonomy at two in the morning) through various slings and arrows of Wikipedian drama and the arrival at our current status as trusted colleagues and close comrades-in-arms, I have never known him to be anything but civil, articulate and professional; the very few times he has lost his temper were only after significant provocation. Let me stress this again: in all the time I have known him, I have never seen any compelling evidence to suggest that his personal opinions will in any way impair his effectiveness and trustworthiness as an administrator. (Indeed, I dare say he, the conservative nationalist, is a good deal more open-minded than many self-described liberal internationalists I know.) Those who oppose this exemplary contributor's candidacy for adminship based solely on his political opinions, I challenge you to present any evidence that a Romanian nationalist, and specifically this Romanian nationalist, is incapable of seeing far enough beyond his own proudly Dacian nose to be a successful admin. I think that, once you actually look beyond his userboxes and look at his contributions to this project, you'll have trouble justifying your fears. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Support: We need more administrators from this part of the world. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Support, as my experiences with him are always pleasent. However, this RFA is sadly going to fail, because that's the way RFAs on CE/EE editors end out - ethnic bickering. Will ^(talk) 08:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. Great editor who are personally responsible for many awesome articles. I will always support good candidates who create articles, not permanent opposers who didn't created single thing. - Darwinek (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Weak Support, edit summary usage (or lack thereof) is worrying, however there is no reason to believe this user would intentionally misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC).
17. Support Comprehensive experience, admirable even-handedness, very unlikely to abuse tools. I find the oppose !votes based on a user's personal beliefs absolutely reprehensible. скоморохъ 14:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Support as per K.Lásztocska. I have worked with Biru on many occasions and speak from firsthand experience. Biru's ethnicity has demonstrably NOT hindered the quality of his contribution. Biru has always offered up and been persuaded by reason. Despite (per Sceptre) the notorious difficulty of Central European editors to avoid overheated debate (EE/CE is a very noisy pub), there are some very good Central European editors and this is one of them.István (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Support per above and even more due to my personal experience. This mop shall not be abused :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - good user, good contrib, fights vandals...what more could one want? Good luck --Camaeron (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak support - accidentally added the above to the wrong Rfa! ONly a weak support for this user sorry. Good contribs but not 100 convinced! --Camaeron (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Support.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Support a great mainspace editor, my interactions with him have been constantly positive. He has made many small edits and many important ones, showing that he his far from monothematic like quite a lot of Balkan-oriented editors. Personally, I also find him very polite, which is all the more remarkable in an area where uncivility tends to be pervasive.--Aldux (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Support A fine editor, with vast knowledge, capability, a good attitude and experience. - Modernist (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Support I feel he would use the tools correctly and responsibly. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Support as nom. Dc76\^talk 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Wow. Lastochka wrote such a good support that anything I can say would be redundant. Support per her. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:57 8 March, 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Given the transparency of his political views, I doubt that as an admin, Biruitorul would abuse the tools to further his own personal agenda. Also, I have put up Barthélemy Boganda for FA consideration now. Excellent work there, Biruitorul. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 03:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Support After perusing your contributions and seeing your involvement with not only editing to Wikipedia but participating in Wikipedia related areas I feel comfortable supporting you and your use for the tools despite some of the concerns raised by the opposes below. --Ozgod (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Still have some reservations, but Joe as nominator and candidate's commitment toward edit summary usage persuades me. Hopefully, this will also underscore to some of his compatriots that I am not out to get them (EE is a minor area of editing for me, at any rate). El_C 07:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

    Nice to see that true neutrality gets a fair vote. Dpotop (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, what are you trying to say? I don't understand what you mean. El_C 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

30. Weak support - seems OK... —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Support A neutral editor on subjects that badly need neutrality. Dpotop (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Support. I have found Biruitorul to be well-informed, open-minded and courteous. He will be a still greater asset to Wikipedia in an administrative capacity. Nihil novi (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Strong support – for similar reasons to my support for his previous candidacy. Although my political opinions are almost diametrically-opposing to his, I have found Biruitorul to be highly professional when it comes to editing articles in the main namespace. Furthermore, his emphasis on dialogue and co-operation represents a core competence required by admins. Ronline ✉ 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Strong support – as per Nihil novi, K. Lásztocska and Ronline. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  13:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Strong support. per Nihil novi, K. Lásztocska. With regards to some of the "oppose" votes concerned over "natonalism", Biru's editorial conduct is always courteous, inclusive, and informed and is one of the finest examples of "nationalism" meaning: motivated, informed, and informing through reputable sources and edits and letting those sources do the speaking. Not "nationalism" meaning slanted, twisted, disreputable POV pushing of agendas that have their basis only in opinion. Let's stop using "nationalism" as if it's a dirty word. On concerns over admin tool abuse, as he has indicated he is open to recall, the editorial community does have recourse should his use of tools reflect bias. (I agree with Illythr.) —PētersV (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)—PētersV (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Support – Great contributor - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Sorry about that...that hadn't crossed my mind. Anyway, I'm glad we got that cleared up. (Just in case anyone asks, I'm discussing the comment on my userpage. Spencer^T♦C 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
38. Support as per nom and Vecrumba Horlo (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Strong support To reject a user with a record as good as this, who has hewed immaculately to NPOV while holding such strong opinions, would send an unmistakable message that some personal views are disallowed within the Wikipedia community, regardless of how a user conducts himself. I recently left a question on his talk page, regarding a view he held, and received a prompt, polite, reasoned response within minutes. A clear model of the type of editor whose personal passions drive him toward a greater respect and understanding for NPOV than most will ever possess. Mr. IP (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
40. support answer to Q9 has satisfied me that he will not abuse the tools to advance his POV; everything else satisfies me that he will not abuse the tools for the sake of being an asshole. Argyriou (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
41. strong support Biruitorul has proven time and time again that he has all the qualities required for a good administrator. He has encyclopedic knowledge. He has experience with Wikipedia and has demonstrated that he understands the spirit of Wikipedia as well as the rules. He has a sound judgement and was able to use it in discussing delicate issues, showing that he can keep a balance. I admire him, not only because he has strong views but because those views do not prevent him from using his reason. Wikipedia has nothing but to gain by having such administrators. I hope he is successful in his bid for a position for which he is overqualified and which he fully deserves. Afil (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
42. Support You won this vote for your answers to Q13 and 14. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
43. support on the basis of support given by others more involved in these topics whose judgments I trust here, especially Piotrus. DGG (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. I had a couple of arguments with Biruitorul in the past. He was reasonable, fair and ready to listen.Biophys (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. Imho the central issues are: (i) Will he use the tools wisely and (ii), is there any danger he might abuse the tools. My answer: (i): yes, (ii): no. Therefore I support. --Abrech (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
46. Strong support. Abrech said what I was going to say, no fair! Seriously, this editor in good standing may have a strong POV, but then so do most of us. He has shown for years that he is not an abusive POV pusher. Good faith doesn't even need to be assumed here; it has been amply demonstrated. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
47. Support per my stricken !vote below. Húsönd 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Support good user. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
49. Support. I believe the ideal NPOV is achieved within each editor, rather than through negotiation, and Biruitorul is one of the very few able to do that, despite having his personal political views. This ability to judge things impartially is --- or should be --- a highly valued quality for any editor and even more so for the admins. I read all the oppose comments and couldn't find any argument against giving Biruitorul the mop. He's is one of the finest editors I crossed paths with, he's knowledgeable and polite, he's admirably capable to work with others towards reaching consensus as well as accept a consensus he doesn't entirely agree with. He will certainly be a good admin, a model for other admins to follow, and an asset to Wikipedia. — AdiJapan ☎ 09:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: That, more or less, is the plan. --Illythr (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

50. Support. A competent and courteous editor with a good sense of judgement and always ready to listen, he gets my full support. Martintg (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Nothing wrong with having strong opinions as long as you don't transfer that into the article space, and I haven't seen any evidence of Biruitorul doing that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - I like his answers, he appears to be a strong editor. I do, however, recommend that you set edit summary usage in your preferences, so that it alerts you when you've forgotten to place one. Edit summaries should always be used as a courtesy. Lara❤Love 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    "Can she play the balalaika? She's an artist!" (I re-watched last night the DVD.) :-) I suppose you are well aware that Zhiv means alive, and Biruitorul means the winner. Dc76\^talk 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Support --AtomAtom (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Sock of banned user:Bonaparte. 21:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

53. Support - per Vecrumba. And all the others also. He would be a good admin. Ostap 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. Wow, this one took a long time to research. Had to come and go to read more and think about it. While some concerns are semi-valid, I kept coming back to a support opinion. I made my decision when I read Pedro's observation: "Categorical evidence that he is likely to be over zealous with admin tools in his prefered editing arena has not been demonstrated.". I believe this is true. Just keep vigilent about those edit summaries (even if you don't agree, be a good sport and humor the rest of us who do find them important) and you'll be a fine admin. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
55. Support - main reason for oppose seems to be "user is Romanian". I really, really hope the closing bureaucrat takes this into account. Neıl ☎ 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    What a misleading presentation of objections and a grossly inappropriate attack on the opponents of this RfA from an experienced editor! --Irpen 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Methinks thou doth protest too much! Biruitorul (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Come on, Biruitorul, this is your RfA, not the place to be baiting other users. Seriously! Well, that's how your comment above appears to me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    I believe I made a rather effective zinger that took quite a bit of wind out of Irpen's inflated sails. Neil had the courage to say what we were all thinking - that I'm being opposed on ethnic or ideological grounds (NB: not in every case), and that red herrings like AfD opinions or being "scary" are acting as surrogates to sink a qualified nominee with broad appeal. With all due respect (and, I assure you, no bitterness), it's rather farcical, and if I must go down, I'll do so standing on my record. Biruitorul (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Irpen, please compare Biru's remark above :-) and the one I "composed" in meantime :-( :

    Irpen, really, calm down, please. Maybe even the idea to propose Biruitorul for RfA crossing someone's mind is already a "grossly inappropriate attack on the opponents"? Honestly, do you know the meaning of the word chivalry ? Why does every Romanian have to suffer because the most prolific banned sockpupetry is run by a Romanian (User:Bonaparte). When I only got to WP, you almost banned me as a sock Bonny. Yet, you've never been able to stop Bonny for good. Is it really that you have no tools to do so, or it is easier to blame other Romanians when Bonny comes around for a few hours again and again? Come on, you've got to stop both Bonny and Bonny-"hysteria" for good. "Romanian" is not a synonym to "sock of Bonny" or "friend of Bonny" or "minded like Bonny". Frankly, I don't mind you think of me like that, at least I have crossed you. But have more decency when you mention Biruitorul; when did he do any edit that is nationalism? When you dismiss him for nationalist/patriotic opinions (not edits), you practically accuse him of thoughtcrime. Dc76\^talk 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Neil, I hope you realise that it appears you have just launched an open allegation of racism ... sorry Biruitorul ... xenophobia ... against all opposes. Did you have any opposes specifically in mind? I must confess Neil this is a rather shocking remark. I mean, even if you suspected this to be accurate, I'd have thought you would have kept such suspicions to yourself for the purposes at least of WP:AGF never mind WP:NPA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Neil, don't criticize remarks by the opposes, or you will be a "racist". At least in 1984 they called it "thoughtcrime", did not mind to hide around other terms. Deacon, is it so difficult to say "Neil, you are wrong, I am opposing Biruitorul, but I give you my word, it has nothing to do with him being a Romanian"? That's how a knight answers! Dc76\^talk 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    I have to agree with Neil's blunt assessment. Martintg (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    I think the argument is more like "the user has strong POV and he is not hypocrite like the rest of the people who hide their POV and pretend to be "unbiased" especially in issues that are related to their POV" But I might be wrong... -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    I stand by my comment, and the nature of the objections (I'm "grossly inappropriate"? A "racist"? A "xenophobe"?) to such a support vote reinforce it. Any failures to assume good faith are in those who have opposed Biruitorul on the assumption that his personal feelings will preclude his ability to act in a neutral and considered manner. I cannot find any evidence that his editing has been non-neutral or biased, and so will assume good faith and surmise his mopping would similarly be careful and considered. Neıl ☎ 07:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    There is a difference between "User is Romanian" and "User is a Romanian nationalist and I believe that will affect his judgment as an admin". The latter is a valid, if subjective, concern. The former is, well... --Illythr (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Odd that we never seem to see concerns expressed about Russian nationalists here on Wikipedia, given the number of Russian admins here, so why would a Romanian be any less trustworthy? No evidence has been presented that is would be any more of an issue for Biruitorul than it is for either admins Mikkalai, or Alex Bakharev, for that matter. --Martintg (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Why, you are welcome to raise one yourself if you want, although I think you picked the wrong users to label with "Russian nationalism". Point is, they don't vote against him because he's Romanian, or because he loves his country "beyond all rational bounds" as mikka put it, but because they think that sentiment will influence his work as an admin. I can not understand why Biruitorul chooses to antagonize these users even further instead of demonstrating his good intent and open-mindedness expected of any aspiring admin. --Illythr (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sure that Mikka and Alex love their country no less than Biruitorul. How is Biruitorul choosing to antagonize these users "even further"? And in what way hasn't he demonstrated his good intent and open-mindedness? Martintg (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    I see no need in trying to explain this to you. Should Biruitorul show any interest in my opinion or advice on his behavior, I will be happy to share it with him. --Illythr (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Why not explain it here, you brought up this spectre of alleged antagonistic behaviour, lack of good intent and open-mindedness in the first place. I know you support his candidacy, but it seems that some who oppose him are doing so on the basis of FUD about his personal political viewpoint, while ignoring his personal integrity, record or conduct. Martintg (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    I concur with Martintg, it would be best if you spoke your mind in the open, Illythr. If Biruitorul "antagonizes further" someone who oposes him during his RfA, chances are he would antagonizes some user who would opose him as an admin. So, I am very sorry Illythr, but you will have to speak for everyone to see in which ways Biruitorul's behavior here was confrontational. We have crucified him so far, no point stopping now. Here we are, me and Martintg keep his hand, you nail. We will all go to hell for this anyway... Dc76\^talk 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Seeing as how RFA votes are little more than a collection of opinions of various editors, it is natural that some of them may be unfounded or misguided. I think that an important quality of an admin is an ability to be polite with his opposition and be able to mount a constructive attempt at convicing such editors that they are in error. Certainly *not* try to convince everyone else that those editors are acting in bad faith and that their opinions should be disregarded, as inconstructive comments like "Methinks thou doth protest too much!", "had the courage to say what we were all thinking", "relentless, unmotivated browbeating", parallels with "Lukashenka's paradise", or calling opposing arguments a farce (even if they are) seem to imply. Looks like Mukkaderat had voiced most of the other such concerns for me. :-) --Illythr (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Neil, with all due respect, you can't lauch open accusations of anti-Romanian xenophia against all opposes and then get on a high horse about assuming good faith. Doesn't work! While many of the opposes may indeed be "unfair", as they often are in these RfAs, that doesn't call for accusing the opposes of xenophobia against Romanians. You don't do Biruitorul any favours either as no objective reader is going to get that from the opposes, so you just look like you're being unfair. I ask you again, were you thinking of any specific opposes that were motivated by anti-Romanian sentiment? Is Irpen's oppose racism, my oppose, Mikka's oppose, Alex Bakharev's oppose, Wisdom's? I mean, help me out here.

    I'm "grossly inappropriate"? A "racist"? A "xenophobe"?

    Goodness me, what are you talking about? Care to point to such accusations against you. None on this RfA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Neil said that those who opposed Biruitorul used those words and let me bring the proof, you used "xenophobic" word first in this RfA: "so that your xenophobic comments about Russians and Bulgarians don't count as "racist"" -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    No he didn't. Please re-read his comments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    [1] shows the uses of these terms, Deacon (two from you, one from Irpen). You did not call me a racist or a xenophobe - you suggested I was accusing opposers of being so. Kindly do not put words in my mouth - I did no such thing. A number of opposers are conflating the holding of opinions ("User is Romanian") with a capacity to use the admin tools appropriately. This is faulty logic. Any more problems, please take them to my talk page rather than cluttering this RFA. Neıl ☎ 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry Neil, pulling you up for accusations against others of xenophobia (what happened), etc, is not even vaguely related to accusing you of the same things, which hasn't happened (but which you claim has happened here and here). I'm gonna assume you aren't being disingenuous, so I'd ask you to read more carefully. Also, I ask you once again, were you thinking of any specific opposes that were motivated by anti-Romanian sentiment? It'd be nice if you justified your comment; if not it might be better if you scored the accusation out. In response to your new comments in the edited version of the response above, how exactly is main reason for oppose seems to be "user is Romanian". not an open accusation of xenophobia against the opposes? That's what it looks like to me! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Although I stand by every word I said, I would like to express my regret for heating up the debate. Whoever placed the tag at the very top is absolutely right, and my sincere sorry is addressed especially to such-minded editors. I doubt that more than 20% of those participating in this RfA do not know about the Eastern and Central European area of controvercy, the so-called Irpen-Piotrus War. :-) Me reminding it was unnecessary. I sincerely hoped they wouldn't drag Biruitorul in that continuous skirmish, and I am very sorry I might have helped them do exactly that. Dc76\^talk 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    I guess I should also say a word here as I was the first to oppose due to Biruitorul's nationalism. I don't think that Neil should have said that people are opposing Biruitorul because he's Romanian. That's not only a wrong interpretation of the opposers' arguments, as it's also slightly offensive. Nobody has anything against Romanians, just worries about the effects of excessive nationalism. And that's perfectly valid in my opinion. Ironically, I had changed my position to support. Frankly, I hope that Neil just used a bad choice of words. Húsönd 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Well, let's not pretend we do not understand why they opposed: because he has strong political views, and those seem to be just oposite to Irpen and Mikkalai's take on several questions. They believe he edits based on, or at least not independent from his political POV, as 99% of wikipedians, me and many of you including, do. Biruitorul dared say them in the open, he never denied them. Note, these are the views of a very educated Romanian. The opposes fail to see the person behind the view, they believe that stripped of political view a person is zero. This might not be so far from the truth in most of wikipedians... :-) But it is not the case for Biruitorul.Dc76\^talk 23:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    People are entitled to express their opinions without being insulted; Neil support comment strikes me as a provocation. El_C 09:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    I am very sorry to have infatuated the spirits. I tend to speak my mind 100% sincerely. But that's not a good thing in life. Especially when by doing that I harm people who without me would have been better off. It is not excluded that my comments here alone have costed Biruitorul very dearly.

    El_C, I've known you as an even-handed admin, and whatever happens here won't change this convinction of mine. Your behavior in the mainspace is admirable. Respectfully, I'd like to disagree that Neil's comment was an insult.Dc76\^talk 22:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Weak Support switching to oppose in the light of apparent canvassing (changed from neutral) I still have some niggling doubts (but not many). However, the candidate's new specific promise on recall swings the pendulum just enough to tip my vote Mayalld (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

56. Strong Support. Balanced and true to sources rather then "political correctness".Megistias (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
57. Seems like a good editor. Acalamari 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
58. Going based on what I've seen from him. Wizardman 17:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
59. Bearing in mind the reasons for oppose, I do support this candidate, because I think I've seen much more good than bad. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
60. Weak support - more plusses than negatives. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. Well answered. Salut, Basketball110 03:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
62. Support. --Kober^Talk 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
63. Support. All the comments I could add I already added when he was first nominated: even though his political views are completely opposite mine, he never got into a fight with me or any other Hungarians. He can be neutral, and that's the most important here. – Alensha ^talk 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
64. Support. I know his activity, he is a valuable contributor.--MariusM (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
65. Support. Some of the oppose votes note the editor's strong POV. I have no problem with strong POVs as long as neutrality is adhered to in edits (as well as admin actions). The barometer that persuades me is El_C's vote, since he has experience editing on the other side of Biruitorul and finds him as trustworthy for this role. --MPerel 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
66. Support, one of the best contributors on Wikipedia. Tymek (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
67. Support. Everybody's from somewhere, guys. An admin whose regional bias influences their official activities can and should be admonished, sanctioned, or de-sysopped, as necessary. However, I do not believe this candidate is likely to abuse the tools in that manner. I strongly urge the candidate to tread lightly in their admin activities, and to very deliberately avoid areas where there may even be the appearance of impropriety - we have plenty of admins, and handing off a tricky or regionally-controversial issue is no problem at all. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Please allow me to respectfully disagree. It is very difficult to desysop someone unless blatant violation. You "strongly urge the candidate", yet they refuse to take upon them an explicit obligation to avoid very narrowly defined areas, and I don't very like this. It is one thing to have an Austrian admin who loves their Alps very much. It is a totally different issue in the area when quite a few editors insist that the usage of the term Moldovan language should be forbidden. A sensitive area must be given a chance to avoid an extra drama, and this has nothing to do with bad feelings toward Biruitorul or to Romanians who want to reunite Romania and Moldova. there are may ways to tilt the POV balance by apparntly legal means. For example, to declare Romanian newspapers as "good source" and to declare Moldova and Moldovan government as "communist haven" (see Vladimir Voronin) and hence untrutworthy books and newspapers. Mukadderat (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Except that I've a) opened myself to recall and b) never called for keeping the Moldovenist view off Wikipedia (absurd though I may privately consider it). Biruitorul (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry to intrude, but have you seen Biruitorul doing what you just described on any of these articles? Don't you realize that as an admin, the chance of him editing these articles other than reverting Bonaparte's socks would be very slim? He might, now and then, add a comma, correct a speling, organize biblio in normal format, urge the other editors to work on something. But I think he wouldn't as much as change an innocent adjective. If he ever had a plan to edit those articles more than grammatically, with the start of this RfA, he can kiss his thoughts good bye. Dc76\^talk 21:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    I am very surprized the high level of mutual misunderstanding in this page. No one wants to deprive Biruitorul of rights to edit these pages or revert vandals. Just the same, from your retort I may conclude that he will abandon editing these articles with the special purpose to have his hands free to enforce prevalence of other Romanian editors by admin actions, since he does not want to increase his vote count by stating that he will not intervene as admin there. So on the contrary, his edits are very welcome in these areas, since the existing policies will prevent him from he-as-admin intervention, but he is very free to advance his nationalism in well-referenced manner. I may only conclude that all this fuss is about a hurt ego which feels an attempt their arms to be unjustly tied. Please believe I feel very uneasy apparently acting against a good editor. I see that much worse people were granted admin status (if you look into statistics of de-adminship). But I feel that it is an issue of principle here: so far I didn't see any convincing arguments against Mikka's proposal other than WP:AGF. Regretfully, I cannot accept applicability of WP:AGF here because we are discussing a decision which is very difficult to revert. And Biruitorul (and their defendants) didn't make a single counter-offer towards a compromise in this aspect, which is also a bad sign. Mukadderat (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    1) Let's say it again: I have opened myself to recall. I consider that enough of a "counter-offer". 2) "He is very free to advance his nationalism in well-referenced manner" - ? I'm sorry, but where, pray tell, have I used the mainspace to "advance" my nationalism? 3) I am not "they", I am "he". Biruitorul (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Let's back up a tic. I "strongly urged" the candidate because it is beyond the mandate of the RfA process to put specific curbs or restrictions on the activites of new admins. We can't approve an admin, "So long as they stay away from CSD", or "Support if the editor agrees to help bring an article to FA", or what have you. The editor becomes an admin, or the editor does not. If he does, then yes - it would be wise to act with care in areas where a bias may be percieved, just as it is wise to study the tools and learn how to properly use them before running off and deleting articles or blocking vandals or whatever. Note, also, that admins are under a great deal of scrutiny, whatever they do - so, if the candidate makes questionable (or biased) edits in a non-admin capacity, he will be called out because "He's an admin and should know better." Admins are typically held to a higher standard. If the concern is that the candidate's bias might be expressed in their actions, then opposition on that basis is warranted. I see no cause for that concern, though, and have supported accordingly. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

68. Strong support. He is a very effective wikipedian and one of the most important and usefull members of the Romanian Military history Task force. I'm confident that after he'll receive adminship, he will continue in this good manner. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
69. I want the crats to decide on this one. Dorftrottel (canvass) 02:57, March 13, 2008
70. Support per questions well answered and general contribution history. Hobartimus (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
71. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose strongly despite I like the guy. We worked amicably on topics where the candidate's views were not involved but when the topics did touch his personal views, and those are pretty strong, they always came before the commitment to neutrality. I hope we will still get around all right when editing together but I can't trust that his strong opinions in certain content topics would not affect his use of tools. --Irpen 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment - I actually believe the opposite - he has already shown restraint in his wikiactivity, and seeing as how anyone can instantly throw his POV against him, should his admin actions become suspect, I do not think he will even consider employing them where he may have a conflict of interest. I think that becoming an admin will have a positive influence on him. --Illythr (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose - 5% minor edit summary usage in the last 150 edits, plus a MAJOR dropoff in activity from January to February. Only 790 Wiki edits doesn't make me comfortable either. I feel admins need to have near perfect edit summary usage since edit summaries are a VERY important aspect of being an admin. ArcAngel (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Edit summary is erratic. I don't mind lulls in activity on Wikipedia - people are busy in real life - but, your Wikispace edits are weak. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose, sorry. Biruitorul is a good contributor, but I must say I'm not very comfortable with such a staunch Romanian nationalist becoming administrator. Or any other staunch nationalist for that matter. Also, edit summary usage for minor editors far below the least acceptable. Húsönd 00:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to support. Some comments by Biruitorul and some other users made me think this over. I think that Biruitorul should be given the benefit of the doubt, since he has shown many times that he is mature enough to refrain from letting his nationalistic views interfere with the project in a negative way. I also think that it is not fair for Biruitorul to be opposed below for his deletionist views regarding schools. Myself, I couldn't agree more with them and it's not like I've caused any harm to the army of non-notable high schools. Húsönd 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment sorry, but since when are someone's personal political opinions a valid reason to oppose their candidacy for adminship (or any other office, on-Wiki or in real life?) The only thing that is important in this case is his work on Wikipedia, not how many patriotic tears well up in his eyes upon hearing the Romanian national anthem or what icons of which saints he has in his house. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Political opinions only matter if they affect the on-wiki actions of the editors strongly enough. --Irpen 05:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   OK, granted, but my point is that Biru's on-wiki actions are not strongly affected by his political opinions. K. Lásztocska^talk 05:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Well, this is where we differ. I hope it is allowed. As I said, I have nothing against the fellow personally. And I can name Romanian editors who I would support without doubt, so I hope we can avoid the charges of "Anti-Romanianism", a funny term invented by Bonny, if I am not mistaken. --Irpen 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Husond. Try again in a few months and I may support. NHRHS2010 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps the word "Nationalist" conveys different meanings. One type (A) of nationalism merits its own ethnicity/nation, and another (B) seeks to offend other's ethnicity/nation (esp. the immediate neighbors'). (of course A and B can co-exist) My experience puts Biru as a type-(A) not (B); and the record bears this out (believe me, I would have noticed if it weren't so). Opposing (B) is of course proper, opposing (A) perhaps begs reconsideration.István (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose I oppose even though it means to pile on. I think you should withdraw. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

5. A fi de acord cu Husond. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Well...Sunt de acord cu Husond is the correct grammar, actually. Anyways, I agree with Husond, at the moment. And I fail Romanian. :( dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Like Mikka, I will reconsider if he promises not to use the tools in the Romania-Moldova-Transnistria-Hungary area, and if he places himself open to recall. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC) - Not anymore. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   I have placed myself open to recall, as I have nothing to be afraid of. On the other issue, though, see my response to Mikkalai. Biruitorul (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Make this a strong oppose per your 01:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) comment. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 14:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose-> changed to Strong Oppose (see below). Biruitorul I think it's fair to say "loves Romania a bit too much" for some users. Nothing wrong with patriotism, but in eastern European articles there are a large number of different areas where different patriotisms encounter each other in ways that often conflict. The question though is, would giving Biruitorui mopship be a responsible thing to do in this context? Well, I've found low comprehension of wikipedia naming conventions and false accusations of incivility evidenced here. The latter comment by Biruitorul nearly two months ago makes it difficult to have the faith that he could be trusted to interpret policy and guidelines objectively, or that he would be trusted by a significant proportion of the community. His comments there at Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive provide strong evidence that patriotism will at least sometimes get the better of him. I really hate to vote against him, as he has a decent record as a contributor and usually comes across as a likable guy, but I don't think it would be responsible to award him that role. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment I don't want to seem like I'm campaigning here (though, yes, I do support the candidate), but I think it is telling that Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, the one supposed sample of his supposed bias to have been indicated so far, saw Biruitorul debating his stance with a user who is now one of his nominators. I'm referring to Illythr, who has apparently not seen this incident as a cumbersome one. I do believe this is more telling of the level of trust and respect enjoyed by Biruitorul than any disagreement he may have been involved in. In reference to the diff: I can find any number of admins who have made more serious and less substantiated accusations in their capacity, and simply saying that you interpret accusations aimed at you as uncivil is, at most, a victimless crime (plus, afaik, no admin has the power to block editors for what they said about him or her - which means that even if he would intend to abuse his powers, he would have to be oblivious of all checks and balances). If you actually look at that very diff, you'll see Biruitorul agreeing that the other side also has a point, and even indicating that he is open to reexamination of the issue in the future. What more can you ask from a user who exercises his right to an opinion? Dahn (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you, Dahn, and let me just add two points. First, kindly assume good faith: I stated that my vote was based on policy (incidentally, my side carried the day, so I wasn't alone in that argument), and my "love of Romania" had zero to do with it. (I don't go into conniptions when I see Treaty of Jassy, for instance - that is a proper title for that particular article.) Second, this, this and this I did find incivil, and while it wasn't the main reason for my vote, it didn't help sway me to the other side, either. However, if you believe those three quite rational, quite civil sentences should bar me from adminship, that is your prerogative. Biruitorul (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Dan, false accusations of incivility I see all the time on eastern European articles talk pages and user pages, and they are characteristic of the kind of attitude that have caused so many problems. At Biruitorul, your compatitiveness here doesn't make me any less worried about the possibility of you obtaining mopship. Events such as this make me worry that you'd use your adminship to increase the power of the Romanian patriotic line over neighbouring patriotic lines, creating more discord on wikipedia. You clearly deserve the mop in many ways, but there are more implications granting an editor in this area mopship than elsewhere. Anyways, you know this operation is predominantly called Jassy-Kishinev or (transliteration) variations thereof, and those diffs are nothing like incivility. Your assertion that it was incivility can only lead to a number of conclusions: 1) you're being disingenuous for the purposes of forwarding a name you like; 2) You have bad judgment in general about an offense you might block someone for; or 3) the patriotically related topic made the room too heated for you to think straight. None of these possibilities suggest a safe vote for me. You even say I seriously considered supporting the proposal before adding However, Pmanderson has needlessly raised hackles with his incivility, so that for the time being I believe the article should remain where it is now. Your use of so here does not suggest the concern was as peripheral as you are now making out. It's not even true that PMAnderson was non-civil, yet even if he were, what can you inform me would that have to do with anything? Where's the rationality there? It's not like this kind of thing is a one off for you; e.g. in the middle of last year you left this comment on a WP:RM:

   Fântâna Albă incident → Fântâna Albă massacre — historical evidence, as well as historiography, points to this having been a massacre. Nine users (see here and here) agree with the move, while its only opponent is an avowed Communist who says the victims got what they deserved. [2]

   I notice there was no diff there. Of the many opponents, none (including anonimu) appear to have said such a thing. Very distasteful. A little later in the year you can be found Lastochka's talk page launching multiple assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks against User:Irpen and User:anonimu behind their backs in a little short story where you murder anonimu. That latter stuff is among the most horrendous material I've seen on wikipedia (I encourage all to read it), all the worse because of the number of people endorsing it as good humor. What's that supposed to say about how you'd perform as an admin in the heated world of eastern European articles, or about the kind of leadership you'd consequently have among Romanian editors during disputes? I'm afraid to say that the material above seems to encapsulate the spirit of combative and nasty partisanship wikipedia doesn't need in its editors let alone its admins. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   1. I'm sorry, there was no canvassing on Fântâna Albă. I informed several trusted colleagues that a vote of interest to them was going on, which is perfectly acceptable per WP:CANVASS. I had no idea how they would vote, and in no way attempted to influence their vote. Moreover, no administrator accused me of wrongdoing, despite at least two watching that page.

   2. Kindly do not assume what "I know". "I know" that, based on my weighing of the evidence, the article should be at "Iaşi-Chişinău", and this has zero to do with my ethnicity (indeed, the implication that it does is a form of personal attack). For the last time: I (not unreasonably) saw PMAnderson's comments as incivil (which doesn't really have wider implications, as WP:CIV is rarely enforced), and his comments did not have significant bearing on my vote. Please assume good faith and take my word for it.

   3. I am not about to re-fight the Anonimu war, but let me note two things. One: he did say it, in so many words. Two: about that infamous story - what you fail to note is that within a couple of days of writing it, I apologised profusely and was warned for it. I have continued to issue apologies since then at various occasions. Yes, it was a dreadful mistake for me to use on-wiki fiction (note: fiction, and very obviously so) to drain away the passions stirred by Anonimu, I realised that very quickly, and I regret it. However, in my defence: a) I was not even blocked for the affair, while Anonimu resides under a permaban-indef block status at present; b) I learned my lesson, and have not written fiction here since (or before), and moreover have striven to avoid such discourse. Surely redemption is possible, and I believe that, on balance, I behaved quite reasonably in the incidents you have dredged up; I don't see them as detracting from my neutrality as a potential admin. Biruitorul (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   1. Of course, that's always the way it is.

   2. You see, this is the kind of combatitiveness that just gets me more worried. PMAnderson's comments weren't in the least uncivil. One of those three diffs approaches robustness, a quality you yourself approach claiming to be a virtue in question 3, but nothing like incivility. Your profile says you're a native speaker of English, so I absolutely can't understand this other than by the possible explanations I outlined above.

   3. Your little story bashes a number of users, including Dr Dan and Irpen, as well as Anonimu, and contains sentiment crossing the line into racism with regard to Russians and Bulgarians. You don't really seem that sorry. Most of your comments here are you trying to justify the story! That kind of dark sentiment is too extreme to let an apology you were forced to issue to avoid a ban force it into amnesia. It's very obvious that you are smarter than Anonimu, but just because you are smart enough to dress vitriolic material like that in fiction isn't going to make me feel any more comfortable giving you the mop. You're clearly a productive user, but I'm sorry, too much about you scares me. That said, it looks like you have a good chance of succeeding in this, so if you do I hope you prove me wrong. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   1. Well, I violated no policy, was sanctioned for no policy violations...where's the crime?

   2. Incivility is in the eye of the beholder, and in making a policy-based vote, I was perfectly within my limits to express what I saw. I did not denounce him to any official fora (like ANI) for dealing with incivility, so I believe I acted quite reasonably.

   3. I say nothing about Dr Dan there (I think you mean Dahn, one of my most ardent supporters), and as I am of the same race (Caucasian) as Russians and Bulgarians, I need not defend the absurd claim that I was "racist" toward those groups. How would you like me to prove I am more sorry than I have stated? Shall I produce a video with a tearful apology while I wear sackcloth? I was not "forced" into anything; I could have stood by the thing, but I actually realised it was a mistake - please do assume good faith every now and then. Anonimu's profession requires him to be quite intelligent, so I won't agree I'm smarter than he, but if I "scare" you (as you have a number of people, then so be it. Biruitorul (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   1.You may wish to review why I brought that up in the first place. ;)

   2. Incivility is indeed to some extent in the eye of the beholder, but your accusations of it to PMAnderson were unreasonable, leading to the doubts I gave above.

   3. If your best defense for that story is attempting to narrow the meaning of the word "Racism" so that your xenophobic comments about Russians and Bulgarians don't count as "racist", then I'm even less convinced than I was before. My worries about you are not that you'll offend people with robustness [I'm sure Ghirla, Dr Dan and Irpen if not Anonimu can all handle that sort of thing pretty easily] but what such things suggest about your future activities as an admin. Moreover, apologizing for it just tells me you have enough brains to respond to the pressure that results from such comments, not that the sentiments and tendencies which produced those comments have disappeared. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   Just to wrap up (as it looks I'm moving you in the opposite direction of where I'd like you to go): xenophobia is not the same as racism; you could accuse me of the former, but given the thing was fiction and has been repeatedly apologised for (plus the fact I don't normally go around attacking people on the basis of their ethnicity), that would be rather a breach of AGF. My sentiments at the time were overwhelmingly in regard to Anonimu, a fellow Romanian, and I believe the record has quite consistently shown my even-handedness toward editors of all nationalities. Biruitorul (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose I've looked hard at this and tried to be as dispassionate as I can be. I've not had the pleasure of interacting with Biruitorul, and certainly his work here is excellent. However on reviewing his contributions against the backdrop of the concern from Husond I find myself in agreeance that his strongly held views maybe incompatible with the extra technical abilities that admins have. I'm sorry, this oppose may well seem pretty faithless, and for that I apologise. Oppose indented. Categorical evidence that he is likely to be over zealous with admin tools in his prefered editing arena has not been demonstrated. Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose - an indirect evidence that this admin is expected to "defend" certain areas from "bad guys" like User:El C, User:Mikkalai, user:Irpen. While I don't deny the feedom of Romanian editors to hate my guts and love their Motherland beyond rational bounds, I will change my vote if user:Biruitorul explicitely pledges that they will not use their administrative tools in the areas of potential conflict of interest: relations among Romania-Moldova-Transnistria-Hungary and the corresponding ethnic issues. If someone starts getting any ideas, please take a note that I demand nothing from him in the context of Russia. `'Míkka>t 17:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment -- using unilateral messages that people left on his page as an argument against him is bad form in my opinion, I see no evidence that he agrees with those comments, and people of other nationalities (that potentially have disputes with Romanians) such as Hungarians and Russians have vouched for him in this page. AdrianTM (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment to comment. I am not talking to you. You are cluttering my vote. I am expecting the comment of the discussed person. And his position, not your wikilawyering, may change my opinion and vote. `'Míkka>t 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   My comment: Everybody is allowed to voice himself here, and there is no such thing as "cluttering of vote", Mikka. Accusing a nominee of things he has not done is unfair. Accuse him of his own wrongdoings if there any. And I am afraid the reasoning of your vote promotes a notion of "collective responsibility". I hope I am wrong.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment to comment. I am not talking to you. You are cluttering my vote. I am expecting the comment of the discussed person. And his position, not your wikilawyering, may change my opinion and vote. `'Míkka>t 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Please assume good faith. Here, unlike in Lukashenka's paradise, we presume innocence. I for one never indicated that I hate you; indeed, as a Christian, hatred is not something I practice. I am not responsible for the messages placed on my talk page, and I have not yet had time to respond to the quite sensible request made by Dpotop (a user in good standing, I may add). (Incidentally, he posted the same message to Bogdangiusca and Ronline, both of whom are Romanians and admins.) Were I an admin, I would assuredly attempt to resolve the matter on the talk page rather than initiate a wheel war. I would always be cautious in my use of the tools, but unfortunately I cannot make the promise you request, for two reasons. First, those are among my areas of expertise: I know the terrain, so to speak, and the tactics used by trolls and vandals in those domains. Second, I find the request demeaning. I have never promoted the Romanian or Moldovan "line" for purely ethnic reasons, but always attempt to apply policy and ground my decisions in it. I have never (or hardly ever) edited on Transnistria-related matters because I'm not as well-read on the subject. As for Hungary, the only serious debate on Hungary-Romania issues was this one, where I (and most everyone) behaved with great civility. I disagree with the compromise reached, but it was reached by consensus, and I have never lifted a finger to try and undo it. Biruitorul (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   • An amazing pearl of level-headed adminship which expects us: "unlike in Lukashenka's paradise, we presume innocence." This allusion pretty well reminds me that I am anti-Romanian KGB spy and now I am Lukashenka's minion, too. Proposal to change my vote withdrawn. Please notice that I did not accuse the nominee of anyting. This response demonstrates not one but three potential problems: (2) jumping to conclusion and (3) lack of understnding what WP:COI means. "Conflict of interest" clause is a foward-looking preventive clause which actually would protect you from accusations in taking sides which will inevitably pop up in heated areas and evolve in unnecessary bickering. WO:COI is not a new wikipedologism. Exactly the same rule exists in American justice, you know, when 12 persons are selected for guess what? Since you declared yourself freely and prodly a nationalist, COI is clean and simple. Finally, for fighting trolls and vandals you dont need to be admin. you may be a wikipedia:Rollbacker `'Míkka>t 05:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   It's your prerogative to oppose, and I thank you for your input. I do not accuse you of being Lukashenka's minion, but the implication that I cannot be trusted to exercise impartiality in those areas is unsubstantiated. Biruitorul (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I notice you asked for Dpotop's input^[3] regarding this exchange (which, by extension, is likely to result in his support !vote, by making him privy to this RfA, do you think?), but not my own, so let me, in turn, ask: do you feel the formula I set out for Dpotop and his opponent is even one iota less than absolutely equable and even-handed? How do you feel about him having copied and pasted that "By El_C, of course" comment^{[4] [5] [6]} even though I asked him^[7] to please direct appeals "before other admins ^{[linking to WP:AE]} or the Arbitration Committee, rather than copy&paste comments across multiple pages ^{[emphasis added]} (please exercise restraint on this front, especially)" as a result of him having done so once before?^{[8] [9] [10]} Am I "a user in good standing," in your view? El_C 05:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Well, I suppose Dpotop's real mistake (and my own after that) was not having our little exchange by e-mail, which would have avoided quite a bit of righteous outrage, but anyway. I have no idea how (or if) Dpotop will react to my informing him of the response to his comment. Yes, of course you're in good standing - you're not under a block or ban. I think your warning was a fair attempt at defusing a potentially explosive situation, and I don't take issue with it. Moreover, I think Dpotop's reaction showed lack of judgment, and naming you sardonically may have breached WP:CIV... All right? Is there anything else I should clarify? Biruitorul (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, would you be willing to commit to fanatic (not as extreme as yours truly, but close enough) edit summary usage? El_C 06:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   El C, it was recommended to me that I inform users here about the discussion on this request's talk page regarding the use and limitations of edit summaries. Dahn (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not one to hold past-usage (or lack thereof) against anyone; future assurances would be good enough. El_C 06:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   That may well be, but my comments there are actually about whether edit summaries are really necessary, let alone compulsory. In oter words: is this a valid request from an admin? Dahn (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I really don't see how edit summaries bear on one's potential performance as administrator, and I do have a near-perfect record of edit summaries for non-minor mainspace edits, but I'm happy to commit to more thorough summary use. Biruitorul (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I am disappointed you entered the above response without an edit summary. It would have helped me, from my watchlist, to know whom you were responding to and... well, read WP:ES. I see too many admins that, like you, use a lot of blank edit summaries. I was considering supporting, but now, in light of that blank-edit-summary response to edit summary question (purposefully?), I am considering opposing. El_C 06:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry, it's not yet an ingrained habit, and was quite unintentional. Indeed, I hit edit too early, was just about to put in a summary. Biruitorul (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Okay, because I did ask you on your talk page to use edit summaries on this RfA. Would you be willing to temporarily change your preferences so as to force yourself to use edit summaries? El_C 06:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I've done just that (changed my prefs). Biruitorul (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Alright, I'm in. El_C 07:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   So, given that is is about my actions, why do you (Mikka, El_C) take it onto Biruitorul? Now, my posts have been to Biruitorul and Bogdangiusca, and Ronline, which I see as neutral editors, and role models as Romanian wikipedians. I have the habit of asking for oppinions when in delicate situations (I have done it in the past). Second: My action was informative, as Biruitorul, for instance, could not have helped me otherwise than by advice, because he is not an admin, and I had no idea this RfAdm exists. Third: My posts not only condemn what I see as biased actions of some admins and editors (El_C, Mikka, Irpen and Xasha), but also Romanian nationalist extremist editors, too (I am also questioning in my post the re-surfacing of an alleged Bonny sock). Now, if you would like to discuss the objectivity of my allegations, I invite you on my talk page. If I have the time I will make a WP:ANI post. But anyway, I suggest you don't try to put my words in the mouth of Biruitorul (for one, my first admin misconduct accusations against Mikka and probably ElC date back before Biruitorul was on wikipedia). Dpotop (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Ironically, I am supporting this nomination. But by all means, Dpotop, noticeboard-away. El_C 08:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, but again, this is not about Biruitorul. It's about me. Let's continue this on my page. Dpotop (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not the one who raised the issue. My name was mentioned. Your bad faith assumptions are without basis. El_C 08:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose -- per Mikkalai and Irpen. --Kuban Cossack 18:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose in the weight of those comments above me. Rudget (?) 10:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Per above. Majorly (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Mikka and Irpen also per WP:TIGER. With my occasional bumping into the Romanian topics I saw a lot of incivility and have not seen an effort to accommodate both points of view when there is editing of controversial material. Also the fact that I had to give him a 3RR block to stop an edit war does show that the user has a problem with his temper. I think that civiity, willingless to see both sides of the story and the self-restraint in editorial actions are essential for a wikiadmin Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

    Let's forget for a moment that my single block was given ten months ago in a dispute with banned user Anonimu. But let the record show that I am very careful about not violating 3RR - indeed, I try to hold myself to 1RR. In this particular conflict, though - please, please see this link - Anonimu was peddling an absurd POV, he made about 8 reverts in a day and made copious personal attacks in the edit summaries and on the talk page - in short, this was not a normal situation; I (along with other editors) was nearly (and justifiably) driven mad with his antics. Moreover, that fourth revert was made just under 24 hours after the first - this was not a case of me reverting over and over in a short space; what happened was failure to pay attention to the clock - I thought 24h had already elapsed. I am normally an eminently civil and even-tempered editor, as the record and my supporters attest. I always try to see both sides of the situation and be civil; I welcome diffs that show the contrary, rather than vague allegations. Biruitorul (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose, per above. Needs a bit more tempering before getting the mop. Dreadstar † 10:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose strongly. The exchange with Mikka above again proves that this is one of those editors who have come to Wikipedia to prove a point. Rid it of communist propaganda, rid it of Russian propaganda, rid it of Lukashenko propaganda or whatever. Too many of those already with too much power is precisely the reason why we now have special rules about any edit connected to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. So draconic that I have recently refrained myself from deleting absurd POV from a seemingly innocent page like List of countries by formation dates and I am probably not the only one, the problem being that this situation is leading to a) the serious hard-working to desist more and more and to disappear from Wikipedia b) the unserious to add even worse fringe theory entries, which means we need even more admin work (ergo, more admins) and even more draconic anti-(add your location in the world)-POV arbcom decisions. A self-feeding mechanism.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    Comment on above opposition - I took Biruitorul's response to Mikkalai as courteous and appropriate and that he has been forthcoming in all his explanations—in the face of Mikkalai portraying himself as being a hated individual. I would suggest that "barometer" in that whole exchange is that El_C is supporting Biruitorul.—PētersV (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    Comment. The only thing I can say is that an allegation that some editor supports Lukashenko is not a light thing to do. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Please do not distort my comment. In Belarus, the judicial system is unfair - "courts are subject to significant government influence. The right to a fair trial is often not respected in cases with political overtones" [11]. That is what I stated, not that any particular editor supports Lukashenka. Biruitorul (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Comment. Why not simply say "Please, WP:AGF, dear Mikka!" No, you've got to mention Lukashenko's paradise. And that is an indication of the problem. The legal point has been answered by Mikka.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Perhaps you could phrase your concerns in the form of a pertinent question to Biruitorul. I took a look at the page you mention and certainly agree with your characterization of what some editors call "non-controversial" edits. It's an awfully wide brush you are using if you're using Vietnam founded ca. 3,000BC as an example of your concerns. —PētersV (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    Comment. No, sorry, as Biruitorul knows, I cannot do that. Without going too much into the content of that page, what I am mostly concerned with there is that the guy actually has a WP:POINT, and that one of the editors who wants to push something, er, rather controversial as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, has appeared on the clueless Vietnamese guy's talk page([12]) - is it really unconceivable that we should be careful granting too much power to nationalistic editors? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose, per above. Cxz111 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose — I feel must over-ride my Wikibreak to voice my opposition to this RfA. I do not believe that Biruitorul will use the delete function appropriately. Although I do not have any problem with deletionist administrators, even going through very recent AfDs, this user does not understand the notability guidelines; he believes that this school having won state championship multiple times in many different sports is not notable, despite the multitude of sources that are available; he claims this is trivial. As well as nominating the above mentioned high school for deletion, he also nominated another, which also has won multiple state championships in baseball guaranteeing multiple reliable sources. A reason for the deletion of both articles was "highly POV" and "absurdly POV", a problem which in the case of both these articles is easily surmountable. In this AfD also from today, I don't like it is given as the reason for deletion - indeed he says "the film is quite banal and, because its presence here detracts from the project's seriousness, we should invoke IAR to eliminate it". I would not trust any admin that would delete an article on that rationale. The point of ignore all rules is to improve the encyclopedia, not delete sourced encyclopedic information because we do not like it. At this AfD (although deletion may be the best solution) I am worried by his possible "delete first, ask questions later" attitude and combined with his interpretation of WP:IAR, I am concerned that he may use extrajudicial speedy deletion of articles that he does not like or think are encyclopedic, even if they do not quite meet the CSD criteria. I am worried that over-zealous application of his own deletion criteria may result in biting by deleting a newbie's article, without giving due consideration to wheter it meets CSD criteria or not. Given that these comments were made within the last 24 hours, makes me very uneasy and unable to support at this time. EJF (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    I guess doing nothing during one's RfA is safest, because my recent actions have just earned me another negative vote... All I can say is: I promised above that I "intend to respect consensus in [AfD] discussions", and that I will "carefully" review speedy deletion requests. As for the particulars: my comments at all those AfDs have been distorted by EJF. I nominated the two schools for deletion because they fail WP:N, merely noting their POV as an aside. I'm aware the way to clean up POV is not by deleting but by rewriting, but my chief claim was lack of notability, not POV (which is an invalid deletion rationale). As for the film: I have twice stated - you may wish to re-read my remarks there - that I don't like the trend of retaining articles on trivial films, not that I don't like the film itself - for the record, I have absolutely no feelings about the film either way. I invite readers to look at that deletion discussion and see my well-reasoned comments there; invoking IAR above FICT is not unusual and quite warranted under the circumstances - improving an encyclopedia entails pruning as well as adding new material. As for Eve Carson: well, again, I'm not thrilled by having transient news stories getting enshrined in an encyclopedia, and I'm not the only one. The point is that none of this really matters: arguing, as an editor, for deletion of articles is emphatically not the same as deleting them as an administrator following established policies, and given both my promise and record of following consensus, there is really nothing to fear here. Biruitorul (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    As a member of The Schools Project, we see a lot of these sorts of nominations and such AfD's (on high schools) tend to be very contetious. While I believe that the nominations will fail, they were not tagged with CSD, and the articles did not assert their notability so I see no particular harm (and I support this nomination). It is easy to see why they were nominated, but, having seen a lot of such nominations I have perhaps a bit more perspective on nominations of High Schools. Nothing about these nominations was against policy. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    The articles did assert notability - winning many state championships in different sports shows blatant notability and with reliable sources available, I wonder why he did not fix the NPOV problems and sourcing in the article instead. The old adage "AfD is not cleanup" sums it up. That said, Biruitorul had the right to put the articles up to AfD and that is his prerogative. Even so, I am still worried by the comments Biruitorul made here at this AfD after it had been proven that a music album had been certified platinum in Australia and notability had been satisfied. He supported deletion despite this, claiming Notability should be asserted within a particular article, not its deletion debate Clearly all that was needed was for a reference and a citation to be added. He then said The debate has been going on since February 29; isn't it high time someone did that? The fact that he would rather an article on a notable subject be deleted rather than spending a few minutes doing a {{cite web}} astounds me and makes me want to cry so fix it. I am sorry, but this combined with an extraordinary interpretation of "ignore all rules" means I cannot support at this time. EJF (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, please - that was some silly disc no one had ever heard of. If my arguing that maybe an encyclopedia shouldn't have that sort of stuff gets the "but it's notable!!" brigade up in arms, so be it, but let's not sanctimoniously pretend we'd have been worse off without it. Biruitorul (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    I didn't see maybe, I saw "delete". I am sorry to see that you have reinforced my oppose. I am afraid your disregard for sourcable articles on notable products which you find silly makes it impossible for my support this time around. EJF (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, I should have been clearer: maybe we shouldn't have such articles, thus I argued for deletion. Two further points. One (already enunciated twice): my opinions in deletion debates have no bearing on how I would act in an administrative capacity to close AfDs. Two: just because something can be an article doesn't mean it should be an article. Technically, perhaps, that silly disc (and I do stand by the description, even though failure to comply with WP:N was the actual reason for my vote, not, as you wrongly assert, WP:IDONTLIKEIT) may meet WP:N. But then the second question, the one that all too often fails to be asked, is: yes, but? But will its presence enhance the encyclopedia? And here I think the answer is a resounding no, which is why I oppose its presence (and, for that matter, that of many, many other albums). Which still says nothing about how I would act as an admin - that issue I answered in the questions posed to me, and let me repeat it: I "intend to respect consensus in discussions". Biruitorul (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    I did not wrongly assert that WP:IDONTLIKEIT was your only reason for your comment, I stated that the first reason for your comment was that you thought that there was no notability in the article (despite it being proven in the AfD) Also, regarding the comments above, I did not distort your comments at the other AfDs, I simply stated what your notability and POV concerns were and how you also backed them up. I have also provided several diffs so that any reader here is free to peruse them to see what was really said. I do not believe that I have misquoted you or taken any of your comments out of context. I feel that the subjective comments about what you believe "enhances the encyclopedia" combined with an over-eager delete first, prove notability later mentality, could result in the delete mechanism not being used entirely appropriately. I would like to see 3 more months of substantial activity at AfD to assuage my concerns. Regards, EJF (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Fair enough - I'll be back! Biruitorul (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    I am somewhat amused by the canvassing below, but really it is quite inappropriate. I would hope that you would consider refraining from this next time. EJF (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose. Too problematic candidacy. --Greggerr (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose Yikes! I regretfully oppose, because while this user appears to do well in certain topics, the charges regarding nationalism in articles are scary. The contribs presented are scarier. --Sharkface217 02:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Per above (lame, I know). Tiptoety ^talk 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose Recent contributions to AFD indicate lack of clue. Catchpole (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Of course you may oppose me for whatever reason you choose, but isn't that a bit snide? Four or five well-argued votes with which you disagree shouldn't obscure the rest of my career here, and certainly say nothing about my potential ability to respect consensus (which I have pledged to do) in closing AfDs. Biruitorul (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    Weak Oppose Changing to Neutral Whilst I'm 90% certain that you would be a good admin, there remains a niggle that you may have difficulty in certain areas, and I remain to be satisfied that you will keep strongly held views out of admin activities. I remain open to persuasion otherwise, and am convinced that should this RFA fail, addressing these concerns will ensure that the next one passes. Mayalld (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose per EJF. Please note that my oppose has absolutely nothing to do with nationalist concerns; I was ready to support before seeing the AfD links that EJF provided. I think it's quite impressive that this user has managed to conduct himself so well in an area that is known for its trolls and vandals. However, it's clear that there are policy knowledge gaps. GlassCobra 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    I fail to see how opinions held in a handful of deletion debates have any bearing what so ever on an individual's competency in adminship, particularly since we have a WP:Deletion review mechanism in place to address precisely EjF's concerns. Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia are two long standing philosophical standpoints, and many admins openly place themselves in either camp and even trumpet the fact, so I don't think it is sufficient reason to deny adminship in this case. Martintg (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

21. Oppose Too many concerns above about nominee's ability to remain neutral when applying policy. Need to err on the side of caution because recall and the other means to remove the admin tools sound far more accessible than they really are. TigerShark (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

    You mean his answer to Q 7 was "throwing sand into eyes"? Apparently, people no longer believe in chivalry. Dc76\^talk 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

22. Oppose. I have steered off the English Wikipedia because of such confrontational editors, and I'm sure that many others have as well. As administrators their corrosive impact on the community will increase exponentially. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    You mean very bold editors like me, who first edit to show their take, and only after start "negotiating" and sourcing word-by-word sentence-by-sentence. Don't be misled by who proposed Biruitorul (note, the other 3 guys who nominatied him, Jmabel, Illythr, and Dahn, have very different opinions from mine). Are you sure you expressed your take on Biruitorul, and not on other Romanian editors with which you interacted? Dc76\^talk 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

23. Oppose. I thought about this one for a while, but the only conclusion I can draw is that I would be rather uncomfortable with this user having the tools. I don't like to object on a gut feeling, especially seeing that the candidate takes much care to keep his personal opinions where they belong: to himself. The candidate recognises that Wikipedia is not the place for his rather strong views on certain subjects, and that things here work by consensus. Yet still, I feel something boiling under the skin of the candidate, and have the feeling it may come out at the wrong time. Add to that the rather odd AfD diffs above, in combination with his answer to Q1 (mainly AfD), I am going to go with my gut feeling here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    You have seen him with something "boiling under the skin of the candidate" for 31,000 edits. Did something came "out at the wrong time"? He was asked the last five AfD diffs. He did not give you his best five AfD diffs. I think that speaks about the honesty of the candidate. Apart from that, isn't it a conflict of interest if the nomenee in a XfD would act also as the closing admin. When you nominate, you tend to be bold, chalenge the arguments to keep X, as Biruitorul did in those 5. When you close, it is a different story: if you have an opionion about that XfD, you ask someone else to close. Dc76\^talk 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    I guess the power of FUD about his alleged personal political views is stronger than his actual Wikipedia edit history and conduct. Martintg (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

24. Regretfully and conditionally (see below) Oppose. Reason summary: insufficient demonstration of human communication skills. Detailed explanation. I was reading the reasons of oppose votes and it came to my attention that conflict cases were outdated, e.g., 2 months old or something and in fact opposers were criticized for dragging such old cases into consideration. I have to confess it immediately caused a suspicion (later discarded) that the person (or his friends) were pre-planning the adminship campaign and he laid low for some time just to be on the safe side. So I decided to look into his contribs in talk pages to check whether he abruptly changed his behavior and became "friend of all". I was wrong. But I noticed another surprize. Not only he is very weak on edit summaries: he is very unfrequent participator in talks in talk pages! Of course the person who does not talk much has low level of conflict. But here comes an issue: if a person does not practice in talking, how he acquire the experience in comprehension of other people? This IMO a crucial skill necessary for an admin: not to fight "trolls and vandals" (a wikipedia:Rollbacker can do this), but to understand another person to decide whether to block him or just warn him or simply ask him a question. Of course, by WP:AGF and the general rule that Wise Ones Speak Little, this observation alone cannot be a basis of my opposition, but it raised a red flag for me. Fortunately (or, rather, unfortunately), the current voting page helped to make my mind. I came to a conclusion that Biruitorul (by the way, along with friends that defend him) demonstrated a fundamental flaw of misdirection of the discussed issues/objections. Examples, in order of this page.
    • from "oppose #6: I a genuinely fail to understand why this was given by Buruitorul as an example of incivility. I understand I may be bad reading/writing English. I beg you to explain me what was bad there. I really don't want an admin block me or threaten me for something like that.

    Two points: first, it was more this I was talking about - "it is imprudent for a foreigner to dogmatize on English usage". That shows disrespect toward users whose native language is not English and yet use the language well enough (aside from apparent ignorance about figures like Joseph Conrad or Chinua Achebe, whose English usage is assuredly better than anyone's around here, despite their not being native speakers). Second: I'm not in the business of issuing threats; I prefer to resolve matters through discussion. I would only apply blocks following established procedure - I do not intend to run amok. And, should I apply a bad block, I have pledged myself for recall. Biruitorul (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    • from "oppose #7: A more serious issue IMO. Biruitorul instead of discussing the condition suggested by Mikka in its merits he discussed is as a personal issue. On the contrary, I find Mikka's suggestion, if followed in other discussions, as a great chance to defuse a big number of oppositions/confrontations in admin nominations. I may readily understand that, e.g., a Jewish admin may be good at blocking users and protecting pages in the area of Israel-Palestinian conflict, but will his actions defuse the situation? IMO they will sweep it under the carpet. but you will never rid of ages long suspicion in partiality. Therefore the suggestion of Mikka sounds very reasonable and applicable in many other areas of potential inter-ethnic conflicts. What is more, as I understand, Mikka was roughed by Romanians (as one defender put it "Mikkalai portraying himself as being a hated individual" - did he really? or did Romanians filled his talk page with hate speech? "portraying himself" is a very polite yet quite insulting verbiage of user:Vecrumba who certainly loves Mikkalai, just quips in a friendly way). Therefore I find it quite positive for Mikka to seek for a balanced solution rather than unconditionally oppose. Biruitorul, instead of entering into a dialogue (to narrow down disagreements), preferred to "portray himself as being insulted", in the words of Biruitorul defender.

    Hmmm, Mikka was asking Biruitorul to pledge on behalf of all Romanian editors, to quote: "While I don't deny the feedom of Romanian editors to hate my guts and love their Motherland beyond rational bounds, I will change my vote if user:Biruitorul explicitely pledges that they will not use their administrative tools in the areas of potential conflict of interest: relations among Romania-Moldova-Transnistria-Hungary and the corresponding ethnic issues". So if I understand this correctly: Mikka was allegedly roughed up by some Romanian editor in the past, Biruitorul happens to be a Romanian too, therefore Mikka opposes Biruitorul candidacy unless he pledges that these other Romanian admins do not use their tools against him. Is that correct? You mention the "polite yet quite insulting verbiage of user:Vecrumba", should Biruitorul also pledge to moderate Vecrumba's behaviour too? Martintg (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    I think Mikka used "they" as a gender neutral reference to Biruitorul here. Correction: Biruitorul happens to share the same POV as the mentioned Romanian editor. --Illythr (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    So your conclusion Biruitorul shares the same POV as this Romanian editor who allegedly attacked Mikka is based on what? His ethnicity or his record of work on wikipedia? Martintg (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    I corrected your (mis)interpretation of mikka's (et al) argument. Again, Biru's ethnicity is not the reason for the opposition. --Illythr (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    • ... I may continue my analysis of Biruitorul's texts in this page, but I am lazy, therefore I am moving to the conclusion.

    Let me suggest a weakened condition of Mikka's: Biruitorul recuses from administrative actions against editors in good standing (Biruitorul's judgement on "who is who" suffices here) in areas of potential conflict with Biruitorul's convictions (Romania/Moldova/Transnistria/Hungary inter-ethnic, inter-state relations only). I don't think it is a burden for Biruitorul, since he claims that he is far from Transnistria and Hungary-related topics.

    I am very seldom take part in policy-related issues. My last major talk was about wikipedia:Attribution. I am voting here solely because I genuinely believe that the suggestion of Mikka must be discussed in its merits, rather than a stick in the wheel, and possibly accepted as a desirable admins "self-sacrifice", similar to "admin open to recall".

    Finally I have to confess that I may be considered not impartial here: in my very first editing days I had some contention with a Romanian editor Anittas, but we parted with no problem.

    And at the very last I apologize for the long text. I hoped to make my reasoning clear but I may understand that just the opposite may have happened :-) Mukadderat (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sure you make this proposal in good faith, but I must reject such (pardon the term) Balkanisation of Wikipedia. My blood makes me no more or less capable than someone from Namibia or Cambodia to judge whether Wikipedia rules are being adhered to in the CEE area, and to suggest otherwise is unfortunate. Some of the criticism here has been constructive (and I have responded positively to it), but much of it has been relentless, unmotivated browbeating that speaks far worse of the opposes than of me. Nothing in my record is suspicious, but I have chosen the recall option - still, this is a step too far. Biruitorul (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    It is my great sorrow that your answer reconfirmed my opinion about your lack of comprehension what other people wrote. "Your blood" is irrelevant, but it is not discussed. (I hope it was not your intention to accuse your opponents here of racism, but please be aware it looks so) Your convictions are discussed. And it is person's strong convictions which make him less impartial. Yes, I am aware of and understand WP:AGF. But also we already have a strong rule that admins cannot exercise their powers on the articles they edit. Does that mean that we assume very bad faith about all admins? No (although some think there is a cabal and this rule is against it :-). The suggestion of Mikka merely extends this rule somewhat in the cases of potentially heated polarization of opinions, as a preemptive measure to make less heat generated by requiring neutral admins to judge the process. Please notice also that my version allows you to freely fight "trolls and vandals". Mukadderat (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

25. Oppose per concerns above, particularly EJF. This user has improved, but should try rfa again later on. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 11:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose Snarky comments like this during the candidate's RfA seem a foretaste of what is to come. I'm afraid at present I am unconvinced you have the correct temprament to be granted tools such as block and protect. Pedro :  Chat  14:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Well, I guess that hit pretty close to home - but I did say in my opening statement that people ought "to be relaxed, to have fun doing it - there's altogether too much stringency and lack of camaraderie these days". This isn't an intergovernmental forum deciding questions of war and peace, it is, when all is said and done, a website - albeit one that I have treated with great admiration and respect over time, despite such annoyances. You know WC Fields in The Old Fashioned Way, how he's sitting and pontificating at lunch and a baby pinches his nose, throwing him totally off balance and exposing the vapidity beneath the veneer of self-importance? (He also doesn't fail to attack the baby afterwards, but the audience sides with the latter.) Or Harpo Marx, in any of his films? That was me: I executed a sudden, unexpected takedown and naturally ruffled some feathers in the process. Biruitorul (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Duly noted, and your comments are a fair response. My point, I guess, would be that comments like the one I cited in that diff, which will clearly increase tensions, seem to prove your sentiment that there is "altogether...[a] lack of camaraderie these days". All editors should be helping to overcome that problem, and all editors would expect admins and prospective admins to take the lead in this; not to perpetuate it through "throw away" lines that cause more harm than good. Pedro :  Chat  15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Pedro, that is totally true. I am very sorry that I have thrown so many of those lines in this RfA. Moreover, it seems that I have given encouragement to others to do the same. It only strikes me as odd that decreasing tension = not speaking up one's mind, and that a comment in talk page = a contribution in mainspace. It would have been better if I would have stayed away from this RfA. I appologize for the harm I caused. Noted for the future, I'll stay away. Seems it is better to be hypocrit (=say only things that others like) than to be sincere. True in real life, and WP is but a face of real life. Dc76\^talk 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

27. Weak Oppose Seems to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of policy in regards to AfDs (as EJF & GlassCobra suggested) and seems a little more hostile than I'd like (as Dihydrogen Monoxide & Pedro & suggested). However, if I saw positive improvements, I may certainly support at a later date. нмŵוτнτ 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Strong Oppose - I'd no sooner have a committed nationalist (to ANY nation) as an admin than I would a user named KiddyDiddler666. It has nothing to do with my personal views, or my offended sensibilities - it boils down to the same argument that's behind 90% of WP:UAA: Wikipedia is not censored, but there are image concerns, and in my view having a committed nationalist in a public position is just as bad and embarrassing to the project as a user with a silly (or downright "obscene") name. The World War I raging on in the !votes above mine is a perfect example of the chaos giving this user the mop and bucket will cause. Do we really want the potential of this sort of juvenile shitstorm following any decision Biru makes (no matter how right his decision was)? I don't care who's in the right or who's in the wrong, there's just too much time-wasting drama surrounding this guy. --Badger Drink (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    A new low - my "nationalism" - well-reasoned, kept out of the limelight (indeed, in the past three months, I hardly remember making any political statement here) - is placed on the same footing as paedophilia. As for "image problems": we have enough administrators with controversial political views or personal practices who nevertheless do their jobs well. It's part of the package, and to vote against me for my beliefs alone is to accuse me of thoughtcrime. Biruitorul (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Other less-than-ideal admins exist. Having a wolf or three in the henhouse already is no reason to invite more in. I'm sorry that you see these things in such Orwellian terms, but there are some systems of belief and methods of conduct which result in major disruption - nationalism being one of those. The only "solutions" would either be to have equally extremist admins on the "other sides" (thus resulting in a "sysop nest" full of maniac screaming cliques and laced with landmines all over the place), or just accept that the field of sysops should be neutral and unbiased - not bipolar and extremists. Preferably downright milquetoast in matters not concerning the encyclopedia. Frankly, from what I've seen, I believe you are a very, very talented editor, but I don't believe that adminship should be a prima facie -- er, I mean, de-facto -- "reward". If someone cut off his thumbs, then applied to be a professional thumb-twiddler, I wouldn't expect him to be offended when his application was rejected, or accuse those who rejected his application of "thumbcrime". --Badger Drink (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, the irony of this "nationalist" debate on Wikipedia. Which country has the highest per-capita national flag ownership in the world, hands down, whose two main political parties are both considered right wing by European standards, and recently rewarded Kosovar nationalists with recognition of Kosovan independance and also houses the head office of a certain online encyclopedia? I'd even wager that the Wikimedia Foundation sports a US flag at their offices. You need to get a sense of perspective User:Badger Drink, I've lived for many years in both Europe and the USA, and I can assure you that so-called East European "nationalism" is positively pink when compared to mainstream US of A. Martintg (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    US of A has huge problems in its establishment, but for some strange reason people are crowding to immigrate into USA not into Romania or Russia. And in your pinkish Europe the revolutionary France forbids women to dress how they like. So better not start into silly political wranglings here: this page is not for this. Mukadderat (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    I have no problem with the American establishment. The point is that nationalism is so deeply imbued into the mainstream (as it is in Australia where I am from) that they don't even realise that they are nationalists. So it is highly ironic when I see people railing against these so called East European "nationalists" who are, in all likelihood, more left wing than the majority of admins who were raised as white anglo-saxon American patriots. Martintg (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Here I thought I was opposing him due to his nationalism. Instead, I seem to be opposing him because... I think he's right-wing? Uh, what? Nationalism is nationalism. Martintg, your worldview is charmingly simplistic, as is your notion of what right-wing means. Completely incorrect, of course, but in a very charming way. There were quite a damn few Soviet nationalists back in the day. I also wasn't aware that every single American was a flag-toting, country-lusting nationalist. Thanks for setting me straight on that, and thanks for your expert interpretations of my rationale! --Badger Drink (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    You seem to have a very poor understanding of what nationalism really is. "Nationalism is nationalism" is totally meaningless, since "nationalism" covers a whole spectrum of political doctrine. It forms the basis of the dominant form of societal organisation today, i.e. the nation-state. In its essence it is the doctrine that the nation, however it is defined, has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny. Do you deny that the USA is a nation state, or that the United States Declaration of Independence is in essence an embodiment of nationalist sentiment? Citing the examples of Abbie Hoffman, Jello Biafra, Michael Moore, Richard Stallman, Henry Rollins, Lenny Bruce, G.G. Allin, Timothy Leary, Andy Warhol or William Burroughs proves nothing in a nation comprised of 300 million people, of which 25% of adults personally own a gun. The point I am making is that Biruitorul's so called "nationalism" is no different to the patriotic sentiment of any typical mainstream American, Australian or Brit may feel towards their own respective countries. This would never be an issue for an American, Australian or Brit applying for adminship, nor should it be for Biruitorul'. Martintg (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    So owning a gun makes you a nationalist? Some would beg to differ. Like I said, charming, but overly-simplistic and wholly incorrect. I also said "I'd no sooner have a committed nationalist (to ANY nation)", so I don't quite get what the whole tangent about America/Great Britain/Australia was about. There's a difference between "I love the landscape and the shopping malls" (the basic gist of a lot (not all, as I sense you'll point out, but a lot) of so-called American nationalism - can't speak for other countries!) and "Romania - the way it should be", as per Biru's user page. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    1) American nationalism is at least in part responsible for quite a bit more than just an admiration for scenic views and shopping malls. 2) Like many Romanians, I see those borders as natural and hope to see them restored one day. Hoping for something unrealistic is one matter - quaint, perhaps, but in no way harmful; however, I have never advocated, say, invading or blockading neighbouring countries as a means of achieving those goals. Thus your opposition is really quite ideological, and directed at a rather inoffensive ideology at that, which reflects worse on you than it does on me. Biruitorul (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    But Hungarian nationalism hasn't? (whoops - see below!) I have no objection to you being on Wikipedia. Truly, my rationale is as I stated it from the beginning, and the fact that you and your supporters continue to try and reduce this very logical unease to "ignorant Americanism" is what resonates most of all. Can you honestly say that you don't expect your outspoken position - a position which has no bearing on the encyclopedia (unlike, say, a diehard "inclusionist" or other WP:POLICY positions) - will not be a lightening rod for the issues and behavior that have turned the whole of Wikipedia's Eastern European-related articles into an ugly, embarrassing viper's pit? --Badger Drink (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, Badger Drink, but at this point you're way off the mark with your assumptions. I wouldn't have intervened on this page any longer, as I do believe much of this discussion has nothing to do with the obvious merits of the person nominated, but you're really relying on prejudice. For one, and this is quite amusing, Biruitorul is not a Hungarian nationalist, and he is not even a Hungarian! He is a Romanian. And has nothing to do with his interactions with other editors: although Hungarian and Romanian nationalisms are supposed to be diametrically opposed, I think it is telling that he has maintained only good relations with all the Hungarian users (many of whom voted in his favor). Furthermore, you invoke World War I over and over. Not only has Hungarian nationalism not been a factor in starting WWI, but the multinational and anti-nationalist empire that the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, one of the two original "bad guys", was quite able able to convince its citizens to defend it for three out of four years of conflict. In fact, it was Hungarian nationalism which put a stop to that, and through this played a contribution to ending the war. Before you ask, Romania stayed out of the war until 1916, precisely because of nationalism: the two kinds of nationalists in Romania where divided over fighting Austria and fighting Russia. Then again, the main factors that made WWI a world conflict have nothing to do with nationalism as manifested in any Eastern European country; they are the stuff of imperialism, and involved first and foremost the quite "respectable" countries in other parts of the world. Even the US entered the war not because of Wilson's messianism (which was an almost universally ridiculed late development), but because, in what was a disastrous piece of diplomacy, Germany challenged US imperial interests in Mexico. In doing so, it stood by the one side in the conflict where nationalism was the rule, and where virtually all Eastern European nationalisms had a comfy home. To summarize: the war was mainly fought not between little competing Eastern European nations (which were in little supply comparatively - only 6 of them existed at the time, 3 of which joined in years after the war started, with an additional one not wanting to be part of this at all), but between multi-national and colonial empires, whose partial destruction through the victory of nationalism in Eastern Europe was universally celebrated in 1918, and was endorsed by America as a "new world order". It is your right to vote against this candidate, but please don't make your case with clichés and quite dismissive assumptions about an entire geo-cultural region. Now, could we please move on to other arguments? Dahn (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    (de-indent) D'oh! My face is as red as my username. Serves me right for engaging in conversation after my bedtime. Regardless, my objection still stands - I don't care if he's a Hungarian, a Romanian, or a Lemurian - a nationalist is a nationalist, and will result in much the same tension I outlined above. And, just to reiterate - I have nothing against Biru as a person or as a Wikipedian editor. He could be my twin brother, and I would still regretfully oppose him. --Badger Drink (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

29. Oppose. Quite a few negative things came up during this discussion, which is a bad sign already. KNewman (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Strong Oppose Answer to question 19 is very very weak. As an admin, a user should be able to think and make judgements. This users answer does not indicate that they can do the job. SorryThright (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright

    Think so? I'd call it very diplomatic. See, if he said "yes", people might expand this to WP rules, and call him a non-conformist. If he said "no", other people might consider he's too weak, or too by-the-book. As an admin, you have to dodge such pseudo-dilemmas, especially if you can manage to employ a humorous tone, so I think his reply was good in that regard. NikoSilver 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Wiki is not about politics, and in theory all an admin is, is a person who now can act. The answer shows does not have the skills to act.Thright (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright

    Wiki is not about driving cars at 3am either. Martintg (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    I agree with Niko, moreover I think this kind of questions are fundamentally flawed, first of all most of the people don't know what they will do in such kind of situations until they reach them and many times they do the opposite of what they declare. Second, there is a big difference between not following rules in Wikipedia and not following rules when you drive, these things are not comparable, and in life there are no guarantees that "there is no chance to get a ticket or to provoke an accident" (sure, Biruitorul could have responded this way, but I think this is just baiting as Niko explained) Third, his response is funny, it's not bad to have an admin with some sense of humor. -- AdrianTM (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Here is a good answer, -there are better answers that this - If I drove, which I don't, I would consider the law before I would act. I would judge risk, and if I believe that there was 100% chance of a, not hitting anyone or anything, and b not getting a ticket I would go through the light. The light is like policy it is there as a guide line but correct human judgement trumps incorrect policy. I would think first, and then make a decision based on risk.Thright (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright

    It's also what you gain from it, you can trump policy if you want to save a life, right? But again, breaking a law in Wikipedia doesn't have any comparable consequences of breaking driving laws, nor it can save lives... -- AdrianTM (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    No but incorrect policy opens wiki up to legal battles. anyways the answer has been given, lets all move on. Have a good night.Thright (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright

31. Oppose. My personal experience suggests User:Biruitorul does not practice what he preaches.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    And, in my personal experience, mrg3105 is attempting to push a unique POV that relates to innumerable articles, trying to do away with all diacritics through WP:POINT, endlessly campaigning in favor of having several already-developed articles moved to archaic or presently unattested names, and all because of his direct involvement in a dispute where topic-related opposition to one of the possible renaming attempts backfired. He has proceeded to take his POV on an immense number of pages, and whenever arguments contradicting him have surfaced, he has moved the discussion to still other pages. In other words, mrg represent an extreme position that is diametrically opposed to that of many users of many nationalities support, regardless of a particular controversy where all sides have a point. I'm not sure how much of mrg's "personal experience" with Biruitorul resides outside this confrontation between mrg and an immense number of wikipedia users, but if it is implied that Biruitorul lacks patience for this type of editing/campaigning (and I am yet to see evidence that this is a correct reflection of Biruitorul's position), I still don't find anything wrong about it. In fact, I would expect an admin not to encourage mrg's experiment. And I also note that all questions posed by mrg are loaded, and amount to "why didn't you let me move iddunowhat page to the name I think it should have?", with a careful avoidance of the fact that Biruitorul was just one of the users opposing the move, as well as with failure to mention that it was only mrg who took the initiative to move all related or non-related pages based on some personal take of the naming convention (and for which, as he knows full well by now, there was no consensus at any level). Dahn (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, that's me. I was well trained by Siguranţa statului, but now hang out in Wiki and pester people to write in English. We all have our sins, and mine is that I can only read five or six European languages, and one Asian, but not all Latin-based languages.

    "based on some personal take of the naming convention" also includes the Government of Moldova that the pages concerned :o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    If you want to trivialize this debate to the point where you make it sound like I would think you're an agent of some intelligence service, there's little I can do. The "writing in English" argument is obviously absurd when native names come into play, and you have yet to prove that "English" discards diacritics when rendering them (as I think some tens of editors have indicated to you by now). The Moldovan pages you cite only drop diacritics in context where they do not mark them at all - this technical detail is irrelevant to wikipedia,a project that provides spelling guides, redirects from non-diacritic variants, and easy to use diacritic icons.

    As for the languages you speak: good for you. If you are as familiar with them as you claim, then perhaps you should see how the tidbit you provide has nothing to do with the ways in which they are spelled in the Latin alphabet. (Ironically, if you practiced what you preached, as much as I would discourage you to do that in this instance, then you should perhaps spell "Siguranţa" as "Siguranta" or "Sigurantsa" or "Sigurantza", shouldn't you?...) Dahn (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

32. Oppose per comments above and observed responses.M.K. (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose per various comments above, especially the AfD comments. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose, per his intentional baiting of Irpen above, on 11 March at 1:35. This kind of "zinger" (as he calls it) would see an increase by a power of 10 after tools were granted. No place for it. Bellwether ^B_C 13:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Isn't that rather petty? One well-delivered witticism, particularly when you account for my sterling record of a calm temperament, really shouldn't be the sole factor in such a decision. Seriously, if I wrote two dozen FAs and made 300,000 edits, would you still oppose for that one line (which, I may add, violates neither NPA nor, really, CIV)? Biruitorul (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    In my view, you rather flatter yourself. It wasn't particularly "well-delivered", as the "protest too much" is rather cliche, but it was very ill-timed, and in my experience, this kind of baiting becomes worse once an RfA isn't looming over the editor's head. [And for the record, lying low the last while regarding your nationalism does not negate that concern either.] Bellwether ^B_C 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    That's just a matter of opinion. And I've been "lying low" for almost two years now - the notion that I have something to hide, and that it's all going to blow up if I get adminship, is ludicrous. Biruitorul (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Biru, man, this is your RfA! You gotta project an image of sensibility and co-operativeness ... if only for its duration! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Deacon, this comment of yours borders on character assassination. The oppose vote count on a series of assumptions, repeat claims that the man has already answered to, and then the very guys who launch the allegations make ceremonious statements about how defending oneself against yet unjustified criticism is "inappropriate". Dahn (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    How is it character assassination? I'm merely providing a good-faith comment to Biru, who I in no way dislike. Some of Biru's responses on this RfA have really hurt his chances. Your RfA is a place to demonstrate your co-operativeness and sensibility, so don't be surprised if votes come against him for responses such as the one he gave to Irpen. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    I'm an eminently cooperative type, but no one enjoys being railroaded either. Biruitorul (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

35. Oppose (switched from neutral) I've thought long and hard about this (and lost a previous version of this when my computer crashed). I'm opposing for a variety of reasons, but mostly I'm unhappy with some AfD contributions. I also think that the candidate missed an opportunity to shine by remaining calm in this RfA. There has been a lot of heat here and whilst I wouldn't oppose based on what you've said here, you could have actually impressed by rising above it and it's a shame you didn't. Your supporters haven't helped, really, by keeping the temperature raised when responding to so many oppose !votes (note to them - a quiet word on talk pages is a useful option on occasion, as is greater selective ignoring of opposes) That said, I trust you on the serious bias allegations and think you're a credible and nearly ready candidate for admin. If this fails, I assume you'll learn from it and sail past next time. Either way, good luck. --Dweller (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Weak Oppose I like most of what I see, but the neutrality is a big issue, and I see some evidence of it popping up. Jmlk17 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose

    Dear Jeff,

    Maybe this would be a little obvious, but both of our RfAs are suffering at present, so let me offer a deal: I'll "consider" your RfA if you "consider" mine.

    Sincerely,

    Biruitorul

    Considered. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    Why, thank you! Biruitorul (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    If this is a joke then I don't get it. Too little context. Mukadderat (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

38. Very strong oppose per evidence of attempted vote trading 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs)

Neutral

Neutral - To avoid pile on. Tiptoety ^talk 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral Boy, Um wow. I don't know whether to trust my metasense or not. This is tough. I a swiss for a day. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral Doesn't seem to me that user is interested in wikispace things, and in general from talk I have read, he can come across immature amd overly pedantic in unbalanced ways on certain topics, his respone to admin age limits sums it up.--Dacium (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think Biruitorul is 10 years old, if that's what you mean :). Dahn (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral Though a good contributor, lack of edit summaries raise concerns. Changed to support. Spencer^T♦C 12:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Just a comment on this issue, wouldn't this be fixable? Writing edit summaries is not an innate characteristic of a person, this can change easily, he is a smart guy and if we require this from him, he can do it. But since his edits were in general good I don't think this was an issue before, if it's an issue now he can take note and change the behaviour as needed. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Kinda agree this isn't the fairest reason not to support or to oppose. All Biruitorul needs to do is go to "my preferences"/"editing" and tick "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

3. A very tricky one. I accept the points raised by Irpen and others, but without being an administrator I feel I must assume good faith that the candidate would use them appropriately (ie. probably not at all) in relation to eastern European articles. That being said, I'm very tentative about supporting this RfA overall. Daniel (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral RfA/B's are referendums on the community's trust that a particular candidate will use the tools appropriately and in accordance with wikipedia's policy's and guidelines. At this juncture, I cannot be certain that will occur, but I am not certain enough that it will not occur to oppose. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   You have a very interesting comment in here. The supportes/nominators wrote a lot, and their answer to your question of trust is lost in the context. They tell you that they have their domains with disagreement of opinion with Biruitorul (I for example, disagree with him on religion, yet I trust he can best edit that area). But they (including me) forget to tell you clearly how they arrived at such conclusion: they (at least I) saw Biruitorul diligently sourcing (for the opponent) opinions opposite to his. I wonder how many of those that spoke above source for the opponent. Dc76\^talk 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral I don't find the oppose reasons above compelling, but I don't feel comfortable supporting either.Balloonman (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral per Avi. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   Placeholder neutral while I watch the diffs fly. --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Switched to oppose --Dweller (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Neutral leaning towards oppose. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral (changed to weak support)(changed from weak oppose). I still have concerns, but I don't feel I should directly stand in the way of this candidate. Whilst I am not in favour of the seeming knee-jerk push for new admins to make themselves open to recall, I do think that there are some candidacies where a niggling doubt about a candidate could be ausaged by a promise to add to this category with a clear indication of the circumstances where the admin would put himself up for recall. At present, the candidate's answer to this question is far too vague. A promise to put yourself up for recall if you decide it is appropriate is no promise at all. If the candidate will promise to put himself up for recall upon request from any 5 users who supported his RfA, or any singe 'crat, I would move to support. Mayalld (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

   I have refined my promise - see question 7 above. Biruitorul (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Neutral. Im a bit worried about some of the things that some people have brought up (pedro and the edit summaries). The edits are good but Im still in the middle for this one, but I don't know why some people are complaining about a Romanian nationalist ecoming an administrator. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral, as per everyone's comments on top. SexySeaShark 16:22, 13 March 2008 (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.