Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Arjun01

Run at Fri Feb 2 09:05:09 2007 GMT

Help talk:	1
Image talk:	2
Image:	27
Mainspace	3080
Portal talk:	7
Portal:	135
Talk:	314
Template talk:	7
Template:	84
User talk:	3781
User:	629
Wikipedia talk:	113
Wikipedia:	1175
avg edits per article	1.78
earliest	20:12, 14 September 2006
number of unique articles	5251
total	9355
2006/9 	258 	
2006/10 	1229 	
2006/11 	2076 	
2006/12 	2405 	
2007/1 	3258 	
2007/2 	129 

Edit count grabbed from here. MER-C 08:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The below is cut from an objection to the (as of now) single oppose argument to avoid making the RFA gigantic. Proto::► 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Fails Diablo test sans exceptions. Anwar 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (Comment) Exceptions to Mailer's rule are as follows:

   • Active participation in process (e.g. deletion) -- yes
   • Significant contribution to recent changes patrolling -- yes
   • Exceptional service to the welfare of Wikipedians -- referring to Gizza's comment: "One of those Wikipedians who can always put a smile on your face."

   Arjun's also helping a lot with Hinduism (trying to bring it to FA status), Portal:Hinduism, List of Stratocaster players, and List of Hindu festivals. Cheers, S.D. ¿п? § 12:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't recognise any exceptions. See my voting policies. This is a encyclopaedia. Sorry. Anwar 13:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hasn't the 1FA test been fairly firmly established as irrelevant both to being an admin, or indeed being a content-writer? Trebor 13:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Who said this? It is a legitimate and good-faith criteria, albeit a minority one. That doesn't mean that all people citing it are doing so in good faith, I have seen people put up a fake oppose reason in place of their real feelings on a variety of occasions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Diablo test was last used in June last year according to the page. This is not a vote, and you don't need to write to block, delete and protect. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh interesting. Your last RfA contribution was July. Things have changed a bit since then. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Additionally, Mailer Diablo himself supports this candidate. See Support #24. Húsönd 16:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yep. He approves the message! He hasn't used the 1FA requirement for ages either. I've been looking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Srikeit 2, the last RfA Anwar commented on, and users commented he conflicts badly with Indian editors. A very bad oppose reason, and I'm sure whoever closes this will disregard this oppose. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Guys, if Anwar wants to use 1FA as a reason in the discussion, that's his right. However Anwar, they're right, you're probably going to need to elaborate a little more for your opinion to carry sufficient weight. Just H 17:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Folks, look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sam Vimes2. Anwar opposed on 1FA even though Sam did have an FA. Note that Sam is very famous for his cricket work, India's favourite sport. Taxman knows what is going on here, he's interested in India related stuff. Anwar has opposed any Indian RfA, FLC, FAC, and has always voted to delist any possible Indian featured content. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to add my two penn'orth: I've always thought 1FA a silly criterion, as I think that the whole "Featured Article" business is little more than a distraction (and sometimes worse). I've never been interested in it, have never tried to get an article featured, and don't see what that has to do with an admin's duties (or the quality of an editor). I suppose that if someone had repeatedly tried for FA and failed, that might say something, though having seen the capriciousness of the process from the sidelines, I'm not even sure of that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed it's Anwar's perogative to vote in this way, but with Mailer Diablo supporting the candidate, it seems a bit strange. The Rambling Man 20:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Anwar is correct about viewing his voting patterns. He opposed every Indian or Hindu candidate for anything and was blocked a month for trolling and harrassment of Indian users and Hindu users.Bakaman 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Please, this is not the place to be discussing such things; RfA for Arjun01 != RFC for Anwar. Please, let it go. Daniel.Bryant 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Stop biting Anwar for his !vote. His reasoning may be unjust to some, but he is still entitled to his opinion as a Wikipedia editor. This reminds me of what happened to me in Daniel.Bryant's RfA lol...(!vote biting) Nishkid64 00:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   So you agree with his oppose based on the ethnicity of the candidate, his nominators or supporters? --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Majorly, you very well know that I am Indian. I did not say at all that I was agreeing with Anwar. This may have been a legitimate oppose, and you've been jumping to conclusions based on this user's past record on Wikipedia. Maybe he has changed, I don't know. For now, just drop the anti-racism crusade before this develops into some war. Nishkid64 02:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is slowly becoming one of the larger discussions off of an oppose vote. I don't mean to sound rude but can you guys please let the vote be. The user brought up a point which is true, I have nothing wrong with someone opposing per 1FA. He is entitled to his opinion. This is a free Wiki! :) ~ Arjun 01:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It is a "free Wiki!", everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. --Bhadani 18:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, is it really necessary to gang up like this when a user votes oppose? I disagree with the Diablo test, but this isn't the way to go about it when one person opposes an RfA while support is snowballing. ShadowHalo 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should check the opposing user's history. Diablo test is nothing to do with this. And, we'd stopped nearly 2 days ago. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is simply that this entire discussion started from the fact that a user voted oppose and that it was based on the Diablo test. Really, none of this discussion is going to affect the RfA, and this isn't the first time a snowball has developed over an oppose or two. ShadowHalo 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not got anything to do with the Diablo test. Check his past votes on RFAs, this is reasoning he commonly applies even when they did not fail or when Mailer Diablo supports the user. Truth is this user has had unfriendly conflicts with the Indian community in Wikipedia. Recently, for example, he supported keeping China as an emerging superpower and European Union as an emerging superpower but wanted to delete India as an emerging superpower when that was really the best written out of all three (analyze yourself at User:Nobleeagle/India as an emerging superpower, User:Nobleeagle/China as an emerging superpower, User:Nobleeagle/European Union as an emerging superpower). — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were to use my 1FA test, Portal:Hinduism easily allows him to make the cut. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. It had appeared to me that those issues had sprung up after people raised the 1FA test as an issue; the backstory wasn't quite clear to me. My apologies. ShadowHalo 08:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]