Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kseferovic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Kseferovic

Final (11/13/6); Ended 04:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kseferovic (talk · contribs) – Kseferovic made first edit on this Wikipedia on 1st February this year, and now has 2131 edits, with 1205 in main namespace. He had heavily contributed on these articles:

  • Bosanska Dubica - Article had two sentences when he began writing and expanding it. He added all the photographs for the English, German, and French Wikipedias on Bosanska Dubica. All of the text (except some from the introduction) is his own. (he has also lived in Bosanska Dubica)
  • Mlječanica - Started article by himself on Spa Mlječanica, located in Bosanska Dubica.
  • Flags of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Added photograph of Western Herzegovina, Tvrtko, and the three different sets of pictures (total 11 pictures) of the Bosnian Flag change. Also expanded the english version from 1830-present.
  • Bostel - Started article by himself, on RTV Bostel Chicago.
  • Bosanski Lonac - Helped edit part of it.
  • Iron Curtain - Helped create a new map of the Iron Curtain, added this to several different languages.
  • Hari Mata Hari - All of the text for this article was written by himself."
  • Fanta - Added information of fantas sold in the United States and borught the new fanta logo, which was long awaited.
  • Novi Pazar - Brought the coat of arms of Novi Pazar to Wikipedia.
  • B&H Airlines - Added information on airline history and flight destinations.
  • Lincoln Park High School - Added information and photogrpahs to the article.
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina - He added pictures for the gallery section of the article.
  • List of European Union member states - Helped add information on the status on the European Union entry of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  • Sarajevo - Helped fix many of the copyright issues with the images and helped bring some images.
  • Sarajevo Film Festival - Addition of the logo.
  • Sarajevo International Airport - He helped contribute information and fixed the logo pixelation issue.
  • Mostar International Airport - Helped to add the logo of the airport and contributed somed text.
  • Banja Luka International Airport - Fixed some grammar issues with the article and added some text.
  • BH Fanaticos - Contributed the logo to the article and fixed some redirects.
  • List of Bosnian and Herzegovinian flags - Created the whole article, as he created the article Flags of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He has also discussed many edits with other users on this wiki, and does frequently contribute on Bosnian Wikipedia and Bosnian Wikinews, where he's an bureaucraut. I think it's time to show that there are people from Bosnia and Herzegovina who understand how good project Wikipedia is, and who are willing to contribute on Balkan-related articles and to discuss and together contribute with users from nearly countries. Kseferovic has showed that his edits are objective and neutral. He has prevented User:Hahahohohihi from making vandalism and edit wars, and he was blocked because he's a sockpuppet. His more important edits were: [1], [2], [3] and many more. Emx 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I accept. Vseferović 00:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I am formally withdrawing, however, I will come back after I have fixed all of my issues, read up on the polcicies, and after I have improved my "edit summaires". Vseferović 04:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As I have stated below (for question three) I will work on solving sockpuppet issues and false lies throughout wikipedia. I have led to the blockade of one infamous user (Boris M) and have been trying to find and block sockpuppets of all users. Wikipedia should not be based on politics, which, regretfully, it is looking at the Balkan articles, specifically concerning those relating to Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia. I have been cooperating with Serbians and Croatians, being from Bosnia myself. This is the only way we can help stop sockpuppetry and bring great improvement to the articles relating to Southeastern Europe. Many users as can be seen on my user page have come and asked for help, since I am a well known and established user (at least for people coming from that area). Never do I let and opinion, unless it is absolute provocation, go unheard of. [4] [5] [6] [7]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Yes, there are several. I am pleased with the articles Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The article got a really big change after I started writing and uploading images.(however, at the time that I started it, it was named Flags of Bosnia and Herzegovina (with an "s")). Now it is redirected to the current article. Next, I am proud with the images that I have contributed. I have started drawing ".svg" (scalable vector graphic) images of top quality. Such are found on the Flag of BiH. Also a few images such as maps (image) Iron Curtain. This map was done in accordance with other users. I have had good relations with other users from this wiki and others. Such as a norweigan who uses this wiki and others.
I am most proud of the Wikiproject:Bosnia and Herzegovina. I had started it when a user came to me and asked me if I could start it. I , of course, agreed and created the project. The creation of the projects shows that I have an understanding of the wiki interface and how to work with it. The purpose is to united the politically disunited users of wikipedia. All three sides (Croatians, Bosnians, Serbians) should work together to improve the articles. Through the last few months a lot of work has been done and accomplished. User:Cordless Larry, who is not Bosnian, come to me [8]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, I have been in many different conflicts. However, I have tried/have kept my "cool" (stress) down from affecting my editing. Generally conflicts have been tied with articles relating to the Balkans. Those articles are important and most of them are lacking the neutrality. This is how several "main" conflicts rose up. Conflicts were resolved in an orderly fashion. Users who I have communicated with but had disputed, which are now resolved are: User:Rts freak, User:PaxEquilibrium (former HRE), User:PANONIAN, and User:Estavisti. However, all of these disputes were easily solved.
User:PaxEquilibrium asked me to become an admin a couple of months ago, suggesting that I was a really good candidate. Since then my priority has been focusing on how to improve myself and become the best Wikipedian that I could.
An instance where I have searched and followed the edits of other users (this does not fit into Wiki:stalking). User:Bormalagurski is an infamous user who has been blocked on both the Serbiana and English wikipedias. He was an admin on the Serbian one, now he is indefinitely blocked. I helped to get him blocked after I was asked by users for help on the Srebrenica massacre article. I found out that he was secretly asking users on the French wiki (first of all teaching them wrong info) and then tried to get votes for him (User:Remih and other French users) to take of the block on the Serbian Wiki. Soon, enough he was "aiming" at getting blocked. Here is the link for my "research"
Other disputes, start with ultra-extremist Bosniaks, (even though I am Bosniak myself), who tried to deny the neutrality of the Wikiproject that I started. Look at the bottom of the archives section: [9]
Other users asking for my help:
User:Dijxtra
Resolved disputes (Multi-ethnic):
My connection to other wikis:
I am also an active user on both the Bosnian Wikipedia and Bosnian Wikinews. On the Bosnian Wikipedia I am well established and active daily. There I have over 3.500 edits. On the Bosnian Wikinews, there I am a bureaucrat and founder. It took me a lot of work and a lot of effort to get votes for the beginning of the project. I am dedicated to the "Wikipedia" related projects.
Besides Wikipedia and Wikinews, my Wiki (MediaWiki) knowledge is seen through the new "wiki" website that I have started about my home town. [10] My knowledge spreads to MediaWiki, however, not being an admin blocks me from editing such articles.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: This is seen as a controversial topic and I can see this. There are instances when some rules have to be restricted/ignored, if it is for the betterment of wikipedia, itself. However, this has to be done only for a needy case not for simple disputes or issues. I mean if a user is a really good contributor, and happens to fall into the "three revert" category, then for them it can be ignored. However, if this persists not only for that specific case, but for other preceding then (even if they are a great editor) rules must be obeyed and cannot be simply ignored. I mean, Wikipedia needs to have a set policy which has to be followed and accepted. I have seen cases on other wikipedias were there have been made attempts to change the rules in order to prevent an indefinite block. This is by far unacceptable and admins should not be easily manipulated into allowing a change, that might later cause a lot of uproar or many more issues to follow. Wikipedia cannot be a lawless society. Rules should be followed (rarely ignored (maybe for smaller instances)).
I have a better understanding of question four. I can see the reason of not letting anyone go by, but then why do so users get by. I understand that wikipedia and admins cannot track anyone but I have seen direct cases where admins have let the three revert rule pass. I have finally understood the wikipedia policy but there is much more to learn. Admins have been wiling to give users more chances, how to you prevent that from occuring. Thanks alot now I have a better understanding. I have to take some time to further understand all of the rules. However, this is a manipulative question, also there needs to be more information about it on the links. Thanks, Vseferović 04:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: Blocks in my opinion are important. Wkipedia needs blocks in order to sustain its correctness. I have hd users come and ask for help but all I could do is tell them to seek a "neutral" admin. I think that indefinite blocks should occur for users that constantly vandalize pages, after repeated warnings. (However, if they can prove somehow, by I highly doubt it, then they should be given another chance). Generally those users or other will come back thorough sockpuppets. I have been fighting against this a long time, leaving out the national issues. As can be seen with User:Hahahohohihi and User Thunderman, both extreme cases of Bosniaks, (even though I am Bosniak myself) I have left out my own background for the benefit of wikipedia, because that would be the normal thing to do. Sockpuppets can only hurt wikipedia by adding political viewpoints and this is definitely not a political site, where articles are based solely on bias. Wikipedia is supposed to bring in an equal and fair viewpoint that would stop most bias. General blocks, such as two day blocks, are acceptable if small (tricky) vandalism is seen. However, three warnings should be given. These are my beliefs.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: Great question! I actually had instances where I had to deal with this. I mean writing an article about a company is normal, but advertising what they are selling, for how much, etc. is not accpetable. Wikipedia is based on an encyclopedic level and should be kept this way. Many have tried advertising themselves and their companies. Another issue is when people simply come and add random websites claiming to be useful when actually they are simply advertising. Ex. False advertisement
7. Can you provide examples outside of Wikipedia where you have had to evaluate research and reliable sources? If yes, please provide examples.
A: Actually, this is an interesting question. I started and have complete the searching for reliable sources for the article History of Bosniaks. Some users have disputed the article, but have not directly stated what was wrong with the article. Over these past few days along with users from the Bosnian Wikipedia I have been able to find a few good/useful sources that actually mention the material that was "somewhat" disputed. Some of the literature that I will be adding:
  • Korijeni Bosne i bosanstva (The roots of Bosnia and Bosnianness), Dr. Enver Imamović 1995.
  • Historija Bošnjaka (History of Bosniaks), Mustafa Imamović
  • Historija duhovnog života na tlu Bosne i Hercegovine (Life in Bosnian through ages), knjige I,II,III,IV", Muhamed Filipović, Svjetlost 2005;
  • Devetnaest etida o Mihailu Bahtinu, Muhamed Filipović, Svjetlost 2005
  • Bosanski duh lebdi nad Bosnom (The Bosnian sole is over Bosnia), Muhamed Filipović, Prosperitet 2006 godina
  • Bosnia:Short History, Noel Malcolm
  • Histoire du Moyen-Age, Viktor Duruy
8. What is your educational experience with relation to research, proper sourcing, and reading comprehension?
A: I am finishing high school this year. I attend Lincoln Park High School, but not the ordinary CPS programs, instead I placed into the International Baccalaureate Program which is a prestigious education program. I take freshmen and sophomore college level classes in highschool, which started my junior year of high school. Before that I attended Scared Heart Schools another international affiliation.
You can see my successes:
Science Fair State level pretty important for US
Quigley College Prep competition elementary (during Sacred Hear My friend and I were the only "two man" team, outscoring 16 other 4 man teams
Also I went to state level history fair for Illinois from my school. Important for US.
The rigorous IB program, as mentioned above, makes you do a final huge project called the Extended Essay. This essay takes over a year's research and has to be done in one whole years. This is an important part of the IB diploma. Also, the IB classes have internal assessments, as they call them, which force one to write essays about 2,220 words per class. The classes are freshmen and sophomore level college in high school.
I plan on continuing my education past high school and attending college + post grad.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support. Kseferovic has been doing many useful things, hunting vandalism, making concensus' and has showed to all of us that he really deserves everything that being a sysop gives (vandalism-easy reverting, deleting pages, locking pages and others). Being a sysop would improve his contributions and help him to reach his (and ours) goal: to make Wikipedia better. --Emx 21:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment- How can you support if the user hasn't answered the questions or even accept the nomination?--SUIT 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    I'm waiting for him to come to wiki, as he's on job still. He has said that he'll accept the nomination when he gets time (in few hours surely). --Emx 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support HarisM 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support --Sirmelle 00:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    note to crat: User has 2 edits as of now, the first being on December 29. One edit to his/her userpage and the other to this RfA. –The Great Llamasign here 17:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    He has around 600 edits on the Bosnian Wikipedia, and has been a member for a little over three months. Picaroon 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support edit summaries have nothing to do with administratorship. KazakhPol 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak Support knowledge and position of responsibility on another site is a plus and in my opinion makes Kseferovic a good candidate. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong support --Kahriman 20:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support--In my opinion based on his contribution by now, I think he is a good candidate. Emir Arven 21:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support -- From everything I know of Kseferovic, I believe he would make an excellent administrator. Live Forever 23:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support --demicx 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --EmirA 01:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support-- He is a true wikipedian who has added alot of content improved many articles, mediated disputes and has defended wikipediafor a lackof objectvity on the part of many users and vandalism-- Bigz 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose- Now then: Not enough edits to Wikipedia and needs more talk and Wikipedia talk edits. Also needs to use edit summaries more.--SUIT 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, no need for the tools. Mainspace edits are great, but participation in one XfD and no Wikipedia talk edits as of now does not show knowledge of policies and guidelines. –The Great Llamasign here 23:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Not true, actually as explained in the first question (look at the links), many users have come to me asking for help. The Srebrenica Massacre article, for example, has tons of vandalism per day! That is completely unacceptable considering that denying something like that would be denying the Holocaust. It is time there came an that would defend such articles. Plus, I have gotten tons of other needed instances as pointed out by the links above. Emx is right, adminship gives the ease when dealing with articles that are vandalized. And to tell you the truth the articles concerning the Balkans, (Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia), are articles that get vandalized from all sides every day. Some have gotten "famous" for daily vandalism. Vseferović 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    OK, but I'd still expect more XfDs and Wikipedia talk edits from an admin. –The Great Llamasign here 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Actually I do have several edits for XfD, my major ones "List of Serb war criminals" and "Bosniakophobia". There have been several instances where I have fought to keep an artice or strongly delete it. Thanks, Vseferović 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    OK, you have two XfDs. [11] I'd still expect many more from an admin. –The Great Llamasign here 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Why is your "Support" in the "Oppose" section? –The Great Llamasign here 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    Never mind, looks like the user moved it. –The Great Llamasign here 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. User seems to make a lot of edits without dicussion, or at least without explaining them in the edit summary. Lack of XfD participation also worries me, as it shows that this user will have trouble dealing with administrative deletion tasks. He also shows some trouble dealing with stress on regular vandalism reverts[12]. Messeges written in a non-english language[13][14] are unacceptable for the rest of the community and are against our talk page guidelines. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    I do not necessarily agree with you completely on that one. Yes, I have had, obliviously, discussion in different languages, but I have tried to keep it English. As you can see, if a user comes to you in one language and you happen to know that language then (I would say) he would expect you to answer in that language. My knowledge of english is high (that should not be a problem). Also, any little thing that is edited by me or any other user concerning the articles I focus on, is discussed, and if reverted has to be discussed as you cans see my edits and on my talk page. Thanks, Vseferović 19:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Even in case the user is native in the language you wrote it, please try not to use it because it might cause confusion and duplicate messeges. It is also important to add edit summaries to explain how that edit was useful and therefore avoid making unnecessary discussions on the article's talk page. Please take these issues into account and reapply for adminship in 3 months or so. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    I understand what you are trying to point out, but you make it seem as if I only use (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian (they are pretty much the same language, the difference is about the same as British/American English) Bosnian instead of English, which is not true. I mean, I have gotten translation requests as you can see on my userpage and some have left questions/commentes, but I do not see how that affects my editing and contributing. However, I am taking the initiative to speak only in English from now on, as you request. Thanks, Vseferović 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, I would like to see more participation in Xfd, AIV, SSP, and policy discussions. Sorry. Iced Kola 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose Strongest oppose. It's nice that you do vandal fighting, but vandal fighting is really a tiny part of admin responsibilities, and I have no reason to trust that you know how to use the rest. And if you don't give edit summaries, you're going to forget to give a block or deletion summary, and people are going to think you didn't have a reason, and you're going to get into Arbcom eventually. -Amarkov blahedits 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Changed directly to Strongest oppose per answer to question 4. I do not want to think of the place we'd be in if being a long-standing contributor meant you were allowed to edit war without being punished. -Amarkov blahedits 03:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    I understand your worries, however, edit summaries do not directly affect my editing. I understand it is easier for others to see what changes I impelemented, but that does not mean that the user could lie. The admin, or any other user, would still have to check the "history" of the article. I also would like to point out that edit summaries do not improve one's work, meaning that I might be giving better edits without edit summaries then some with writing them. (for some instances it proves useless to add an edit summary). However, I will pick up your suggestions. Thanks, Vseferović 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Edit Summaries aren't for your benefit, but for other users so we can better understand what changes have been made, and for what reasons. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    I understand. I will implement them from now on. However, one cannot simply rely on "edit summaries" (the "edit summaries" can be falsely written). Also, every time a dispute would erupt, the discussion page would be used to solve the issues. I prefer (or at least preferred, since from now on I will be using them for all of my edits) to use "edit summaries" for delicate changes and delicate articles. Such as: [15] and [16]. [17],
    I am guessing that people saw my last edits to Coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There I did not write "edit summaries" since a lot of text was being translated and added. I support edit summaries (and will use them more often), but I think that they come in more useful for delicate topic and changes that might cause problems. Thanks, Vseferović 21:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    The problem I have isn't really with summaries on edits. But if you don't use edit summaries, you are going to forget block or deletion summaries, and that is bad. Because blocks and deletions are rarely uncontroversial, and people will need to be able to see why they were done. -Amarkov blahedits 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    I understand your concern, but that is something that can be easily fixed. (Of course one would write his or her reason for blocking someone, that is truly important) :) Thanks, Vseferović 22:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose for now. I would like to see more consistent and effective use of talk pages, user talk pages, and edit summaries. I would also like to see a deeper understanding of policy. Come back in a few months!--Kukini 22:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per lack of experience in the project namespace. If you want to be an admin, you need some vandal-fighting, XfD, and AIV experience, but I see little to none of that. Nishkid64 01:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    I can always have more, but for project sites, I do have edits. I mean I started my own WikiProject. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina) I understand that you mean projects in general, i.e. Wikipedia:(something), etc. Just pointing this out. Thanks, Vseferović 01:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, by project-namespace, I mean Wikipedia-namespace. You have about 200 project-namespace edits, which isn't a lot in comparison to the usual expected for admin candidates. Nishkid64 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Nish. Sorry, you seem to be doing a very good job, but you do need more experience in admin-oriented tasks. Edit summary usage also far below the least acceptable. I'd be happy to support in a few months if you eliminate these concerns.--Húsönd 01:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose for now for lack of experience. I trust that I will have an opportunity to support in the not too distant future. Bucketsofg 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the constructive criticism and good suggestions. I will work on them and improve my skills. Greetings, Vseferović 02:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, appears to have completely skipped question 4. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    I am in the process of fixing somethings. Here it is, working on it... thanks, Vseferović 03:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks. Changing to strong oppose based on question four. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    lol, explain. Plus, write a better article since I clearly do not understand it. What do you expect me to answer? Explain to me the true meaning of "ignoring" on wikipedia. What is it? Seriously, and I am serious, what is it? The way I understood it was whether or not it is permissible to ignore rules. What is wrong with saying that ignoring rules is not a positive thing. If you are perplexed at my response to letting some go, then check how many cases per day are passed. I am perplexed at this. Thanks, Vseferović 04:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per above. Also, to fight sockpuppets you don't need admin privileges. You either need a good instinct or checkuser privileges (or preferably both). ~ trialsanderrors 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. You have lots of experience on other Wikimedia sites, that's always a plus, you want to deal with sockpuppetry, that's always a plus, and you've made a good amount of contributions to articles, that's always a plus. However, I'd prefer that you were willing to undertake a wider array of admin responsibilities, and edit summaries are quite necessary. I think you have what it takes to become an admin, but, because of the things listed above, I'm only able to give weak support at this time. Good luck. Picaroon 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    I'm going to have to change to oppose, because answers to questions added after my weak support are deeply concerning. I'm not sure what policy is like on Bosnian Wikipedia, but I'd highly recommend withdrawing this request and reading up on English Wikipedia policy, which some of your answers seem quite contrary to. Picaroon 04:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    Please explain number 4, thanks, Vseferović 04:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. I'm going to have to reluctantly oppose per your answers to questions #1, 4, and 5. For #1, all of the actions you listed, though noble, do not require admin tools. For #4, I have to agree with Amarkov above: that being an established editor is not an entitlement to immunity from bans (I have implemented a ban recently myself). For #5, while your transcending of ethnic lines is to be held in high regard (it is truly rare these days), you seem to have misunderstood the need for blocks. Blocks are often issued established users also, often because they have exhausted the community's patience (read WP:BLOCK for more info) or have overstepped in other places and hence needing a block. I strongly suggest that you read the English Wikipedia policy pages between the lines, and start engaging more in English Wikipedia processes and using edit summaries more often. Your superb article editing is a great start, but I have to regretfully say that it is not good enough for adminship. --210physicq (c) 04:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I can't see any vandal-fighting efforts or warnings issued to vandals; tags to articles for deletion; reports to admin noticeboards and only two contributions to XfD discussions. Use of edit summaries is also low but this can easily be corrected by forcing them in the user preferences. More participation in these areas is recommended. (aeropagitica) 19:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral as per (aeropagitica). --SonicChao talk 20:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral not sure if he's convincing enough. Yet. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per (aeropagitica). --teh tennisman 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral You have the makings of a great editor and good admin, you are not quite there yet.-- danntm T C 01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral as per discussions in Neutral and Oppose sections especially lack of edit summary use and lack of experience with XfD, fix these over the next few months then think you will ready for mop. Lethaniol 01:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks to all for suggestions. Vseferović 02:17, 30 December 2006 (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.