Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sukh

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] Sukh

Final (43/18/8) ended 13:36, 17 May, 2006 (UTC)

Sukh (talk · contribs) – has been regularly active on the English Wikipedia for 8-10 months, devoting his energies on India-related (culture, politics, history, Punjab) and Sikhism-related pages. He is also an administrator and major contributor on the Punjabi Wikipedia. Although his energies are divided, Sukh is the most consistent builder of Sikhism-related articles on this Wikipedia - his work includes script clarification and transliteration, category re-organization and clean-up. He also very helpful other users who have questions/concerns over Punjabi and Sikhism-related content. He has compiled a steady and impressive tally on the English WP of over 3,300 edits at an average of 3.73 edits per page across 900 distinct pages. Sukh also wages battles against vandalism, trolling and POV-pushers on India and Sikhism-related contentious pages, often single-handedly, and while guilty of a few mistakes, he also has plenty of experience in dealing with conflicts and difficulties. He has remained largely calm, disciplined, helpful, civil and determined in his work.[1] On the Punjabi Wikipedia, Sukh has a consistent record of helping other users, protecting quality and enlarging the project. I respectfully believe it is high-time for the English Wikipedia to recognize his efforts and grant this proven, tested user the tools to protect Wikipedia content and help users across the community. Rama's Arrow 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your nomination. I accept the challenge! Please see the comments section for clarification of my role on the Punjabi Wikipedia. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Powerful Support I have faith in Sukh for his persistent and positive work against vandals, POV-pushers on Wikipedia. Rama's Arrow 12:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support--Jusjih 13:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Tintin (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support A good user. --Tone 15:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Good editor. - Ganeshk (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Despite needing prodding on Q1, user has the experience and the temperament. Don't forget your edit summaries! RadioKirk talk to me 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    It appears one of the largest issues is my edit summaries. I promise to drastically increase the number of summaries starting now! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per above Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Will fill vital role. :) Dlohcierekim 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support A very hard worker, will be a plus for Wikipedia. Gsingh 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Enough wikipedia namespace edits for me. Trustworthy candidate. DarthVader 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. We desperately need admins with diverse interests and backgrounds and AFAIK we don't have an expert in Punjab/Sikhism/Northern India yet. He was involved in potentialy controversial topics but nobody questioned his neutrality so far, it is impressive. We also benefit from recruting admins who already have experience on other wikis. abakharev 00:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong support With the massive expansion of Wiki in all directions there is now a need for "specialist" admins. Concentrating on a particular subject area and knowing it in depth is an asset to be encouraged, not something to be criticised. Likewise admins who specialise in e.g. vandalism are greatly needed. OK, pull yer socks up with edit summaries. Slapped wrist. Tyrenius 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support per Darth and Tyrenius. Joe 05:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support for two reasons. One, we could use more admins; two, though I don't want to seem rude to anyone, when the best evidence that can be brought up is being too focused of an editor and having low edit summaries, I think that we can then trust that editor with some "no big deal" tools. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - It's good to have an area of specialization, that way you can pick up bad edits that CDVF does not (it doesn't pick up deliberate misinformation). Hooray for article writers.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - yes, a definite support to a specialist. We require editors/administrators with real depth of knowelwge in particular field/s, as opposed to editors/administrators whose exposure to a particular subject is confined to what he/ she may have read in the wikipedia. During last one year, I have been subject to rather bitter experience of editors/ administrators crying “foul” “foul” about matters they may have heard first time in their life from the pages of wikipedia. We require more Sukh (a word used in many North Indian languages and this word means “happiness” and “bliss”). Yes, for the sake of long term interest of wikipedia, we require administrators like Sukh. --Bhadani 14:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support - per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Impressed by what I saw at Babbar Khalsa and Khalistan - good NPOV warrior. Also, worked on standardising the transcription on WP articles. --Gurubrahma 17:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support -- Canderous 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Talk
  22. Support - Not nearly enough Indian Admins, and his edits, while the older ones may have lacked in summary, have been solidly good --Irishpunktom\talk 23:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support --Jay(Reply) 01:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, interested in building as well as managing the encyclopedia -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 02:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, why not? --Terence Ong 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support, but edit summaries blah blah blah. Glad to have someone with an intimate knowledge of Sikhism-related articles here. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Weak Support Hopefully from this construtive criticism, Sukh will probably use edit summaries much more now. Slighly low Wiki-space edits shouldn't be too much of a concern, he has been punjabi admin for awhile. Except the English Wikipedia is a bigger cyber-jungle. GizzaChat © 12:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    "A bigger cyber jungle" (!) with bigger challenges to keep the contents pure and encyclopedic. I am sure that Sukh can do that comfortably. --Bhadani 16:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. The Oye Chak de patte support. Praji edits in good faith and my interactions with him have all been positive. --Andy123(talk) 09:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Joe I 13:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Nice to have an admin watch Indian-related articles for vandalism. =) --Shultz IV 17:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Has an excellent understanding of NPOV & other Wiki-policies. Overall a fine editor. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  34. Moral support. Guy can learn on the job. Obviously willing to learn from mistakes (i.e. edit summaries). Good record of fight against vandalism, trolling and POV-pushers. Regards, --Asterion talk to me 18:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. The nomination itself is enough for him to always use summaries. No need to send the guy through this again over this. --Irpen 04:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. BlankVerse 07:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. No serious arguments presented by the crowd of opposers. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per Bhadaniji. Also, Sukh has had a thankless innings at Khalistan, where he has resolutely upheld NPOV. He has even otherwise had to deal with things like this, and has always reacted in exemplary fashion. His contributions, which include this page, are very good; the fact that they are specialized, combined with his lack of exhibitionism, makes them little-known but also renders them the more valuble, IMHO. In my experience, Sukh is knowledgeable, urbane, straightforward and eminently restrained. He is sure to be similarly restrained in future and he ought to be better equipped for his job. ImpuMozhi 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support, no reason not to. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support, primarily on the basis of his own abilities, and secondarily to promote ethnic diversity in the Wikipedia Security Council. Sisodia 04:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Bharatveer 05:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. If he starts using edit summaries, which he's promised he will, I think he'll make a great admin. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support: nice bloke. Thumbelina 22:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. 1. tasks in your answer to question 1 (remove POV, categorising, and cleanup) do not require admininstrator tools. 2. Has a low usage of edit summaries according to a look at last 500 contributions. Kimchi.sg 12:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Moved to neutral. Kimchi.sg 12:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - Narrow range of contribution, low usage of edit summaries. --Knucmo2 16:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Please do expand on what you mean by narrow range of contribution. I've contributed to articles spanning North Indian culture (Punjab in particular - this includes language, music, food etcetera) in addition to maintaining pages on Sikhism in general. There is a lot of content for these two topics and I find it more than enough to handle at present! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Exactly. Pages purely related to North Indian culture or Sikhism. --Knucmo2 23:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    FWIW, only eight countries in the world have a population higher than Uttar Pradesh, just one of the states in North India. In fact, Sukh should be encouraged for fighting systemic bias. --Gurubrahma 17:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed he should be, but this still does not excuse a narrow edit range. You can fight systemic bias and still have a wide range of contributions. --Knucmo2 14:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I am sorry for opposing this but from my experience of interacting with him, I feel that he does not have the prequisite experience yet for adminship. However, I strongly agree that he is fair and has all the qualities to become an administrator in near future. --Blacksun 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Knucmo2. Royboycrashfan 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Hi - I respectfully ask you to consider that Sukh has worked over a large number of articles on North Indian topics - these are a lot! He has fought vandalism and POV-pushing, and he commits himself above to improve his edit summary usage. I request you to have another look at this. Rama's Arrow 21:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose With my experience of dealing with him i think he has lot of intellect but on the controversial issues he tends to go by his emotions. Anmol.2k4 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Please read Talk:Khalistan for further details. Specifically the personal attacks that this user has instigated under the guise of 220.227.152.109. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Kindly refrain from making unfounded allegations. In case you are suspicious you can visit WP:RFCU. Andy123(talk) 17:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    They are not unfounded. Please see User_talk:Sukh#POV_tag_at_Khalistan where the user acknowledges it is his IP address. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    I was ready to castigate Sukh for such allegation, but he is entirely correct that the user readily concedes that he's edited as 220.227.152.109. It's likely inappropriate for Sukh to have adduced the Anmo's past incivility, inasmuch as his vote here is justifiable in content and decorous in form, but the suggestion as to the IP user's identity was altogether accurate. Joe 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    I am writing this as a reply to the accusation made by user:sukh. Sukh has accused me of attacking him personally as i had earlier suggested that 220.227.152.109 is my ip address, I'm a student at an institute with ~1500 kids like me, all of us have our individual computers but we share two ip addresses (220.227.152.109 &there is one more), i was shocked by sukh's allegations but after going through the talk page i found what he was talking about, what i believe may have happen is that a student from bba batch may have posted that / may have been involved in a discussion with sukh on the khalistan page, as our bba course is accredited by punjab technical university and they have a subject "punjab history and culture, that may have got one our juniors interested in this article. I will further reply to queries related to this incident once my semesters exams are over (that is after 4 days).Anmol.2k4 20:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Hi Anmol - if the IP is shared by an educational institution, this can be verified I guess by Wikipedia. Sukh is not to blame if he was led to believe that you made some personal attacks on him if you use an IP that is used also by others. You did not assert that the IP was a shared one when your exchanges with him occured. Rama's Arrow 21:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    What exchanges are you talking about ? I don't give away my location when i am discussing with anyone on the net, and i don't know what is going on the khalistan article as im involved in the studies so it will be helpful if you will explain what are you talking about in detail. And i was not blaming sukh for blaming me , as not every body is posting on wikipedia from institute. I regret voting against him as that has opened up pandoras box.Anmol.2k4 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Before I begin, let me say that this will be my last comment on this page regarding this matter. Please either continue it on my talk page or on the Khalistan talk page because I don't believe it's particularly relevant here.
    Frankly, that IP address may be an institute address but I'm not sure I believe it. Your writing style suggests that it was you who wrote those comments. Lines such as "because i have dealt with them before" suggest that you are infact the same person. In addition, I have not seen any edits by 220.227.152.109 that do not correspond with your interests. I don't accuse people of things without sufficient cause to do so. Please don't take me for a fool. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    This IP address does not appear to be from an institution, the IP is from Reliance Infocomm, which is an internet provider in India. The site used to find the owner was the APNIC Whois database at [2] it is not an IP for an institution just to be clear. Gsingh 22:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Im sorry but you are wrong, this ip address does belongs to our institute and as far as reliance infocomm is concerned they also sell ip addresses (you can confirm that) , our institute has leased two ip addresses from them and we get our bandwidth from ERNET&CDDAC, ERNET provides IT services to educational institution, And to further prove that this ip is owned by our institute then you can call Reliance or ERNET, Or you can see my contribution , and contribution's of "220.227.152.109" and you will see that we have started an article on our institute, if you think im lying then tell me how can i go back in time and create an article on an institute just to prove that this ip add. is shared by many students ? Anmol.2k4 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for clearing it up. I've contacted Reliance Infocomm to confirm Gsingh 00:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for that , please post info. you got from reliance infocomm here so that rest of the people can see that i was telling the truth all this time.Anmol.2k4 06:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    Due to the recent argument, false accusation & hostile nature of few wikipedians toward me i think it will be very difficult for me to coexist in such community, and im scared if i will stay he more such people may continue to bully me in future, i past whenever i made mistakes i always apologised for those and continued to contribute to the wikipedia. But i am not one of those people who apologise for others mistake. In the discussion above one can see that i gave away a lot of my personal information to prove that im behind NAT and share ip address with other students in our institute in fact i have also provided telephone number to our institute so that the community can confirm that i study there or not, is the ip address used by anonymous user to attack sukh is being used by the institute. But i don't think it is of any use as this argument has got too ugly and gone too far, therefore i have come to a decision that this will be my last contribution to the wikipedia. Anmol.2k4 12:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose due to narrow experience, poor usage of edit summaries, lack of Wikipedia namespace edits, arguing with anyone who hasn't supported him, and answer to question #1 doesn't suggest any need for adminship at this time. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sorry, but I do oppose when use of edit summaries is this low. May support in future if this is addressed. Jonathunder 16:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Hi - I respectfully ask you to consider that Sukh has already pledged himself above to improving his summary use. Mathbot usually investigates the last 150 edits, so its highly likely that by the end of this RfA, Sukh will have much better tallies. I hope you will re-consider your view. Thanks, Rama's Arrow 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Currently today, Mathbot says, "Edit summary usage for Sukh: 38% for major edits and 32% for minor edits". This is far too low for me to support, sorry. My vote will not change in this RfA, but I may support a future one. Jonathunder 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, see below. --Rory096 06:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per above. --Masssiveego 05:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    Funniest pair of opposes I have seen :). This is what I would call an infinite loop (and the reason why wikipedia only allows redirects to 1 level) - Aksi_great (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think Rory was referring to the neutrals below considering that he edited before Massiveego. Of course massiveego was referring the the oppose votes. GizzaChat © 14:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Has block history on Urdu language article [3] Sign of stubborn POV pushing. Answers below are not satisfactory. Anwar saadat 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think it's fair to say that was quite some time ago when I was relatively new on Wikipedia (in terms of number of edits - I've had an account since 2004) and it was my first and only block. I was also new to the concept of the 3RR. Judging by your own block log (2 blocks within your first month of registration), you can see that as a new comer, not knowing the rules can get you in trouble. After time you'll come to understand why you were blocked and learn something from it. That's what I did. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Sorry. Edit summaries are a big deal. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Nobleeagle. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF yada yada. Cynical 12:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Only 8 to 10 months? You ought to wait until you've been around for about 2 years. That way we know much more about you. (Wikimachine 18:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC))
    Are you being serious? Is that your complete reasoning for an oppose vote? Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 05:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Increasingly concerned about repeated references to POV pushing, narrow range of interests, and argumentative style in India topics and nominations. Sandy 12:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose until the user has proven history of using edit summaries. And no, Rama's Arrow, I am not planning on reconsidering because of a pledge to use edit summaries or because of very recent usage. -- JamesTeterenko 16:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose all admins should use edit summeries as much as possible. Frankly all users should use edit summeries as much as possible, even if it is only "add link" or some other similar phrase.Eagle talk 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Very sorry to do this, but the combination of low projectspace edits and low edit summary use really does suggest more experience is needed here. Candidates must show some time spent in projectspace, as that is essential to understanding due process on the wiki. Xoloz 20:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per above. Mopper Speak! 22:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per above. Also, edit summary usages are quite low: 38% (major) 32% (minor).—G.He 01:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, low usage of edit summaries and not warning vandals after reverting changes. Thanks for expanding your answer to question 1. Kimchi.sg 12:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Your concern on edit summaries and warnings is valid, but allow me to stress that Sukh has been a determined Wikipedian working to protect articles that don't receive enough attention from others, and suffer from frequent vitriolic attacks. I'm sure that based on the input received from others, he will improve his usage of edit summaries and warnings (pretty easy to do so) but we musn't reject, IMO, his experience and persistence on that basis. I hope you will give this some more study. Thanks, Rama's Arrow 12:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral, low projectspace edits. Note that pawiki isn't really big (though I can't tell for sure, pa:Special:Statistics appears to say 900 edits total, including things like pa:Law that are blanked spam.) Low edit summary usage also concerns me. --Rory096 14:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    After thinking about it, changing to oppose for the same reasons.
  2. Perhaps later, needs more experience. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - questions do not seem to show need for sysop tools -- Tawker 17:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral . Please try to improve on the problem of really low edit summary usage and more Wikipedia namesace edits.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 17:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    I'm definately doing that now! Just look at my edits since this RfA :D Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral per the person directly above me. Computerjoe's talk 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Netural per the person two above me. —Mets501talk 02:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Edit summary use too low and user likely will not use new tools.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral - Not trying to beat a dead horse, but not using edit summaries is a big red flag. If nothing else, it makes RC patrol more difficult. Good edit quality, but would like them to be more diverse, and some more community involvement. You're a much needed voice in maintaining Sikh-related articles, and look forward to seeing more from you in the future. After reconsideration and good points made above, changed to support. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral - I haven't come into much contact with this user. But upon entering discussion in Talk:Khalistan about a week ago I've only found arguments and chaos. I'm not sure whether this can be related to being in the wrong place at the wrong time or whether it has any relation to Sukh. But the latest argument in which he has accused a user of using an IP Address to make personal attacks is rather uncalled for and the 'discussion' is by no means civil. So Neutral from me. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nobleeagle, I think you are misrepresenting Sukh. Sukh has maintained civility in almost every discussion on the Khalistan page. And he has had a legitimate reason to doubt Anmol.2k4 becoz he has had issues regarding WP:NPA and of use of an anon IP for the same. Please examine this more carefully - you can't blame a person for being active on a page frequented by POV-pushers and trolls. Rama's Arrow 02:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Stats.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Sukh (over the 3509 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 779 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 11, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 23, February, 2004
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 34.45% Minor edits: 28.26%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 49.71% Minor article edits: 27.95%
Average edits per day (current): 4.5
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 3.22%
Unique pages edited: 822 | Average edits per page: 4.27 | Edits on top: 9.29%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 8.46%
Minor edits (non reverts): 29.27%
Marked reverts: 16.61%
Unmarked edits: 45.65%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 57.99% | Article talk: 14.59%
User: 2.76% | User talk: 9.77%
Wikipedia: 5.07% | Wikipedia talk: 1.17%
Image: 0.48%
Template: 3.62%
Category: 3.19%
Portal: 0.26%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0%
Other talk pages: 1.05%

Username   Sukh
Total edits     3509
Distinct pages edited   928
Average edits/page      3.781
First edit      03:58, 23 February 2004
        
(main)  2045
Talk    512
User    97
User talk       343
Image   17
Image talk      1
Template        127
Template talk   36
Category        112
Wikipedia       178
Wikipedia talk  41
  • On the Punjabi Wikipedia I'm an administrator. My Punjabi skills are okay (reading wise) but I don't think I know Punjabi sufficiently well to contribute articles. My main job there was to get the Wikipedia up and running so others could contribute. I set up the main page, got some friends to do translations of articles and I delete spam/vandalism. When I get more time over summer, I shall hopefully begin petitioning people I know to spread the word about the Punjabi Wikipedia. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:17, 10 May 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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would concentrate on POV issues related to my preferred topics (Punjab and Sikhism). In addition, I will do chores such as categorising articles and general clean up tasks (wikifying and the like). I will help with general issues such as blocks, article deletions and other basic chores. Considering I tend to revert vandalism on a daily basis, the rollback tool will be immensely useful (especially when WP is running slow).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have made general contributions to articles on Punjab (culture, language and people), and Sikhism. I appear to be the only regular contributor to most of the related articles and a lot of them require significant work. I've also created most of Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts and I'm formulating proposals to unify the transliteration of all Indic scripts used in India Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic).
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: Certainly the massive POV debate on Talk:Khalistan has been frustrating (this is a very prickly issue involving North India and everyone has their own idea as to what happened and why). I may get a bit hot headed at times, but I don't get too worked up about an issue. If another editor is willing to discuss issues, I am more than happy to do the same.
4. Would you expand on question number 1? Why do you want to be an administrator? TIA. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. I've just added to it now. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above 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.