Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sundar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sundar

final (15/0/0) ending 19:07 7 April 2005 (UTC)

I am nominating Sundar for the post of an admin. Sundar has been a contributor here for about a year, his speciality being South India related topics. He has ~1925 edits and his featured article is Tamil language. As I've seen, Sundar has largely been immune to controversy. He has also helped copyedit the Sikkim and Mumbai articles, which have recently acquired FA status.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Nichalp. I accept the nomination. I think I need to ease myself into this role slowly. Hope to meet the expectations of Wikipedians. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. I support him. He sounds good enough. --Jontsang 21:07, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sounds good to me. --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 20:00, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I support it !!!. - Santhoshguru 11:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. good user dab (ᛏ) 13:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Good nomination. --Lst27 (talk) 23:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. --JuntungWu 06:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oh yes. utcursch | talk 07:42, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Makes WP more international/multicultural. Paradiso 13:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support I have seen this name quite a bit when reading Indian related articles. Squash 03:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Yes ... Nomination has my Support - I find Sundar has been extending support to wiki concept --Bhadani 06:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support, of course. But he should be required to help searching more Admins for the Tamil Wikipedia, even if he didn't want't to become one himself, for technical reasons, I understand. --Pjacobi 19:48, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  13. Very Good Candidate. Support -- Kishore 06:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support--Jondel 09:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support : Sundar appears to be a cautious kind of editor who avoids conflicts, strives for factual accuracy, and works well with other users. A random sampling of his contributions reveals a user of the kind that we could do with more of. David Cannon 10:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • 963 edits to the main namespace. —Korath (Talk) 23:22, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that's because I put my suggestion in the Talk page before adding/deleting anything significant. Also, of late, I've been welcoming newcomers and rallying users towards improving articles that I feel as needing attention but can't be improved significantly by just me. -- Sundar 05:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. First is the most obvious thing - reverting vandalism. Slowly, I'll start taking up other chores as well. -- Sundar 05:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Tamil language is the most important of them. This edit that I made after refining the article in a temp location gave the necessary push, but later well supported by Vadakkan and others. This section was the most interesting of them all. What started out as an example in response to a user's query grew into, arguably, a unique section in the article. Other lesser known stubs that I started and am pleased with because of they filling a gap are, to name a few, DOT language, and culpability. -- Sundar 05:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. Though, I've remained without getting involved in too many controversies, two incidents need to be mentioned here.
First of them was due to my first ever edit (even before registering a user account) and was solely my mistake. Yeah, I want to admit here that as an anon, I had engaged in self-promotion on Context-free grammar, almost solely because I didn't understand the philosophy behind Wikipedia. [1], [2] and [3] were those unfortunate edits. I am forever thankful to Arvindn who not only reverted me but answered my e-mail queries quite convincingly. (See User talk:Sundar#Remnant records of my early misadventures in Wikipedia.) That made me very responsible and later when I was editing the Venpa article, I was firm that I'll not add a link to our paper myself, even though it was appropriate there. It was the same paper that I was trying to promote in the first place! Finally Dab added the link. See his comments at User talk:Sundar#Venpa. Sorry about this long confession, it gives me a big relief.
The second was related to my edits on the talk page of the then Google article alleging bias (I disclosed right there that I work for Yahoo!). My mistake was the wrong context. I did it under a section alleging censorship by Google, a theory which I clearly was not sympathetic towards. Alterego misconstrued that I along with the original accuser are alleging censorship by Google with a malicious intent. He thought both of us were employees of Y! (whereas only I was) and that both of us alleged censorship when only s/he was. The problem became serious for me when he posted this allegation in his blog with a very damaging title "Yahoo! conspiracy to malign Google - it's employees insert content against Google in Wikipedia" (or something like that), which he subsequently toned down following my discussions with him. (See User talk:Sundar#Record of me getting my fingers burnt due to my edits.) Since then, I've been extra careful with my edits. -- Sundar 05:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)