Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TodorBozhinov

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] TodorBozhinov

Final: 33/23/13 ended 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

TodorBozhinov (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I have been contributing to the Wikipedia community, with constantly rising activity, for a year (since late May 2005). My main (yet not at all sole) area of interest are the articles related to my native country, Bulgaria, and I am the founder and initiator of WikiProject Bulgaria and the Bulgarian WikiPortal. Although I certainly have made mistakes as part of my work here, I consider myself ready for the responsibility and duties of an administrator. I believe I have good knowledge of the policies and am also very familiar with unpleasant and non-creative activies such as making redirects, copyediting, mass categorizing and moving pages. Todor Bozhinov  → 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Todor Bozhinov  → 16:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Rama's Arrow 16:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support looks good to me. I don't consider "only edits Bulgarian articles" to be too narrow, and I'm sure Wikipedia has few active Bulgarian editors so I'm glad for his activity there. Also I don't understand withholding support until he pastes a warning template on a few dozen vandals' talk pages, as this is just grunt work and won't make him into a better candidate than he already is. — GT 17:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    Voted by 205.188.117.8 (AOL IP) G.He 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    I have struck out this vote as it appears to be illegitimate. Per User talk:Froggy apparently this has happened before and the vote was not truly attributable to the registered user. — GT 01:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    I, too, have struck out that vote [1], but it appears that 152.163.101.7 unstruck it, got reverted, and did it again: [2][3][4]. G.He 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    And it appears that that IP also voted below... G.He 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support A sincere user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. His humility in admitting some of his shortfalls is equally striking. Would definitely be a good admin if given the chance. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Moderate support per GT and Siva. Joe 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Good user. -- Shizane talkcontribs 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support He passed my test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, per above reasons   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, looks fine to me. --Tone 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. In a user with less commitment, or where I had any concerns about levelheadedness, I'd look for much more substantial involvement in deletion or vandalfighting. However, your obvious commitment is the most important thing for me. The Land 22:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support. Firstly he is a great editor, strongly devoted to the project, usually it means he would be a good admin. Secondly, he is a specialist in the area that greatly needs the administrative attention, namely the South Slavic issues. In order to separate vandalism from strong POV from NPOV, etc.; in order to suppress the edit wars but not improvements of the articles you should have some command on the issues. Todor has this command in the Bulgarian and related (Balkan is especially important) and I am not sure any existent admins could substitute him here. abakharev 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per abakharev. TummellIl 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Great editor. I probably prefer a few more edits to wikipedia namespace, but will still make a good admin. DarthVader 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Shanes 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Supports, a strong candidate. --Irpen 03:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per Alex. I don't see anything wrong with specialist admins. —Khoikhoi 05:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong support. I'm ashamed at the opposers. They clearly have had limited experience with this wikipedian. If you don't know the editor well, why bother voting? --Ghirla -трёп- 06:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per Alex and Khoikhoi. SushiGeek 06:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. A dedicated contributor. Zaxem 06:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support for the above reasons.--Telex 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support after reading his answer to Q3 and my additional Q. (seems reasonable). CaptainJ (t | c | e) 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Merovingian {T C @} 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support - looks like a sound candidate to me. He seems seasoned in the art of article editing, the real point of the encyclopedia. Good luck! --Celestianpower háblame 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - Self-nomination, dedication, honesty - all good things. I agree with JoshuaZ though - I would advise Todor to ease into his new toolbox - don't block users, let other admins do that at first, then you will get the hang of it more. Good luck, zappa.jake (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support - Nice guy. Nice contribs. Cool sig too. I wonder who designed it for him! I am changing my vote to STRONG Support, after the responses to my questions below.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Much more impressed with affirmative reasons given than with the rather flimsy arguments for opposition. Derex 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support as per above.--digital_me(t/c) 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support - a good editor.--Aldux 18:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Looks good. The narrow focus on Bulgaria issues is alright IMHO. Nephron  T|C 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. We need you to be there for NPOV issues on your region, and reasons listed above.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. For reasons already mentioned (especially by abakharev) --Hectorian 16:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Weak Support A pretty good editor. Not a ton of edits though. Mr. Turcottetalk 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support As per Khoikhoi and Siva1979. Regards, --E Asterion u talking to me? 14:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Will be good admin. --rogerd 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Unfortunately feel a need to oppose. [5] shows that the user clearly has the right attitude for adminship. Furthermore, the user has edited in a few areas other than just Bulgaria related issues. However, the user has very few Wikipedia space edits. Furthermore, the user wants admin tools for among other things reverting and blocking vandals, but I see almost no history of dealing with vandalism on any significant scale and no edits to WP:AIV. I also see few edits related to the other concerns for which the candidate wishes to use admin tools. I am not convinced that Todor has the experience or need for admin tools at this time. JoshuaZ 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed, many of my contributions are related to Bulgaria, but I believe I have a broader view of the developments in Wikipedia even if most of my edits concern my native country. My work connected to dealing with vandalism until now has been expressed in warning the users and reverting, since most of the vandals I have encountered until now have been sporadic and have usually quickly ceased vandalizing. But as a whole, I fully understand Joshua's concerns and intend to be more active in those spheres if I am granted admin status. Todor Bozhinov  → 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose per JoshuaZ. Naconkantari 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Looking through your user_talk edits, I see only a small handful of vandalism warnings, yet your main reason for wanting adminship is vandalism. I suggest you come back once you've done some more reverting and warning. --Tango 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per Tango. ForestH2
  5. Oppose - per Tango and JoshuaZ, sorry -- Tawker 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Weak Oppose - not enough Wikipedia namespace edits. Kalani [talk] 19:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Sorry I must oppose this time around. Wikipedia email not activated. Other concerns as raised by JoshuaZ. FloNight talk 23:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak Oppose Sorry, just can't support at this time. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Not many WP space edits. You say you prefer working on the articles themselves, and there's certianly nothing wrong with that, but there is no particular need to be an admin for the tasks that seem to interest you. As oppose number 1 pointed out, that's a pretty good sign you're the right sort to be an admin - not many people would turn themselves in. I'd support after more WP edits. -Goldom (t) (Review) 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose with a big vote of thanks. The answers to the questions and the discussion around them make it plain that you don't have the experience for admin. Your stated mission, though, is to be a Bulgaria specialist - it seems to me that you're doing a top job at that without admin powers. Either get some experience of doing some admin chores then come back, or just stick at the good job you're doing. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I believe it is clear you have made worthwhile contributions yet I do not see enough Wikipedia edits or the need for the tools to support you at this time. SorryGuy 19:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Per JoshuaZ in particular, but some others as well. --Cyde↔Weys 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per JoshuaZ and others. Ukrained 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    For whatever it's worth, the user above is known to rarely, if ever vote at Adminship nominations but stalk myself vigorously whatever I do. Since I voted "support", hence above. I am glad he follows my edits but as far as voting is consenred, it is a different matter. Count it or not, just I think this noteworthy. --Irpen
    Well, this is lie and pestering. Irpen is harrassing me in order to influence the voting, or simply to promote himself in such a strange way :). Why don't you self-nominate instead? Nominee, how you, as a possible admin, would react on such a breach of WP rules (particularly of voting rules)? Ukrained 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Of course I had my reasons to vote "Oppose". But I won't justify myself under pressure - just to make a point. Nobody is allowed to intimidate and pester voters by demanding justification. Ukrained 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    See above, --Irpen 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per JoshuaZ mainly, needs to create a more acceptable signature too.--Andeh 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, "vandal fighting" involves informing newbies as to why their edit was reverted. Some of them then learn what they should be doing, and become good contributors. Proto||type 13:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, does not appear to meet 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose At the moment lacks the all-round contributions which I like to see in a RfA candidate. --Wisden17 19:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Significant edits are unacceptably low - just 12% despite 13 months here. Anwar 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Per Wisden17. -- from The King of Kings 18:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per JoshuaZ Cynical 23:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose while Todor is definately one of the more sane users I've had discussions with, I do not see a sufficient edit history in the areas where Admin tools are necessary. - FrancisTyers · 13:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose as per Joshua. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose sorry. Not enough project edits, and not sufficient rational for needing Admin tools. Can be a major contributor without them. Eluchil404 11:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Needs more projectspace edits, and warnings are crucial when dealing with vandals. Many don't even realize they're doing something wrong and hurting WP, and stop after their first warning. If they're not warned, they don't stop. Also, sig is too long, reaching 3 lines easily. --Rory096 20:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral- Ask again in a couple of months. Reyk YO! 20:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I'm a bit torn. Yanksox 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I would like to support, but Rory brings up some interesting arguments. Royboycrashfan 20:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral – good editor, but not sure about adminship just yet. More edits in the Wikipedia: namespace would demonstrate a knowledge of policies. Answers to questions are OK; as a few others have commented, warning vandals is important, I suggest you get some experience of that, also. If so, re-nomination sometime towards the end of the year would have my support – Gurch 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Overall good editor, but I would like to see some more Wikipedia: edits. LINUXERIST@ 01:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral - I actually think it's good that the user has one focus (Bulgaria). However, I don't think that the user has enough knowledge of Wikipedia policy with only about 100 project space edits, and an activated email account is crucial for an admin. —Mets501talk 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. Per experience in discussion and policy, I will change to support when I see e-mail activated. RadioKirk talk to me 04:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral for low edits at project pages, i.e. those prefixed "Wikipedia:".--Jusjih 11:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral. Can't support due to the use of "span" and CSS in the signature (per WP:SIG, but it would be a poor reason to actually enter an "oppose" vote. --Elkman 14:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    I have changed my signature to a shorter and less complex one in order to solve the issues mentioned by User:Elkman and User:Rory096. Thanks for bringing the problem up! Todor→Bozhinov 14:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Neutral His edits are certainly pretty high quality, though I don't see much reason for this user to be an admin do to likely lack of interest. We have too many admins that are either inactive or never really admin. Its good that you focus on articles, and maybe being a sysop is not necessary. Unless an admin is active in admin tasks, its best not to have user's comming to them with issues requiring an admin. On the other had, the occasional use of admin powers is useful for any editor, and he is trustworthy...I might support, but I don't really know...Voice-of-AllTalk 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral lack of RC patrol, NP patrol experience and complete lack of experience with the community. Computerjoe's talk 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Appears to "speak" several languages, but this is one of those silly self-nominations. :-OMyrtone@Requests for adminship/TodorBozhinov.com.au 11:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but I do not understand your objection. Does the use of quotation marks imply any irony? If yes, why? Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian (and Montenegrin) are actually the same language, linguistically close enough to be farily easily comprehensible to Bulgarians, and I have more experience with it than an ordinary Bulgarian. As for Macedonian, I have almost complete understanding of the language and some experience with using it, but consider listing at as a mother tongue more of a symbol — I consider Bulgarians and Macedonian the same people, but divided by politics, and this also applies to their language. And what exactly is your position on self-nominations? Todor→Bozhinov 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user TodorBozhinov (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 129 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 05, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 27, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.61% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 39.06 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 771 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 4.68% (234)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 4.86% (243)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 61.3% (3065)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2183 | Average edits per page: 2.29 | Edits on top: 27.84%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 12.98% (649 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 75.26% (3763 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 3.68% (184 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 8.08% (404 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 79.3% (3965) | Article talk: 3.78% (189)
User: 1.3% (65) | User talk: 4% (200)
Wikipedia: 1.54% (77) | Wikipedia talk: 0.2% (10)
Image: 5.36% (268)
Template: 1.82% (91)
Category: 1.68% (84)
Portal: 0.66% (33)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.36% (18)

Username TodorBozhinov
Total edits 6579
Distinct pages edited 2910
Average edits/page 2.261
First edit 17:25, May 24, 2005
 
(main) 5112
Talk 265
User 147
User talk 231
Image 395
Template 124
Template talk 14
Category 87
Wikipedia 104
Wikipedia talk 10
Portal 84
Portal talk 6
 G.He 16:50, 4 June 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: The main chores I would help with are quickly reverting vandalism, deleting non-free-licensed images, blocking vandals and semi- and fully protecting pages in cases of vandalism, edit warring and heated disputes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I cannot say I am particularly pleased with having made a given contribution or written a specific article, although there are some that have been specially pleasant to work on. Of these, I would mention the articles on the Tetraevangelia of Ivan Alexander, the Banat Bulgarians and the Bessarabian Bulgarians, the mayors of Sofia and the Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral. Writing the somewhat shorter articles on the Burgas-Alexandroupoli pipeline, the American College of Sofia and the Zograf Monastery also turned out to be a great experience.
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: Although I do not think someone has ever caused me stress during my time as a Wikipedia contributor, I do have engaged in some occasional conflicts, the most serious one being what could be classified as an edit war with a troll about facts in the List of cities in Bulgaria. While I asked for a third opinion and did much to prove the user, a well-known troll whose activity has spread well beyond Wikipedia, wrong, I also slipped to violate the three-revert rule. And although I was not blocked because I reported myself, I regret letting the situation escalate to this point through being too quick to revert.

Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. Why do you want to be an admin? Yanksox 17:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
A: I would like to be an admin because I feel there is great need for a person who is well informed on topics related to Bulgaria to actively help with the related administrative tasks. I also think I would be useful by doing general chores, whether related to my area of interest or not.
Why do you feel there is a need for an admin whom has knowledge relating to Bulgaria? Yanksox 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The number of articles related to Bulgaria has got large enough, yet there is no admin that I know of who is specifically interested in the topic. I feel there is a need for someone who devotes much of his time here to Bulgaria to handle the related administrative tasks and help by means of the features an administrator has access to. This way, tackling vandalism and doing away with images with inappropriate license would be quicker and more efficient. Specifically, discussions connected with the articles in this sphere are very often carried out in Bulgarian, so fluency in the language is also of importance. Todor Bozhinov  → 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for making this a full disscusion, but you mention an admin whom devotes themself to Bulgarian articles, this could be done without admin powers. Exactly what powers are you refering to and how would you use them in relation to articles dealing with Bulgaria? Yanksox 19:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's OK, I'm happy to explain why I think so. I refer to using the powers I have listed in my answer to question one to better maintain Bulgarian articles. I would use them in the same way as in any other case, but my general interest in Bulgaria and the fact that I closely watch the developments in the sphere in Wikipedia (keep an eye on new related articles, edits, projects, communicate with users, discuss decisions, etc.) would help me use an administrator's powers better in this area specifically. Todor Bozhinov  → 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to interfere, but I'm a little concerned by this. Just to take your answer further; Would you protect pages you were heavily involved in editing because of a POV vandal? Thanks CaptainJ (t | c | e) 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
A POV pusher or a vandal? I consider these to be two separate things in most cases. Anyway, I would warn the user several times and then block him or her if he or she does not cease vandalizing, as I understand protecting a page as a measure only required in cases of persistent mass vandalism or very heated discussion involving a number of people. If you mean a situation in which I am an involved party in a discussion about the neutrality (or the lack thereof) of a given article and your question is whether I would protect the page until the dispute is resolved, then my answer would be: Not before I have heard a third opinion, consulted a fellow administrator and well thought everything over. I.e., if this is the situation you mean, I would prefer to avoid doing this if another resolution is likely to be found. Todor→Bozhinov 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Computerjoe (optional)

5. You don't have many project edits: why?
A: I prefer working on the content of the encyclopedia and am more attracted to editing articles and discussing the content. I certainly do not purposefully evade "Wikipedia:" namespace pages, I am simply more interested in the other spheres of the project.
6. Have you ever RC or NP patrolled?
A: Although recent changes and new pages patrolling isn't a usual thing for me, I often keep an eye on them and have made an occasional edit, minor or not, to some of the pages I have seen there.
7. Is there a cabal?
A: I see Wikipedians as people equal in terms of rights and regard the entities within the project as simply what they are - groups of people who do their job to serve the community, not secret authoritarian organizations. I have not seen the slightest reason to think otherwise so far, and find it highly unlikely to encounter one in the future.

Question from FloNight

8 Your Wikipedia email is not activated. Why? Will you activate it now?
A: I have activated it now. I have not experienced the need to communicate by e-mail with a fellow Wikipedian so far — the main way I would discuss issues is by Wikipedia talk pages, or less ofen by messengers such as ICQ. But I recognize activating my e-mail could be useful as another way to be reached that has its own advantages.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A
  6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A
  7. 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 behaviour?
    A
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A

Questions from  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C)

  1. Do you believe that many English WP users are (probably rightfully) predisposed against Balkanic users, considering them nationalists or POV pushers beforehand?
    A: My answer to this question would be no. During my time here, I have met several people from English-speaking countries who have no or little interest and experience with the topic of the Balkans, and they have always tried to be as friendly and neutral as possible. I do not think there are many people who are prejudiced towards users from the Balkans, and I also believe there is no reason there should be such people. Although controversial issues abound in the articles related to the Balkans and there are many POV pushers and extreme nationalists, this has not created (and, I strogly believe, will not create) an atmosphere of prejudice in my opinion, because there are many more great contributors from this part of Europe.
  2. Have you done anything that proves otherwise?
    A: I prefer to avoid controversial issues as much as possible, but they seem to be unavoidable when working on the coverage of the Balkans. In the cases I have participated in heated discussions, I have always tried to remain calm and neutral, and have seen many other fellow Wikipedians from the Balkans do so too, this way proving to the community that there are plenty of great contributors from the region. Of course, nationalist/POV trolling is common, but the controversial nature of the topic itself suggests it. The presence of trolls/nationalists/POV pushers is expected by native speakers of English from parts of the world far away from the Balkans due to this.
  3. How do you plan to use your sysop powers to rectify this predisposition?
    A: I do not intend to undertake any specific measures, because I do not feel such predispositions exists (and certainly not on any larger scale). I would simply continue to contribute for the good of the encyclopedia, enrich and improve knowledge of the Balkans and Bulgaria in specific, while acting against vandalism, POV pushing and trolling. I see this is appreciated by the other users and certainly helps to improve the appearance of the region in their eyes.

Question from Avg

Will you refrain from using your admin powers in controversial articles involving Bulgaria and a neighbouring country (FYR Macedonia, Greece, Turkey)?
A


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.