Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vanjagenije

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

Final: (122/4/1) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 18:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije (talk · contribs) – Hello folks! As an SPI clerk myself, I've worked a lot with Vanja in the recent months, and oftentimes wished he was an admin, so that he could perform all the of the clerk duties to their fullest extent -- which is what sparked this nomination. His experience in clerking SPI, and the fact his recommendations to fellow admin clerks are almost universally followed, are a very eloquent demonstration that we trust his judgement when it comes to administrative action; to be perfectly honest, his dedication and tireless clerking (for which he's earned ample praise) is what keeps the SPI boat floating... at times it feels like he's carrying almost the entire team on his back. But SPI isn't the only relevant experience Vanja has -- after having been around Wikipedia for many, many, many years, he's got a plethora of article and media contributions, got a solid deletion log, is an experienced new page patroller/AfC reviewer, and the fact he has been mostly uninvolved with the so-called "dramaboards" reflects brightly on his motives for contributing (in my opinion). Oh, and of course the squeaky clean block log is the cherry on top of the sundae. That he's seen some of the worse dark alleys of Wikipedia around SPI and still wishes to volunteer even more of his time and efforts almost makes me feel like I'm not doing enough around here, and it's why I think Vanjagenije needs to be granted the admin bit. We're dying for more admin clerks at SPI, and making our best clerk (there, I've said it!) an admin is one easy way to help. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much for nominating me, I do accept this nomination. I have to say here that it is a great honor for me to be nominated by such an editor as Salvidrim!. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I’ve been active in the WP:SPI since January 2015, first as a clerk trainee, and then as a full clerk since July. Main administrative work I intend to take part in is SPI, because the process is heavily backlogged and there are not enough admin-clerks. It is often needed to block the sockpuppets, or to review deleted edits presented as evidence, and non-admin clerks are not able to do that. I’ve also been active new pages patroller since December 2013. That is another administrative work I’d like to do: reviewing CSD nominations, reviewing pages with expired PRODs, and similar. New pages patrolling and sockpuppet investigations are two areas I’m interested in, and they are also much interconnected: many socks are discovered when they recreate a page previously created by the sock master. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I have written few dozen articles since I joined Wikipedia in 2006. None of them are rated as Good or Featured articles, but I think some of them, especially those I created in the last two years, are quite OK. I have also patrolled several thousand of new pages, which I think is also significant contribution to this project. I used to be very active Teahouse host for some time (approximately December 2013—January 2015) when there were not so many hosts. Later, more and more editors came to volunteer to the Teahouse, so I moved to the SPI. I have also done some WP:AFC reviews in the last few months, but not too many, just a few dozen. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have never been in any serious conflict with any other editor, although there were some minor conflicts. In such cases I usually try to be as calm as possible and to discuss the issue peacefully with other editors. The only case I remember I was really stressed was that Tajiks case when I gave my best to reach consensus on the talk page (see: here), but other editor just kept reverting without even trying to discuss it ([1]). I then reverted him few times and I was very angry at myself when I realized I was edit-warring. I did calm down, however and everything was eventually settled through consensus. That was certainly the only and last time I let myself be angry over Wikipedia. I realize now that this is just a pastime, not real job, and there is no point to take it so emotionally. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from SNUGGUMS

4. If able to block sockpuppets, do you plan on applying for CheckUser rights?

A: Well, maybe, but not in the near future. I'm not very knowledgeable about the technical aspects like IP ranges, open proxies and similar. I guess I'll have to learn more before I would be able to apply. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Northamerica1000

5a. I notice that you have initiated and contributed to a number of AfD discussions (AfD Stats). Do you have any plans to perform AfD and other discussion closures, such as at WP:TFD, WP:FFD, WP:CFD, WP:MFD and WP:RFD?

A: Yes, sure. But, I think that the XfD area is very sensitive, so I can assure you that at the beginning I will not close any XfD discussion unless I am 100% sure. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5b. The vast majority of your AfD nominations and !votes are for article deletion. Regarding such matters, do you tend to gravitate toward the deletion of Wikipedia content?

A: Actually, vast majority of my AfD edits are directly connected to the WP:new pages patrol process, and so they are naturally towards deletion. But I also voted "keep" or "merge" in certain cases. I once even went so far to ask for a deletion review of an article I saw during the patrol and I thought should not be deleted. The review was successful, but the article was later deleted again (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bădoi). In my early days, I was a WP:Deletionist, I admit that. But, over the time I came to realize that such a stance is not helpful for the project and that many times there are alternatives to deletion (like improving the article in question). See, for example, this article. It was a total mess, and would be probably deleted if proposed so, but I improved the article instead. So, you don't need to worry that I would "gravitate toward the deletion". Vanjagenije (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from MurderByDeadcopy

5c. To my thinking, a 94% deletion (really it's 95% when adding speedy delete) voting rate is still a deletionist. I don't see a deletionist as someone who helps Wikipedia since it is clear that that work does more to drive writers away from the project, so what would you do to keep writers? Especially since often times the first contact a new writer receives here on Wikipedia is a big AfD warning sign followed by a ton of Wikilawyering. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep votes: 5 (2.6%)

Delete votes: 181 (93.8%)

Speedy Keep votes: 1 (0.5%)

Speedy Delete votes: 2 (1.0%)

Merge votes: 3 (1.6%)

Redirect votes: 1 (0.5%)

Transwiki votes: 0 (0.0%)

Userfy votes: 0 (0.0%)

A: As explained above, great majority of my participation in AfD comes from the New pages patrol process. When reviewing new pages, I propose some of them for deletion, when I think they do not belong to Wikipedia, according to our policies. During my time here, I've patrolled over 12,000 pages, most of them in the mainspace. And, I sent 380 of them to the AfD [2]. I don't think such numbers show that I'm a deletionist. As about your question, I think that keeping new writers is a complex issue, and there is no simple answer to that question. During the last few years here, I've done a lot to help new editors to learn more about Wikipedia and the way it works (You can find a lot of such examples in my talk page archives, especially Archive no. 6 onwards). I was very active Teahouse host for some time, and I helped many new editors to write their first article, to understand referencing, notability and copyrights. I also participated in the development of the WP:VisualEditor tool by translating the documentation to Serbian language (VisualEditor should be one of the main ways to keep new editors). I agree with you that it is very bad for a new editor to see their article being proposed for deletion, but every new editor can always ask me for help, and I will always do my best to explain him/her the issue. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Supdiop

6. In what situations you can connect an account with an ip address?

A: Me myself cannot connect an account with an IP address in any way because I'm not CheckUser. CheckUsers have access to the CheckUser tool which allows them to see IPs behind the accounts. But, the policy prevents them from publicly sharing this information except in some specific cases that are listed at WP:CHK#IP_information_disclosure. CheckUser will almost never publicly disclose other user's IP. An exception may be a case where a person engages in serious disruption of the project using several accounts and anonymously (using IPs). In that case it would be impossible to stop the disruption without demonstrating the link between the accounts and IPs. In such cases, the protection of Wikipedia has higher priority than protection of disruptive user's privacy. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Brustopher

7. To what extent should admins enforce WP:BANREVERT when blocking socks of banned users? Should indisputable improvements to articles such as fixing dead links or adding policy compliant hyperlinks be reverted simply because the editor in question is banned?

A: I don't see that as an admin's duty, as every editor can revert contributions made in violation of a block or ban. When deciding what to revert and what not to revert, I think the interest to improve Wikipedia should overbalance the interest to exclude blocked editor from editing. Therefore, an edit that is obviously, unequivocally beneficial to the project should not be reverted. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Supdiop

8. When is blocking an ip address with a block summary "Block evasion: User:Example" acceptable?

A: Such block summary is usually not acceptable because of the privacy concerns. Publicly revealing user's IP would be contrary to the Privacy policy. But, in certain cases it is acceptable, or even inevitable, to publicly reveal users's IP in order to stop his disruption to the project. If a user makes significant disruption using both account(s) and IP(s), an admin has to block all his accounts and IPs immediately in order to stop the disruption. In such case, it is clearly visible in the block log that those were blocked at the same moment, and thus that they belong to the same person. In this case, it is inevitable for an admin to implicitly reveal one's IP, but the integrity of the project has priority over privacy. In my own opinion, even in those cases, an admin should not explicitly connect the user with the IP in the block summary (There is no specific policy about that as far as I know). The only case when an admin should connect user with his IP in the block summary is when a user engages in serious long-term abuse using multiple accounts and IPs/IP ranges. In such a case, it is necessary for other admins to know the history of the case from the block summary in order to be able to stop further abuse. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Reyk

9. Under what circumstances is it appropriate to block an editor for refusing to answer a question on their talk page?

A: I don't think anybody should be blocked just for refusing to answer per se. But, an editor may be blocked for some other reason that is manifested through his unwillingness to answer. I guess there is a large number of such examples, I'll try to think of a few. For example, an editor with a problematic username may be asked to change his username, and then blocked if he doesn't answer. Or, user who is making disruption and is accused of incompetence may be asked to express his understanding of certain Wikipedia process (to check whether he is incompetent or bad faith editor). This user may be than temporarily blocked if refuses to answer. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Ottawahitech

10a. You have expressed eagerness to work in closing wp:XfDs, including CfDs. Do you believe it is important for those who make decisions to have experience building Categories? If so, what experience do you have working with Categories?

A: I have never expressed any eagerness to work in closing XfDs. What I actually said above (Q 5a) is that I would be willing to close a XfD discussion, but only if I'm 100% sure that clear consensus is reached. I don't think any special experience in building categories is needed to see that a clear consensus is reached. I have very little experience in the category area and I would certainly not be closing any CfDs unless consensus is clear. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10b. Do you believe it is important for those who make decisions in AfDs to have experience building articles? If so, why are AfDs different than CfDs? If not, please explain how one can gauge consensus when judging the credibility of so-called-votes?

A: It depends on what you mean when you say "those who make decisions in AfDs". Basically, in the AfD process, decision is made by the community. Any user may comment and provide arguments for or against deletion, and the decision is made through consensus. I guess you wanted to ask whether the user who closes the discussion needs experience. But again, it depends on the nature of the discussion itself. If a consensus is clear and obvious, any user or admin may close the discussion without the need for any special editing experience. But, if the consensus is not obvious (i.e. there are arguments both for and against deletion), than experience is certainly needed: both experience in AfDs and general experience in writing/editing articles. When deciding whether consensus is reached or not, closing admin should review all arguments and check which of them are based on policies and previously reached consensus. Only !votes that are based on policies and previous consensus are credible, of course if there is a policy or previous consensus about the topic in question. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Cordless Larry

11. In your existing role as a sockpuppet investigation clerk, what standard of evidence do you look for when deciding whether to endorse a CheckUser request?

A: There are many signs of sock puppetry. Those that are usually looked for, when deciding whether to endorse a CheckUser check, are: editing similar articles in similar way, similar edit summaries, similar language (use of words, characteristic spelling errors and similar), chronology of editing, time of registering account (if new account is registered just after the previous was blocked). It is usually expected that the user who opens an investigation provides such evidence supported with diffs. But, presence of some or even all of those evidence does not mean that the CheckUser check has to be endorsed. Due to technical limitations, CU is not endorsed if user's technical data is stale. Also, if the evidence is overwhelming, the user might be blocked without the need to use CheckUser. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Ottawahitech

12. Some of us (me) have no idea what New Page Patrollers do. Can you please explain the role and the benefits it brings to Wikipedia

A: New pages patrol is a process in which newly created pages are checked for obvious problems (pages created by the WP:autopatrolled editors are not checked). Any experienced editor may take part in the patrol. When patrolling, patrollers check pages one by one and decide whether a page in question should be deleted or not. If patroller believes the page does not beling to Wikipedia, he proposes it for deletion (using WP:CSD, WP:AfD, WP:PROD or WP:BLPPROD process). If the page does not need to be deleted, the patroller may put maintenance tags on the article or may improve the article himself (like fixing style/layout errors, adding wikilinks, adding categories, and similar). After that, the patroller marks the page as "reviewed" and it is then marked so in the Special:NewPagesFeed. Patrolling also often includes interaction with new editors (welcoming new editors, giving them advice on their talk page, ...). There are several tools designed to help patrolling (I am using WP:Twinkle and WP:Page curation tool). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Vanjagenije: Vanjagenije (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Vanjagenije can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

1. Support - As nominator. Good luck! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I would have co-nominated this individual if I had known they were about to run. I've worked with them at SPI and it often feels like they solely clerk all the SPI cases. It is without question their work at SPI would be exponentially improved if they had the tools, specifically to review deleted contributions and block accounts. Mkdw^talk 18:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Great work at SPI, and I'm sure they will handle the bit without any trouble. JMHamo (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Great Work in SPI ,long term user since Oct 2006 ,well versed in policy with over 50K edits and has created over 190 articles.The Project will gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, unfortunately, this is happening way too late. Kharkiv07 (T) 18:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support, with advice My interaction with the candidate has only been at SPI, and I've found they've always been a pleasure to work with. However there was a single isolated incident where I would question them having them block button. Here they asked for an IP to be blocked for an unconventional duration, but also where it would be ineffective given the circumstances. This is admittedly trivial, and no reason to oppose, as it's something they'll easily learn on the job and probably already have since that time. Sorry to nitpick, but I have to be honest with my !vote :) Beyond that I have a lot of trust in the nominators' judgement, and it certainly goes without saying more admins are needed at SPI, so I'm all for this promotion — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support, of course. For some time now, SPI has functioned almost entirely on the diligence of this one editor. I don't know how you're not already an admin. You'll do fine with the bit, and we need more like you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - While I would have liked to see more experience in other project areas, the candidate has demonstrated impressive proficiency in the area where they wish to work, thus they would be a netpositive to the project.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 19:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support There would be a clear benefit to giving him the tools and I'm not seeing any red flags that would make me hesitate in giving them. Chuy1530 (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support (even though you took me to the woodshed once! ), as per Salvidrim's nom. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support based on the nominator—good find, Salvidrim, and good luck Vanjagenije! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support: My little interaction with Vanja on some articles was good. His dedication to SPI and overall Wikipedia is great. I was also thinking that he should become admin. If he becomes admin then it will benefit Wikipedia.--Human3015^TALK  20:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - very easy call. --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support: SPI clerks need the tools, especially prolific ones. If the candidate receives the mop, I can confidently say that SPI reports can be processed significantly faster on average. Esquivalience ^t 21:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support outstanding job as an SPI clerk, deserves to also have the rights to block sock puppets Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - Don't particularly know the candidate, but I trust the nominator. Good luck, enjoy being an admin! BMK (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support – Yes, of course! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - Absolutely! Excellent work at SPI, and would clearly be a net positive. Mz7 (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support – I have been working with Vanja at SPI and often implement admin actions per his request. I trust his judgment and I believe that he will do a good job in handling the tools.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Seems like a suitable candidate who has a need for the tools. No good or featured articles? Eh, doesn't matter, because Vanjagenije has a better knowledge of SPI policy, and he really would benefit for having the block/protection/deletion functions handy for SPIs and new articles. epic genius (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Does good work at SPI, talk page also looks good in handling SPI questions and issues. Has helped in other areas like the Teahouse when needed. Has done content creation and certainly knows that most important area from experience. Long tenure, has established trustworthiness. Sockpuppets are a continuing big problem and it well help the project to have another trustworthy administrator to deal with them. Donner60 (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support great work at SPI, has a strong track record of commitment to the Wiki. Trusted, long-term contributor and great candidate for the mop. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. Basically needs the mop for SPI. Long-term trusted user. sst✈^discuss 00:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Of course. I've seen the user around, and I would definitely trust them with the toolset. An obvious net positive. --Biblioworm 01:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support, Yes definitely, I would need admins that can take care of the job at SPI. Also I can fully trust him not to abuse the tools. Lets give him a go. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose. Nope, support of course! Qualified candidate. Jianhui67 ^T★C 03:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support per all of the above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 03:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
29. Easy support Obviously qualified in an area that definitely needs more admins. ~Awilley (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Disclosure of self-interest: it will make my job easier. Vanja is dedicated, hard-working, conscientious, and helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support per nom and Bbb23. Also, being a checkuser is much more boring than it is difficult. INeverCry 06:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Excellent candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - an excellent candidate and someone with a significant need for the tools, as anyone who frequents SPI would know. Hard working, consistent, able to cope with precision and tedium in equal measure. Sounds perfect for the job. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
34. I don't know Vanjagenije personally, but I have absolutely seen his work at SPI on more than one occasion, like many others above. No concerns. — Earwig ^talk 08:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Great candidate, no concerns Aparslet (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Has been around. Clearly demonstrated need for the tools. Widr (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support — Clearly a well-rounded and trustworthy editor. Wikipedia can only benefit from Vanjagenije having the added toolset. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
39. I've at times patrolled SPI regularly and I watch several SPIs for long-term sockmasters, so I've encountered Vanjagenije plenty of times. Like MusikAnimal, I've had one or two occasions when something has just raised an eyebrow, but in hundreds of SPIs I've dealt with it really is just one or two; nothing so concerning that it would have major fallout, and nobody makes exactly the right call 100% of the time. I don't think Vanja lacks anything that can't be learnt on the job, and his work at SPI is invaluable. Giving him the admin tools would make his SPI work much more efficient and reduce the burden on other admins who do the button-mashing after Vanja has done the hard work. That's clearly i nthe best interests of Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, don't don't minimize the blocker. You have to move your mouse to the right place on the SPI, you have to click, then on the block form you have to move your mouse over the block button and click again. That's at least two moves and two clicks. Absolutely exhausting. Seriously, as for your and MusikAnimal's comments, Vanja has grown since he started clerking at SPI. When I've occasionally disagreed with him, I tell him so, he says I understand, and he packs the tidbit away in his brain for future reference. At the same time, he's not a pushover. If he disagrees with my disagreement, he says so and why without a single ounce of heat. Often he's right, I'm wrong, and there you are. I think he'll continue to grow, which is the best thing we can say about any editor/administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

40. Support In a quick glance I didn't see any NPOV violation by the candidate in Kosovo Pomoravlje (as cited in Andrew D's oppose), and an extra mop is always helpful at SPI. Miniapolis 14:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Q1–3 are good. AfD at 7 keep and 400 delete is a surprise despite the patrol/deletionist explanation above. I'm unhappy with some delete reasons, but rationales are clearly stated and candidate has changed position when new material surfaces, so I don't think it is a problem. Glrx (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. I haven't crossed paths with the candidate, but that's because I don't spend much time at SPI. There's no question that improving our capacity to launder socks is a good thing. A clear rationale for how the admin tools will be used, clear evidence that this usage will fill a need, and there's nothing wrong with a specialist admin. The answers to questions satisfy me that the candidate will not overreach. I very much like Bbb23's reply to HJ Mitchell, just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support: has a clear use for the tools and more than enough experience in SPI, AfD, CSD etc. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Would have been in here yesterday If I'd been around yesterday. Not had any personal interactions that I can think of (which can be a good sign sometimes ...), but seen their work at SPI on many occasions. As said above, specialist admins are needed, and new ones who won't go rushing around in all directions causing chaos. The Oppose Brigade (or are they really Devil's Advocates? not thought of that before...) may still be digging, but they'll have to be very convincing to turn me on this one. Peridon (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
46. Rschen7754 21:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Experience at SPI is a big plus. clpo13_(talk) 22:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - I've encountered Vanjagenije at SPI and elsewhere and found them to be thoughtful, careful and precise. I trust them. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Worthwhile candidate, would be very helpful in a needed area. Spencer^T♦C 00:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Vanjagenije would be a great help at SPI with the tools. Mike V • Talk 02:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. I'm really glad I happened to look at my watchlist for the first time in a couple weeks. I watched this page a while back after interacting with Vanjagenije several times. His work is extremely good at SPI, and the usefulness of admin tools there more than warrants giving them to him. Everything I've seen from his work has been stellar. ~ Rob^Talk 02:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - Much to like and no good reason to oppose. Good luck with the mop, Vanjagenijie. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - Have encountered them a lot at WP:SPI, where they do very good work. Reviewing some of the edits in article space shows them to be a clueful, sensible editor. No worries from my side. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support I have no personal knowledge of the candidate but a quick check of their editing history and the endorsements above satisfy me Vanjagenije would be a welcome addition to the admin corps.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support, per the use of good judgment at WP:SPI. —SpacemanSpiff 13:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support haven't encountered candidate before, but seems sound. Solid candidate, seems to have clue.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support has the experience and the clue - Q7 nails it for me Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support' Solid candidate. I'm not worried about the current oppose !votes. Pichpich (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Never (as far as I recall) run across the candidate in the course of editing, but am happy to support on the strength of the information made available to us. Tim riley talk 17:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. Have worked with the candidate at SPI and found them to be diligent; asks questions to clarify understanding and consolidates learning. Am actually quite pleased that his low level of deletion recommendations (considering the number of new articles they have reviewed) usually results in deletion; this demonstrates a solid understanding of deletion criteria. Risker (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. Based on review. Kierzek (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. An editor with this much experience and overall support from the community stepping forward for admin duties at SPI is a positive development. --Djembayz (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support No reason to think this candidate would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Gave a good answer to my question, doesn't seem to be up to anything dodgy. Brustopher (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Excellent work at SPI that demonstrates a need for the tools. Nothing that I have seen in Vanjagenije's contributions suggests that he would abuse the tools. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Érico (msg) 01:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
68. (edit conflict) Support SPI isn't the most pleasant place to be on Wikipedia, but this candidate has the guts to work there, and the mop certainly sees a lot of use in SPI. I wish the candidate Godspeed with the mop! --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 01:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. More than qualified it would seem. Experienced and trusted editor with a clear need for the tools. Thank you for volunteering. Anotherclown (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. I have come across Vanja extensively via SPI and he's always done a very good and thorough job. In SPI I've seen him look very carefully at people to ensure that things are what they seem to be - he clearly doesn't want someone to get blocked for something they didn't do, which shows integrity and thoughtfulness. Both of these are excellent and necessary attributes for an admin. Heck, I'm just ashamed I didn't think to nominate him myself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I examined briefly the edits raised by Andrew D, who is usually pretty sensible, but I am not convinced there's a problem displayed here. Otherwise seems suited to access of the toolbox. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    
73. Support good nom, good answers, good tenure, good attitude, good CLUE, good need for tools, good communication. Almost certain to be a good admin. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support- intelligent and level-headed. Good answers to the questions. Nothing concerning has turned up in the oppose section. No brainer here. Reyk _YO! 17:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support, do not see any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. Yep, clear net positive, with no reason not to be trusted with the mop. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 21:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - I honestly thought he was already an admin so was rather surprised to see his name at RFA!, Anyway excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Trustworthy, knowledgeable, and always willing to discuss concerns. There is also my own selfish reason that he will be able to expand his already substantial clerking duties at SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support this qualified candidate who would make a welcome addition to the administrative group. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. It's a mere formality at this point, so I'll offer you my congratulations and wish you good luck with the mop! Best, -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support without reservation. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support: A strong record of service and a willingness to do work that needs to be done.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Solid work at SPI. The answers to questions are spot on and the editor has a good contribution record. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - Reaper Eternal (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. It's not a hard call. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support - Net positive. Begoon ^talk 16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support - suitable candidate, no concerns. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
89. Oppose Indefinitely blocked just seven months ago :-) Seriously, Vanjagenije routinely demonstrates commitment to the project and a solid understanding of how things ought to be done. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, however it was a mistake by the blocking admin. Per the block log it says that he was blocked and then the admin realised that they made the mistake and immediately unblocked the user. This user has a very good commitment to Wikipedia and should be given a chance. :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe Nyttend was making what is commonly referred to as a "joke" :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Nyttend was the one who made that block, so they're in the perfect position to make that joke. (Don't worry Nyttend, at least you didn't delete the Main Page or anything) --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 04:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

90. Support One of those candidates I see has an RfA open and immediately thinks "they're not an admin?!" Azealia911 _talk 19:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support - No serious concerns. Seems a mild deletionist in sentiment but reversed course on at least one of a couple bad AfD nominations and withdrew when a village was shown to exist (LINK). I take that as a very good sign, it's the people that always fight to the last ditch that you have to worry about... Seems to be a person who needs the Admin gear for their work on the New Pages queue. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support. Disclaimer: I have not read anything in this RFA except for the nominee's name. All I have to say is ... Vanjagenije, if you get the admin bit, I implore you to use your tools at WP:SPI. You are already an asset there with the fact that you have the CheckUser privilege, and SPI will benefit greatly with you having access to the "block" button. Good luck, though it looks like you will get the mop at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Steel1943: The candidate is a SPI clerk, not a checkuser. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @NeilN: Works for me! Steel1943 (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

93. Support. Sure, I'll join the masses of supporters. Besides all the above, which I agree with, Vanjagenije is helpful and polite when you come his talk page with concerns. This is desirable in an admin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support A trusted editor who does valuable work at SPI, and therefore has a legitimate need for the administrator's tool kit. The oppose !votes are unconvincing. Thank you, Vanjagenije, for agreeing to serve. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support No serious concerns. Jim Carter 07:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support: A great candidate! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support Based on this candidates history here I support. I have seen no good reason presented to oppose. HighInBC 17:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Great candidate, and I cannot wait to see what you do! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - I was surprised to learn that Vanjagenije, who does some excellent work here, wasn't already an admin. Granting admin rights can hopefully only enhance Vanjagenije's contribution. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
100. WP:100 and WP:RIGHTNOW Yash! 19:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Pile on. eurodyne (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
102. Stephen 22:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support We need more candidates like this one, so if you're an admin scout take note. RO^(talk) 00:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support No substantial concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. Fine editor doing fine work. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support, I know this editor from the excellent and helpful work they do at SPI. No issues or concerns here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
107. —Kusma (t·c) 09:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support abso-freaking-lutely. No issues here! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support per rationale explained repeatedly above. Obvious WP:NETPOS and would make legitimate and good use of the flag. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
110. NativeForeigner ^Talk 13:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. No memory of personal experience with this candidate. Fair answers to questions and seems to be trusted in a difficult field of mopping. Mostly I'm impressed by the varied collection of supporters above. I choose to trust this editor with the larger toolset. BusterD (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support I know a good admin when I see one. JAGUAR  18:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support I going with the flow on this one. Cheers! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
115. Of course. T. Canens (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support - I have no previous knowledge of this editor and I don't have time to do as exhaustive a search of his contributions as I normally like to for RfAs but what little I have looked into and (especially) his answers to the questions put forth to him in this nomination here seem to suggest a user with an expansive and nuanced understanding of policy, procedure and community needs. Given the pronounced need for more mops right now (especially in tendentious areas like SPI where the administrative core is showing particularly pronounced issues with retention and fatigue), I'll happily endorse this one on what I've seen thus far. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support - I have never met this user before, but it seems he has done great contribution to our project. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support --永続繁栄 (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support - I'm late to the RfA but I just wanted to voice my support. It's clear that Vanjagenije has the backing of the community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support - Hard working as few and trustworthy. Good luck. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support, excellent SPI work. Opposes not at all convincing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
122. Seems like a good enough presence at SPI, where I hear admin presence is often insufficient. The complaints about Kosovo Pomoravlje are too vague for me and even rereading over the history does not give me much to go on. Nothing else I find particularly concerning, myself. As an aside, I suspect the candidate will be proposed for Checkusership in the future, not that it makes any difference here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I was interested in what was said in Q5 about rescuing the article Kosovo Pomoravlje. The candidate's edits to the article all seemed to be negative though. This part of the world is disputed territory (Serbia vs Albania) and the candidate seems to have been writing from the Serbian perspective without declaring an interest. Giving them admin tools seems to be a significant risk. Andrew D. (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Could you possibly supply some diffs of this supposed negative editing? I'm not seeing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   What caught my eye initially, when looking for the candidate's edits in the article history, was that they were mostly red, i.e. a net negative. That's not what you usually expect to see in a rescue. Then I observed that the name of the article had been changed at the candidate's instigation. The background to this is nationalist naming dispute arising from the Serb/Albanian ethnic tension; hostility which has required UN intervention. For example, see Kosovo Pomoravlje District and District of Gjilan which are two separate articles about much the same place. My impression is that the candidate is pushing the Serb POV in this. He seems successful because the other side doesn't have such good command of English and our procedures. Giving admin tools too would add to this systemic imbalance. Andrew D. (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Also it should be noted that he has rollbacker and reviewer permissions without having abused those towards any alleged interests. The benefits of what he could get accomplished for the project having the tools outweigh the remote risk of him turning rogue and misusing them...and if he does then the tools can be taken away.
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Rollbacker and reviewer rights don't seem significant. Looking at this again, I start to check the deletion log. I look at Pejivalle River thinking that it might relate to the other matter above. It turns out be a different place in Costa Rica. Anyway, what we have here is a river whose name may be spelled in different ways. CSD A10 seems inappropriate because, as it says, "When the new title is a reasonable term for the subject, converting the new article to a redirect may be preferable to deletion." What we have ended up with is a joke - an article without any body at all. I'm not seeing any value-added here; just pointless obstructionism. Andrew D. (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose The "fact" that most new articles should be deleted (fact not in evidence) does not explain the singular lack of ability to find articles which should be kept - and where the number kept after a delete vote by an editor (97% of votes) is over 15% (if "no consensus" defaulting to "keep" is included, the percentage is 20%) indicates an unusually poor result statistically. Cannot support such a clear result - even if every new article "should be deleted" the fact that 15% of the time one is wrong is not great at all. Collect (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   My observation — speaking as an inclusionist who is concerned about such things — is that most of his AfD participation has been in relation to his own nominations. I'd also ideally like to see a little work helping to defend GNG passes that are subject to deletion challenge, but ultimately I don't find the skew towards deletion worrisome in this case. Speaking for myself, of course — your mileage may vary. Carrite (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I am neither "inclusionist" nor "deletionist." I would oppose a person who voted 97% of the time to keep just as quickly. In the case at hand, a quite large number of "delete" votes occurred on articles which ended up as keep or default to keep - which, to me, is odd at best. Collect (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   These statistical arguments don't work well because they don't take account of the selective nature of participation in a forum like AFD. In my case, I patrol the AFD daily lists. I don't bother with the dross as I just don't have time to drill down and !vote on those dozens of feeble articles – there's no easy way to do so, that I'm aware of. What I'm looking for are the exceptional cases which stand out as being notable. I tend to !vote Keep in such cases because I'm explicitly looking for articles worth saving. The candidate patrols in a different way. He's looking through the NPP feed in order to evaluate it and seems to choose articles as they come. If something is worth keeping, he doesn't !vote because it's not yet at AFD so he just marks it as patrolled. The cases that he sends to AFD will naturally have a negative slant because that's why he sent them to AFD. The statistical arguments would only work if editors were made to !vote on a selection made randomly or by someone else, somewhat like jury duty. Andrew D. (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually the a high oppose statistical argument does work. It takes a lot of guts and work to try to keep any article once it goes to AfD. There are plenty of articles in AfD worth saving or shouldn't be there in the first place but rather than work on the article they are sent to AfD. Deleters don't look up the subject, they just write not notable, and if anyone writes keep or tries to rewrite the article that individual gets sandbagged hard. But basically it all comes down to work. Writing is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia and most editors on Wikipedia are not writers. Unfortunately, those are the same individuals that are driving writers away. They are the ones greeting new users with an AfD warning (sometimes!), maybe a "Welcome"?, and little to zero help in how to save the article. This last factor could be that even individuals nominating an AfD, don't know how to save an article from deletion. Even if the article doesn't get deleted, those editors don't come back! One editor sent 475 articles to deletion in February. In April they sent one that was notable but needed to be rewritten. That article was saved, but they didn't do any of the rewriting. This smacks that Wikipedia's become a bunch of critics. I check AfD too and the deletes don't need help. It's only the keep's that need one's vote. Often, I'm too late to save a notable article because there are already 3 or 4 delete votes so I just sigh, and move on. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose first WP:POV, then adminship. Alex (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. I like to see people who are at least a tiny bit skeptical of power and domination being put in positions of authority. Alakzi (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 9#Something you said..., I can't support Vanjagenije in this WP:RfA. Forgoing common sense in sockpuppet cases where that common sense is very much needed to protect the project, and when forgoing it leads to a disruptive editor running around Wikipedia doing as he or she pleases for longer than necessary, is something I very much disagree with. Even if your common sense differs from that of another, it is usually best to trust the word of an editor who knows that they are dealing with a sock because they know the identity of the sock. At the same time, I won't oppose this WP:RfA since Vanjagenije would otherwise make a good administrator. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   "[I]t is usually best to trust the word of an editor who knows that they are dealing with a sock." Absolutely not. Admins have to be able to justify their blocks, and "s/he said that account was a sock" is not justification at all. Furthermore, Vanjagenije is correct in that you can't violate 3RR unless it's a blatant sockpuppet (or just blatant vandalism) where any admin taking a cursory look would see the disruption. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   The reason that I disagree with you is made clear in that aforementioned archive by me and others; it's also made clear at User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 20#It's not needed and in this current section on my talk page. And nowhere did I indicate that it's simply a matter of "he said, she said." The sock I was reverting before Vanjagenije incorrectly stated that I'd violated WP:3RR was a blatant sockpuppet, even though not as obvious to others. I knew what I was talking about, as usual. I had a WP:3RR exemption. When I know that someone is a sock and who that sock is, I will revert them on that basis alone if I feel like it; and if an administrator blocks me for reverting the sock, just because the sock hasn't yet been confirmed by a WP:CheckUser, that administrator will be wrong and will have further stained my block log with inaccuracy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: username of this user is Vanjagenije, Vanja genije, which means Vanja (given name) + genius. That's pretentious, a reason more to vote oppose. Alex (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a genius I don't think it is pretentious at all. While some people prefer it if I hide my genius, I see no reason why I should. I also see no reason why anyone else should either. I think that genius is a good reason to support. HighInBC 17:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I can't see the problem either. WJBgenius (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The username isn't a barrier to adminship, but the translation should be helpful to whoever adds Vanjagenije's name here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well! I am highly offended by this rationale for an oppose. Perhaps you should block editors who have usernames with "genius" in it. Starting with me... epic genius (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sarcasm or do you honestly believe you are a genius? Alakzi (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I honestly believe myself to be a Most Awesome Supreme Chief Foremost Highest Smartest Epic Genius. Shortened to just "epic genius", please. epic genius (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must learn modesty, Mr Genius (or may I call you Epic?). You will surely have realised that the G in my username also stands for Genius (and the F stands for Fantastic, actually), but I would never dream of revealing it on-wi ... (oh, drat!) --Stfg (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing someone because their username appears to be pretentious to you? Why don't we desysop Czar because czar is a title for high-ranking officials? Why don't we desysop Dank because the name is so depressing and so can't promote a friendly atmosphere on Wikipedia? Why don't we desysop GorillaWarfare because the name promotes violence with the similarity to guerrilla warfare? To oppose someone because of a username that translates to "genius" is preposterous. This has to be the most nonsensical oppose !vote I have ever seen in my life. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 00:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about desysopping NuclearWarfare because his name promotes nuclear violence with the similarity to nuclear warfare? Or Berean Hunter because the username contains "hunter," which connotates the killing of innocent animals? Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. epic genius (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the animals are innocent? Have they been cleared by a kangaroo court? Peridon (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doggedly agree. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone starts telling me they have a problem with this guy I'm out of here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now! - Depressingly Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not dealing with the real issues. I see that Jimbo can be considered a derogratory term ("Refers to an unintelligent, moronic neanderthal that finds humor in himself when others do not") and we should therefore desysop and block Jimbo Wales immediately for severe violation of the username policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, demand criteria and a process for community removal of the founder userright. It was given to Jimbo without community consensus, and he should have to pass a successful Request for Foundership just like everyone else. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not been given a site banned already, at least I wouldn't have to see such !oppose rationale. Jim Carter 05:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.