Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita

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

Christopher Sundita

edit

Final(68/21/3) Ending 04:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Sundita (talk · contribs) –Chris Sundita has been with the wikipedia community for quite a long time and has initiated many of the articles on languages in the Philippines and cleared up many thorny issues. He is on his way to becoming a professional linguist in real life and has already written a book. He is also an editor on the Spanish, French, Tagalog and other wikipedias. Would you Christopher Sundita accept the nomination for adminship and the responsibilities this entails if you are elected?--Jondel 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth so -err. I accept. ;-) And to just to clarify, the bulk of my major wikiactivities are here on the English wiki. --Chris S. 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Support
  1. Support -Of course, I nominated him.--Jondel 04:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Magalhães 05:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Coffee 06:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Overdue?!! Robin Patterson 06:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Rebecca 06:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. He's certainly been here long enough to earn the extra tools. Mostly Rainy 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Merovingian {T C @} 07:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Conditional support; Chris says that he is going to step up his activity. --Nearly Headless Nick 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. At least one admin will be beyond "editcountis" and "Wikiholism." With good faith, I support. This Fire Burns.....Always 07:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. DarthVader 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, Superman Jondel needs Green Lantern Chris to ward off the forces of evil. :) It's not only about the edit counts, but his quality of edits. Give him the power ring, for the sake of the wikiverse. :) --Noypi380 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Joe I 10:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. His account age outweighs his edit count. Besides, 1,110 is good enough. SushiGeek 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support...I can't justify opposing someone's nomination on either the grounds of origin or edit count. Alphachimp talk 11:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. A pleasure. --Ancheta Wis 12:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Will not abuse admin tools.--SB | T 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - to try to counteract the idjicy of opposing because they want to fight vandals in their specialist areas. I remember when that was regarded as a positive - David Gerard 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Having a finger in every pie is not supposed to be a prerequisite to becoming an administrator. --Michael Snow 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, but you should begin some RC patrolling if you become admin huntersquid 19:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. A very good editor, and I am sure that he will not abuse his admin tools. -- Karl Meier 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Admins don't need to edit multiple times every day. moink 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. ugen64 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support--Harvzsf 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. For the same reasons as Michael and David. Noticing one of the least convincing oppose sections in a while, I decided to give this request a good look. Edit counts are good for giving us a general idea of a user's experience, but they are not to be used for vetoing in the face of evidence of sensibility. There is evidence aplenty here, and I am encouraged by Chris' reasonableness. All admins should only want to sign up to help out in their particular area of interest (the sum total of which creates an encyclopedia through collaboration, nothing else); that's all I wanted. Dmcdevit·t 06:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support subject specialists are good, especially in comparatively rare subject areas. Isn't focusing one's anti-vandalism efforts on one's area of expertise a good idea? Yes, yes it is. Opabinia regalis 06:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support--23prootie 07:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support needs to take a more active role in project namespace, but it is undeniable that we need more sensible, experienced and cool headed admins around. From my experience of his conduct, Chris is all of these things. - FrancisTyers · 09:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I think the only valid reason to oppose someone's adminship is because you have reasonable evidence to think that he will abuse his or her admin capabilities. In the case of Chris, I don't think he will abuse it. I find it weird to oppose just because he or she isn't as active as you think they should be. --seav 10:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support. it's high time. --Saluyot 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Being an island is good. TruthCrusader 14:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support We need more speciallist admins Jaranda wat's sup 18:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per won't abuse. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support One of the few people in here who take the "assume good faith" directive seriously. ;-) bogdan 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Changed to strong support. We need specialist administrators who can make rational decisions. We have enough vandal fighting automotons. -- Samir धर्म 02:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per Michael Snow and Dmcdevit. I've seen this name around, and never associated with anything that would make me doubt his capability to be a good admin. Seems sane and reasonable; I think claims of "inexperience" are not applicable. Someone who has been consistently around for this long, even if he could not always devote an extremely large amount of time due to studies, surely knows what's up by now. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support as per many above, in addition, low rate of contribution does not seem like weakness to me if (as in this case) the absolute number & quality are above threshold. Pete.Hurd 03:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per Mindspillage, although personally I would've liked to see a somewhat higher recent contribution rate. I don't thing you'll abuse the tools though. BryanG(talk) 05:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per others above. It'd be great if Chris could expand his use of the tools to WP:AIV, etc., but there's no indication he'll abuse them.--Chaser T 08:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, I don't find the edit count low. Shows understanding of policies and willingness to help, this is enough for me. --Tone 13:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. support: Per David Gerard, seav, bogdan. Ombudsman 20:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, per everyone else above. :-) Jude (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. In this case, the so-called "inexperience" is balanced by a clear capacity to be an admin. If you prove you're capable of being an administrator, you don't need to be here every day whacking vandals. Remember: adminship is no big deal. Titoxd(?!?) 23:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong support per per above and Michael Snow and Dmcdevit. Christopher Sundita is clearly dedicated to making Wikipedia a usable encyclopedia, and one of the more promising candidates we've had up here in a while. 172 | Talk 23:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Will (message me!) 11:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Since Christopher is unlikely to abuse admin privileges, I don't care if all his work would be limited to a small group of articles. Not every admin has to police all of Wikipedia. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I have seen nothing to convince me that he would be anything but a good admin --rogerd 17:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support; everything I see is good, and wow, he's been here longer than me. This one is obvious to me. Antandrus (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support evidence that he will make good use of admin abilities. Eluchil404 09:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support maybe not your typical vandal whacker, but surely enough there is no evidence (after 3 years!) to suggest that Christopher will abuse sysop privileges. There is much more to adminship than dealing with vandals. I would be displeased to see such a thorough editor be overlooked for promotion because of lack of discussion and AIV postings, given that even those aspects alone were not enough to promote quite a few users in the past. --Jay(Reply) 19:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Changing to Support from neutral, now that I've thought about it some more. I think he'd use the tools well; and I think that having admins who specialize in certain areas isn't a problem, especially for editors like Chris who help us counter systemic bias by adding much more information on topics that otherwise wouldn't be covered well. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. BlankVerse 10:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support.Gareon 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Weak Support: A three-year stay is long enough, but unfortunately he's been on and off throughout that period. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - can't see any abuse of admin powers coming from this user. Daniel.Bryant (aka Killfest2) 02:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per IDHAN. Yanksox 12:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. I like what I see, and your lower amount of experience is a very minor factor for me. I normally vote Oppose on editors that have similar edit summary usage, but you only seem to omit them on non article edits. Still bothers me, but not enough to oppose. :) --Aguerriero (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong Support - Yet another unjustified attack against serious article editors and also subject matter specialists (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2). Also, it appears as though RfA is descending into a popularity contest, as I have also seen other users with similar edit counts and also more thinly sliced edits, or inflated by doing thousands of "welcome" notices easily getting through even though they never had any great interest in deletions let alone policy related matters. I cannot see any evidence that Christopher is either rude or agitational in his activity here; so I can't see how he would bring the office into disrepute - secondly, I don't see him going on a rampage in areas with which he has not chosen to previously familiarize himself (many other people who are not familiar with half the policies or don't even partake in the procedures involving them have easily romped home because they have a large group of friends to "vote" for them). Blnguyen | rant-line 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. An unusual balancing-of-opposes-support from me. Opposing because the candidate doesn't have enough experience after 3 years? That does not compute! Kim Bruning 01:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. I don't buy into the arguments made by the opposers, no offense intended and with every assumption of good faith. Here's an editor who's been around since forever, is sane, reasonable, and brings badly needed expertise to the project. Making this editor an admin would greatly benefit the project. Support ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support from neutral.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support Everything checks out fine. We have a strong nom because of their longterm involvment with the community. Have reviewed the opposes and they do not sway me at all. --FloNight talk 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Dedication to the project shown by ability to stick around for three years, sense of humour, no penchant for adhering to totally arbitrary rules which would detract from Wikipedia work. It seems to me that he'd benefit from +sysop and wouldn't be gallivanting around abusing the tools. --Keitei (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - per keiteipschemp | talk 04:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per Blnguyen. Isn't likely to abuse the tools. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per Keitei - Tangotango 05:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. The contributions show that the candidate is a great editor, but tends to be an island, with very less tendency of discussions. In fact all non-personal discussions he had were on Wikipedia talk:Babel. Also, the low activity concerns me. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The low activity was due to my being in school since January 2005. I just graduated, so I don't have to worry about school for a while, which is why I asked Jondel not to nominate me when he asked me about it sometime last year. In any case, I am going to be more active often and tackle the articles that have been screaming my name for my attention. Just fyi. :-D Thanks. --Chris S. 06:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are very few Filipino administrators. Chris has helped authoritatively clear up difficult issues such as which is more spoken, Cebuano or Tagalog (?)and the confusion between Tagalog and Filipino language. He also single handedly set up comparison tables, linguistic family linguistic charts. You have to research very far back (2 years?) in his contributions. His administrator ship is long overdue as Robin above, says. Also there are many troublesome people who seem to be messing up the Tagalog language article with useless info where I do need back up. Chris is our best authority on Philippine languages even in outside of wikipedia. --Jondel 07:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethnicity alone should not be a deciding factor of admin selection. (We have only 1 Vietnamese admin, for instance.) Secondly, please prefix your comments with a # as the first character of the line, before the colons, and don't insert new lines before or after your comment if you're replying in this section. Thanks! Kimchi.sg 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that be me? I'm still researching this RfA by the way.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course ethnicity should not be a deciding factor. The point is we need more admins with Philippine related articles, specially with the language issues. There are many trouble some anonymous self proclaimed experts who are making base-less unresearhced edits. Chris is studying linguistics. I am sure there are very few non-filipinos who would put a lot of Philippine related items on their watch list. Sorry about forgetting the #. --Jondel 07:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose very low edit count considering they've been here for nearly 3 years, edits seem concentrated on a few specific types of articles, the user says they want to address vandals that appear in Philippine-related articles, admins should RC patrol not just watch a select few articles. I couldn't find any evidence of RC patrolling. Great editor but needs to get more involved with other parts of Wikipedia.--Andeh 06:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A user must not only revert vandalism now, but must do RC patrol outside of their usual areas? Piffle. Rebecca 06:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user states in A1 that they want to address vandals, but I see little evidence of this already. How will I know if they can tackle vandals as an admin if they haven't done it occasionally not being an admin?--Andeh 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just get the impression the main reason the user wants to be admin is to watch/defend their favourite articles for vandalism and 3RR violators.--Andeh 08:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And this would be harmful why? Rebecca 14:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This means he wants to help, so give him the tools. You don't need to have any extra wiki-skills to diagnose vandalism. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My thinking is that an administrator should look out for more than just a few articles - RC Patrolling and the like encourage this kind of behaviour, and I'd like to see people given the mop for more than just a few articles' sake. So, it's not harmful, but it begs the question: why could the same job not be done by an admin with more general vandal-fighting experience? RandyWang (raves/rants) 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why could it not be done by him? Being an administrator is not a status symbol. There is absolutely no reason that this should stop him from becoming an admin. Rebecca 23:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you are definitely wrong there Randy. I recently reverted Rahul Gandhi a prime minister of India, a country of 1+ billion people 12 hours after it was replaced by a Tamil Tiger soapboxing and petition notice, so that shows that too many people are of the mindset that somebody can just look at the CDVF or VP output and "click" and they have solved all of WP's problems, which is not the case. Most general vandal-fighters get all their edits given to them by a bot because most of their vandal reverts are only the clearcut ones, giving an indication they didn't get the subtle ones from their watchlist. I wonder how many of them actually watchlist the page. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Oppose basically per Andeh... while this candidate shows an honest eagerness to help the project, I can't support giving him extra buttons, especially as his primary reason for wanting them is to deal with vandals (an area he/she has little experience with). Also, it seems as if he had the tools, he'd restrict his use of them towards people that edit on a particular subject matter (Philippine-related articles). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The second point is definitely irrelevant imho. CDVF and VandalProof only pick up obscene vandalism, etc by brainless and purile vandals. A subject matter specialist like Christopher will be able to patrol his area for cunning vandals, etc. I can tell you that some vandalisms have been perpetrated on pages that I created and sometimes stayed there for two days on the weekend until I checked my watchlist on Monday, evidentl because it seems that most vandal-fighters are simply sitting there waiting for the bot to hand them their massive number of edits on a plate so that they can "click". The first point is also not particularly a big worry as reverting vandalism doesn't take any special skill or policy knowledge (unlike say doing speedy deletion or dealing with copyright images) - you don't really need prior experience to gain the wisdom required to revert obscenities. Thirdly, most of the admins "elected" in the last month haven't seem to have done much with their tools either despite being rampantly swamped home by all their friends - If you have OpenOffice, you can see the stats I compiled at File:Admin.sxc - so the inactivity argument seems not to make any difference these days. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. "Tends to an island?" (Ambuj's comment.) Is that a pun? Anyway, I'm not entirely confident that you have a good knowledge of policy (despite your time here) and that you won't use the tools to simply lord over your favorite articles. (I may be able to help you out with those tricky page moves if I become an admin.) Doesn't meet my criteria. You're doing good work, but I'm not ultimately convinced you need the tools right now. I'll definitely reconsider in the future though. Grandmasterka 08:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. I missed the word "be", and the phrase should read "but tends to be an island". Making the meaning clearer, I wanted to say that it is important for admins to work as a team and not entirely on their own. I was unsure that the candidate would do that often. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, too early, does not meet my standards. Low level of Wikipedia namespace edits suggests an insufficient knowledge of policies. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I am not worried by the low-er edit count, but your answer to Q1 indicates you will probobly concentrate on little else than your pet articles. I would have liked to see you with a broader outlook. ViridaeTalk 11:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of people romp home because they do thousands of vandal-reverts, but this is mainly because they get the CDVF or VP output rather than actually taking an interest in these areas. He has an interest in one field of knowledge and making proper encyclopedic and informative writings about them. This is one more area of interest than a lot of other admins who got swept into office in a landslide. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, 521 distinct pages edited suggests that you have not seen enough of the site. Activity level rather low, most productive month was 362 edits in August of last year. I'd suggest exploring and expanding your comfort zone a bit. — Jul. 6, '06 [14:38] <freak|talk>
  8. Oppose Lack of wiki-space contributions suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process; also, low activity level generally. Xoloz 16:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone should contribute as much their real life can spare them. Also, I see a lot of people who get their WP-space edits simply by "voting" frequently on AfDs, and some people who have never done AfD at all, and don't even know what the criteria for deleting anything is, or the grounds for speedy over normal deletion. Christopher seems introspective and aware of where he is unfamiliar and I don't see him doing any adventurous or cavalier things with his tools. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per above. --WillMak050389 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Totally Oppose per inexperience - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose; Christopher has less than 500 edits this year. I don't think admins need to be here 24/7, but more than one or two edits a day would be good. He's stepped up his activity recently but still not to a very high level. Mangojuicetalk 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Two edits a day are better than none I hope? Many of the admins don't even use their tools or fulfil their "election promises" to clear the admin backlogs, so either we impeach them for breaking their promises or let Christopher through as well, or we concede what is obvious and that RfA has become a popularity contest. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Opppose, does not appear to have much experience fighting vandals. RandyWang (raves/rants) 05:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How, per se, does one need experience fighting vandals to become a good admin? One notices "hey, this is vandalism", and one reverts it. It really isn't rocket science. Rebecca 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already rebutted this above. basically per Rebecca. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  13. Oppose per above, and poor answers to some of the questions. -- Steel 13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per much of the above, mainly inexperience and low activity.Voice-of-<fon t color="black">All 08:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you checked his activity across all of wikimedia? Kim Bruning 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose If the user wants the tools to block vandals and 3RRers in Phillipines related articles, then I don't see that as a strong enough need. I can't see any posts to AIV and only a couple of 3RR related posts - which indicates that this user is rarely, if ever, in a situation to require the blocking tool. If the user wants to address vandals and 3RRers outside of those articles, then I would like to see more experience with the vandal/3RR escalation processes - to be sure they understand policy and guidelines. General experience and activity also concern me. TigerShark 09:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per freakofnurture: adminship is site-wide, not limited to a specific subject area, and I'm wary of setting the sitewide admin bit for a guy who doesn't have much widespread experience. --Cyde↔Weys 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this is particularly relevant. Most people get their "sitewide" experience from reverting whatever vandalism the bot gives to them. That's not sitewide participation, the bot gave them their edit directly to their computer seat. As for the specialisation, as I said before, there are many things that require a specialist to fix up.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose low talk count overall. Highway Batman! 19:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This one is particularly indicative of the popularity contest of RfA. Christopher has 300+ talk edits while Natalya, whom you nominated had about 100 and passed through at 95-2. Neither Christopher nor Natalya are going to bring the office into disrepute so where is the problem? Blnguyen | rant-line 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Oppose -- "Oppose" for lack of experience (I'm finicky about that). "Weak" - my opposition is mitigated by good attitude, good contributions. Subject matter concentrated on the Philippines is bad? I think it's good to have knowledgeable people concentrating on articles, not just generalists. As for RC patrols -- they're Wikipedia's first line of defense. They still miss the many subtle errors, spam links and vandalistic edits that slip into articles that only an editor knowledgeable on the topic can discern. RC Patrols catch the common "Joey is gay" stuff but can miss seemingly reasonable items added to articles they are unfamiliar with, such as John Seigenthaler, Sr.'s biography. So it's just as important to have someone knowledgeable intensively watching a cluster of articles. If still in doubt, I encourage non-physicists try independently determining for themselves the merits of the physics edits being disputed at Albert Einstein. ...I will enthusiastically support a second RfA after Christopher Sundita has accumulated more experience continuing what he's already doing.--A. B. 04:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw a comment about experience editing other wikis -- if nominee has been editing Wikipedia in other languages, I would be happy to include that as experience.--A. B. 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My contributions on Tagalog & Spanish Wikipedia are less than 10 each; not worth adding up as experience, I'm afraid. I also contribute on English Wiktionary currently with an account but in the past anonymously and have voted in support (and opposition) of proposals for new language wikis at meta. Needless to say, my primary focus for the forseeable future is here at the English wiki. Thanks. --Chris S. 03:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose: good editor, but after reading answers to questions below, I think he needs a little more familiarity with policy first, in particular the idea that some number of votes is required in VfD. Jonathunder 23:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This one is also rather interesting - I guess that it would be better not to participate in AfD at all. I don't see how Christopher would be interested in closing AfDs at all given his track record, but I guess it would be better to not have participated in AfD at all given the Natalya RfA. Seems similar to the Sam Vimes RfA actually, that he got opposed for not warning vandals, when others do not even revert vandalism. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Voice-of-all. --WinHunter (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Per the concerns expressed above regarding experience and understanding of Wikipedia's policies. --Wisden17 14:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral 200+ Wikipedia space edits suggest that knowledge of policy is more than skin-deep. However, the improperly-formatted nomination and low overall edit count causes me to refrain from support. Kimchi.sg 07:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral More experience will be better.--Jusjih 09:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral lack of experience. Should have more edits for being here three years.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per Kungfuadam. Roy A.A. 17:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I've seen him around quite a bit, and I like the work he's done here. I've been surprised that he isn't an admin, and I do think we need more admins who help us counter systemic bias. And he's answered the questions well. But he needs to be more active, both in the main namespace and in the WP namespace. (I know, this is somewhat hypocritical coming from me, since I haven't been as active these last few months... but he has less than 500 edits here this year, which concerns me.) A few months of sustained activity, and I'll be fine with supporting him. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Not enough activity? Doesn't he edit on other wikimedia wikis too? Did anyone bother to count his edits there too? I'll bet his edit count on en is lower because he's also spending time on other the wikis. People using edit count as criterion here (not a good idea in the best of circumstances) aren't applying it correctly today! Kim Bruning 01:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 22:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Christopher Sundita (over the 1965 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 1005 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 06, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 5, September, 2003
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 52.5% Minor edits: 79.27%
Average edits per day: 2.9 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 519 edits) : Major article edits: 98.65% Minor article edits: 89.23%
Analysis of edits (out of all 1965 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.46% (9)
Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 7.99% (157)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 30.08% (591)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 61.34%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 482 | Average edits per page: 4.08 | Edits on top: 2.9%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 27.43% (539 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 18.52% (364 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 16.18% (318 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 26.01% (511 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 56.49% (1110) | Article talk: 16.39% (322)
User: 3.16% (62) | User talk: 8.19% (161)
Wikipedia: 12.11% (238) | Wikipedia talk: 0.31% (6)
Image: 0.46% (9)
Template: 1.22% (24)
Category: 1.42% (28)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.25% (5)
Username Christopher Sundita
Total edits 1957
Distinct pages edited 521
Average edits/page 3.756
First edit 03:03, 5 September 2003
 
(main) 1110
Talk 321
User 62
User talk 159
Image 9
Template 23
Template talk 6
Category 28
Wikipedia 233
Wikipedia talk 6
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: Generally speaking, I want to address persistent vandals and linkspammers that occasionally appear in Philippine-related articles. Since I have had more time that I had in a long time, I want to expand my presence and contributions here on Wikipedia. One way in which I am contemplating doing this, if my nomination is supported by you all, is to help out at 3RR. Also, one of the reasons I was nominated was probably Jondel was tired of me asking him to move pages ;-) There are a bunch of pages of Philippine-related biographies using Spanish accents that are not normally used in the Philippines, and these need to be moved back to reflect current, attested usage.
Confused by your response. Are you needing to move move-protected pages?--Chaser T 08:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not move protected. I have to move them back to where they were, but since they have a history, that isn't possible. --Chris S. 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with my overhaul of Tagalog language and the spin-off page Tagalog grammar. Two years ago, I actually had to go into my personal library of Tagalog books and make notes and write a paper about it which I transfered to Wikipedia. The articles have lots of room for improvement and I want to get the former article up to Featured Article Status. I am also pleased with my contributions to Languages of the Philippines. There are so few resources that are easily accessible to people interested in Philippine languages, and I want to do what I can to make it more accessible and readable.
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: It may come as a surprise, but language-related articles are subject to strong feelings of either pride or contempt. There are also many misconceptions surrounding them that take some effort to dispel. When I am confronted with a hot topic, I put the effort in laying out the neutral facts while trying to be as cool-headed as possible and try to reconcile two dueling positions in a way that's acceptable with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This works more or less, so far, and I expect to continue on and do the best I can.

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 If I am 100% certain that that is what is going on, then first and foremost, I would address the issue to him/her privately and see what we could do to resolve this. Failing that, I would seek the advice of other admins on how to address this.
  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 I would not undo the admin's actions without first consulting him/her, particularly informing them of my intentions. From there, we would ideally come to an agreement on what to do next. At the RFAR, I would give my unbiased view of the events. If the ArbCom rejects the case, then the other admin and I would work together on solving this with the two warring editors. The page would be protected until both sides could come to an agreemnt on the article's talk page.
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A Since the bulk of vandals are anonymous, I would like a way of restricting anonymous edits but at the same time keeping it open for legitimate anonymous edits. The difficulty here is to find a middle ground that punishes the abusers and rewards the worthy contributors who prefer to be anonymous.
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A A person who continuously vandalizes articles while ignoring other editors, and in a small amount of time, would definitely be blocked without direction from ArbCom.
  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 I would first have a checkuser done on the accounts. If they are sockpuppets, then they will be taken as one vote only. I will take the appropriate actions from there, be it keep, delete, or no consensus.
  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 I don't think there's a magic number for deleting articles and others, but at the bare minimum it seems to me that votes in the neighborhood of ten. Fewer, such as five perhaps, if the votes were unanimous.
  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 I have been able to justify myself under pressure. However if the stress and pressure become too much to handle, then a breather would be in order before doing anything else.
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A Use of the company car. I want to help Wikipedia run smoothly as possible and I want to do this by removing any obstacles that may get in the way. I can already do this on some level without being an admin, but I can do more by being one.
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A If I am to take political to mean involved in the political process (as opposed to biased in favor of a political position) then yes, they do hold a technical and political position. Technical because of the knowledge of policy and guidelines required and political because of their involvement in the everyday decisions that run Wikipedia.

Question from Cyde Weys

You are in room 1 of the cave, and have 5 arrows left. *rustle* *rustle* (must be bats nearby). *sniff* (you can smell the evil Wumpus nearby!). There are tunnels to rooms 8, 14, and 17. Do you move or shoot? --Cyde↔Weys 14:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Well, if I had high hps then I would go into one of the rooms to look for th eevil Wumpus. ;-) --Chris S. 14:26, 6 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Christopher_Sundita&oldid=1143863466"