Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vanamonde93

Vanamonde93

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (124/29/5); Scheduled to end 10:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) – Folks, let me present Vanamonde93, who has been editing continuously since August 2013. With around 24000 edits under their belt (>50% to mainspace), they've improved 6 articles to Good Article status (one of which is at FAC now) as well as 27 DYKs. Vanamonde93 has impressed me as calm and level-headed, and more importantly has told me they'll help in some areas that could do with some extra admin hands on deck. So discuss away. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

co-nomination

Vanamonde93 has been around for three years and I've seen them navigate their way to becoming an even-keeled editor who brings a level-headed-ness to the editing process. I waded through the discussion on the three GA nominations of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and was impressed by the way Vanamonde93 has learned and progressed as an editor from one nom to the next. The BJP is the current ruling party in India and attempting to bring it to GA status is bound to be contentious, but Vanamonde stuck through three rounds of GA discussions, learning to keep calm and to insist on fealty toward sources. As a result, we have a better article on this important subject. Through the long discussion content, I saw Vanamonde93 emerge as a tenacious but straightforward and no nonsense editor (see, for example the comments here and here ). All these are important attributes for an admin and I have no doubt that they will make an excellent one. --regentspark (comment) 20:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with many thanks to Casliber and RegentsPark for their kind words. Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 have had substantial experience doing anti-vandalism work, primarily with STiki; so to begin with I would like to work with AIV and RFPP, to help shorten response times there as much as possible. I have also participated in a few deletion discussions, and intend to help out closing AfDs. Since this is a contentious area, I plan to begin with very clear-cut cases, and work my way towards closing debates more difficult to call. Deleting expired PRODs is another area I would feel comfortable working in, and I would like to do some work with CSD, although I intend to take it slow there as well. Finally, I would like to help out at DYK. I don't intend to participate at ANI, although I might look in at ANEW, given that it is a forum where a slow response-time can increase disruption. I have no intentions of participating at UAA immediately either simply because I have no experience there, although in the long run I hope to help out with administrative backlog wherever it arises.

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

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are on the content side; I have brought six articles to Good Article status after substantially or completely rewriting them. The GA I am most proud of is The Left Hand of Darkness, which I got through the review process after completely rewriting it, and which is currently listed at Featured Article Candidates. I am especially happy about this article because it is not a topic on which I have received any training in real life. In addition, I have written 27 DYKs, of which my favorite is probably Evolution of snake venom, an obscure but fascinating topic, and my first DYK nomination. I have also done a fair amount of content work on articles related to the political history of South Asia and Latin America, areas which do not receive nearly enough attention. The approximately 8000 recent changes classifications that I have performed on STiki and other anti-vandalism tools are another valuable contribution, of a slightly different nature.

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 been in several conflicts on Wikipedia, particularly in my first two years, and they have been a continuous learning experience. There are a couple of reasons for this; first, when I began editing actively here, I approached articles with the single-minded goal of bringing them into line with some source that I had read, and I didn't care much about the consequences when I believed that I was right. This approach got me into multiple conflicts, and earned me a 24-hour block for edit-warring in early 2014. The second reason is that among other topics, I edit pages related to South Asian politics, an area with a number of sockpuppets, SPAs, and otherwise difficult editors. I have had substantial interactions with both the India Against Corruption and the OccultZone sockfarms (although I didn't know it at the time), and this certainly increased the number of conflicts I was party to.

Perhaps my worst conflict was a series of disputes on the talk page of Bharatiya Janata Party (see talk archives 2-7) and its associated GA review pages. These also proved to be my greatest learning experiences. The content disputes taught me to be completely rigorous about WP:V and WP:NPOV. The second GA review of that article had to be failed due to a brief edit-war, which truly cured me of performing blind reverts. I did eventually, succeed in getting that article through the GA process, but only after learning to edit collaboratively, listen to the concerns of other editors, and build consensus for changes to the article, all within the framework of policy.

Since that failed GA review 18 months ago, I have continued to edit contentious topics while working collaboratively with other folks and managing to avoid any serious conflicts. One key part of this has been learning to live with content that I would much rather change immediately, and participating in discussion instead; another part has been realizing that most good-faith editors have something of value to contribute to a discussion, even (or especially) when I disagree with them, and therefore learning to listen to arguments with an open mind. In addition to writing content in conflict-ridden areas, I have participated in a number of content reviews, including my first FAC, and these lessons have stood me in good stead.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Lourdes

4. Please explain how do you see these edits as good faith edits (all of which you reverted in the past handful of days). I am requesting this clarification to understand whether you have an idea of what is and what is not vandalism. Thanks. Here you go: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Comment-You marked most of the vandalizing edits as good faith edits. Why? Is it auto done by Stki or you mark them? Thanks VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 12:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) STiKi documentation explicitly recommends marking any reverts of edits that are not obviously vandalism as reverts of good-faith edits. SSTflyer 13:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A: My apologies for the delay, folks, I expected to be back online 2 hours ago. Part of the answer to this question lies in the way STiki currently functions and is formatted. Blatant vandalism may be classified as "vandalism" at the click of a button. However, all other problematic edits fall under the "AGF" umbrella. These include "removal of content," "tests," "NPOV violations," etc. Classifying an edit as a "test", for example, will undo the edit with the edit-summary "Reverted good faith edit": but STiki then allows me to send the user a message, detailing what the problem was with their edit. I always make use of this function. Thus for every test I revert, I send the user a message letting them know that tests are disruptive, and should be carried out in the sandbox: for instance, this revert was accompanied by this message. The "good faith revert" part of the edit summary might be a little misleading in this circumstance.

The other part of the answer is in how I understand and classify vandalism versus other types of inappropriate edits. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, without regard to our core policies. When I come across an edit such as this or this, vandalism is certainly a possible diagnosis. Yet it is also possible that the user in question is testing their ability to edit, without intent to disrupt. In my experience, test edits frequently take the form of adding random strings of characters, adding a name, or removing arbitrary chunks of text/markup. If an edit could be reasonably interpreted as a test, I assume good faith, mark it as a test, and send a message explaining why tests in the mainspace are inappropriate. Not all of the diffs above are for test edits, but in each case, I sent a message explaining the problem: and in all but one instance, the behavior was not repeated. Sending a specific message in this manner seems to me to be less bitey than marking any problematic edits "vandalism." Needless to say, had any of those individuals shown an awareness of the fact that they were disrupting Wikipedia (misleading edit-summaries, for instance, or profanity) I would have marked them as "vandalism" instead. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• addition: @ Lourdes and others: I confess that I had not anticipated much concern over my STiki classification, but let me take another shot at addressing this. I have been viewing my edits from the perspective of the message ultimately sent to the talk page of the users I revert: tests, NPOV violations, linkspam, etc. I see now that the edit summary that is left with the revert is actually a legitimate concern, especially with things like the introduction of puffery or content removal. This is a technical problem that I should be able to address. Even if STiki itself will still aggregate the edits under "good faith," I can ensure that the edit summaries for reverts of content removal etc. no longer read "good faith." It may take a few more clicks every session, but I will undertake to do this, since it represents a serious concern for many folks. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93, thanks for the reply. You should have said this right up initially and accepted your mistake. Assuming good faith is not a mistake. Assuming good faith in clear cut vandalism is. Please read up WP:Vandal once again irrespective of how you feel. I am hopeful you will improve, given your statement above. I am removing my oppose. Thank you. Lourdes 00:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from VarunFEB2003

5. How do you differentiate between Wikipedia Policies and Wikipedia Guidelines? What is(are) the difference(s) you find? VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 12:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A: I'm not sure I can do a better job of explaining the difference than this, but let me try to rephrase it in my own language. Policies are core principles that are generally accepted, and should be followed under all normal circumstances: the exceptions to a policy are likely to be very few and far in between. For core policies like WP:BLP or WP:NPOV, for instance, I find it very difficult to envision a situation in which they do not apply. While there isn't really a bright line between policies and guidelines, guidelines are written in the form of generic best-practices, and so might have wider exceptions, and might require more of a common sense approach. For instance, WP:RS is a guideline describing (among other things) what constitutes a reliable source: but there are a number of sources which superficially meet the guideline, but which are known to not, in fact, be reliable. Both policies and guidelines are supported by consensus. However, consensus may change over time, and so there may be times when a documented policy or guideline does not accurately reflect consensus, or comes in the way of improving Wikipedia: which is why WP:IAR exists. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from SSTflyer

6. How would you have closed these two AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt-right?

A: Halo: There are seven people, including the nominator, arguing to delete/redirect: with the exception of the "plausible search term" issue, both these !votes are saying that the song was not, at that point, notable, because there is no evidence of meeting WP:NSONGS. Eight argue to keep, so numerically near 50-50. With respect to the strength of the arguments, which is what really matters; there seem to be a few trends among the "keeps". There is an "WP:ILIKEIT" vote, a few arguing based on Beyonce's obvious notability, a few saying that the song is charting on iTunes, and a few people arguing that the single will certainly be notable after its release. In all honesty, these are all rather poor arguments. An artist being notable does not, in and of itself, make a song notable, as explained at Wikipedia:Notability (music) (and there's no substantive difference in the [9] old version of the guideline). iTunes is not, AFAIK, a chart that would grant notability. Finally, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All of these are points made by the "delete" folks. So, taken in sum, the arguments to delete are a lot stronger than the arguments to keep, except for one thing: the AfD was held just days before the song was released. Given that last bit of information, and assuming I'm closing before the song is released, I would have a few options. I could delete, and have the article recreated in 48 hours, which would be rather silly. I could relist, which is rather a copout, because we know which way the decision would go post-release. On the balance, I think I would close as no consensus, which in effect is a "keep", and monitor the article to make sure it was speedily brought into shape following the release of the song. Post-release, most of the votes stop being factually correct, and the song becomes obviously notable: so I could relist the discussion to determine consensus under the new circumstances, or I could simply close as keep, given the obvious notability; although this last option would come close to being a supervote, in this exceptional case it might be justified in order to save everybody time and trouble.

Alt-right: To me, this is actually a little more straightforward. The statements that there isn't very much coverage are clearly off the mark. The arguments that say that the page fails NPOV and/or WP:SYNTH, I would treat as generally weak because AfD is not meant for cleanup; that said, there are some pages that are so unsuitable for the mainspace that it would be better to delete and start over, and this is an argument that can be persuasive. The old version of the article [10], is bad, but not, in my view, beyond salvaging, and many folks in the AfD make this point, too. The fact that the coverage is not very coherent is not a very strong argument, because although the sources are rather scattered, they are clearly describing the same general topic, and vary on the details. This discrepancy is something that should be addressed in the article, but not, in my view, a reason to delete. In sum, I would close as keep. I might, however, mention in the closing summary that if bringing the article into line with NPOV proves impossible in the near future, then a WP:TNT argument would be much more persuasive. In this particular case, though, I would be more likely to leave an opinion myself, and if I had time try to clean the page up, than try to close the discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from GeneralizationsAreBad

7. How would you respond to the POV allegations below? Please note that I do not personally endorse or reject said allegations. I am merely providing a means for the candidate to answer them.

A: GAB, I understand where the question is coming from. To begin with, let me state that although I do not identify with any of the faiths below, I do not bear them any ill-will, whether Hinduism, or Islam, or any faith you care to name. Likewise, I hold neither of those national identities, and am not "against" either of them. What I do believe in are our core notions of neutrality and verifiability, and the useful guideline about reliable sources. These standards sometimes require us to present text that is at odds with an orthodox interpretation of a certain faith, or political ideology. For instance, in the comment highlighted by Regentspark, I proposed an alternative wording for the lead of Muhammad. By no stretch of imagination can my proposal be called "Islamist"; if anything, I suspect my proposal would be distasteful to orthodox Islam. Or to take another example: here and here, I removed very similar synthesis from the pages Anti-Pakistan sentiment and Anti-Indian sentiment. There were similar problems with the content, and I treated them symmetrically; but an editor viewing only one of those edits might naturally be suspicious; and efforts such as this, which involved removing OR of a POV nature, result in accusations of the "opposite" POV. In general, what I have done is to do my best to make articles reflect reliable sources and WP:DUE, and I think this fact may be seen in my content creation work. I have done this on any articles related to religion, politics, or national identity that I have come across: and if and when I have been pointed out to have missed something or misinterpreted something, I have done my best to make good. Honestly, beyond a point I cannot do better than to ask folks to dig into the relevant articles, and the source material, and see if I am not borne out.

Finally, I would like to add that I am fully aware of WP:INVOLVED. I have done my best to remain neutral on the pages I have edited: but in any case, I would never venture to take an administrative action there, should I gain the tools. Likewise, I would never take an administrative action against a user with whom I have had a dispute. I hope I have covered the question: if there any specific follow-up queries, I would welcome them. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Joshua Jonathan

8. You have taken a strong stance in India-related articles, strongly opposing nationalistic pov's. Does that make you a defender of Wiki's neutrality, or an administrator who's taking sides? And how, as an administrator, will you deal with editors who think you're not quelified for this job, given your strong positions? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

A: I have done my best to follow NPOV, and to fix soapboxing or other content of a POV nature, wherever I edit. On pages where nationalistic sentiments run high, this has meant arguing against Wikipedia being used to further such sentiments, and yes, I have frequently taken a strong stance in such arguments, because NPOV is a core policy. Indian nationalism, however, is far from the only POV that I have come in conflict with, or have opposed, as I have explained above, I have also come into conflict with POV-pushing of other kinds, and I can give more examples, if necessary. I will continue my content work regardless of the result of this RfA, and I will continue doing my best to follow NPOV on what has aptly been described as a minefield below. I want to reiterate, though, that I am aware of WP:INVOLVED. If I have "taken sides" in a dispute as an editor, then I would not use admin tools in the same dispute. Similarly, editors who have doubts about me because of previous disputes can rest easy: I would not use admin tools in connection with them. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Kingsindian

9. Could you answer the oppose vote of CFredkin below? Were you indeed following their contributions and if so, why? (There's nothing wrong with following people's contributions in general).

A: One of my areas of interest is US politics, and though I have not done as much work there as in other areas, I monitor a number of prominent pages. I believe that CFredkin and I first interacted on the Chris Christie page, though I might be wrong; but after interacting with them I watchlisted their talk, as (I believe) they did mine. This meant that they got involved in a dispute that spilled onto their talk page, I was aware of it. A couple of months prior to the 2014 US elections, the number of disputes grew large enough that I took a look at some of them: and frequently, what I found concerned me enough that I participated in some of these content disputes. Since this RfA is primarily about my record, I don't really want to get into a deep analysis of another editor's behavior or post a number of diffs here about them, though I will if asked for more detail. Suffice to say that virtually all of CFredkin's edits at the time seemed to take the form of removing seemingly negative information from the bios of certain politicians, and adding it to others; and I was far from the only person to notice this, as can be seen here (during the relevant period). So, for a period of a couple of months, I looked at their contributions a few times, reverted them occasionally, and reported them to ANEW once, resulting in a warning. The number of disputes declined over time, and so eventually I stopped checking anything. Looking back now, 2 years down the road, my behavior was not ideal on two counts. When I came across problematic edits, I should have tried to fix the relevant content rather than simply revert. Second, my understanding of BLP was not as strong as it is today, and so I was less demanding with respect to reliable sources than I should have been. That said, I still feel that I was not wrong in finding something problematic about the edits I examined, and I have certainly never pursued CFredkin (or anyone else) with the intent of annoying them or disrupting their work. I should also add that our interactions are inflated by my subscription to the feedback request service for political RfCs, which are a dime a dozen on US politics pages. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

2nd question from VarunFEB2003

10. As User:Joshua Jonathan said you have a strong stance in India-related articles and you stated that you will never use admin tools to support/oppose personal ideas. If you gain admin rights will you be open to recall (obviously based on large community consensus) if a large part of the community finds your attitude defamatory to a (any) country and/or religion? Secondly another thing that came up was your use of StKi. Labeling massive large scale vandalism as good - faith edits is not expected from anyone leave aside admins. Limitations of StKi's talk notice delivery should be no reason for labeling vandalism as good - faith edits. Differentiating WP:VD and Good faith edits are 2 of the most important elements for a good admin. The question is will you change your current usage of StKi for reverting vandalism if you are crowned a sysop (or otherwise also). You can use WP:VPT to get an extra feature added to StKi (if possible) but labeling it as good-faith edits is.....unacceptable. I got recently warned for labeling a reversion of a good and correct edit as vandalism then doesn't the opposite apply to? Thanks and Regards. VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 16:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A: I would go a little beyond that. It is my belief that administrators, who are appointed by the community, need to be accountable to the community at a level below an ARBCOM request; so I intend to create a set of recall criteria for myself, and abide by those. I am not certain yet what exactly they will be, but something like the following. "If an editor has an issue with one of my actions, they need to bring it to a relevant noticeboard to be discussed. Once the discussion is closed by an uninvolved administrator, if there is consensus that I should resign, then I will." This would apply to any possible misjudgment, not just to those related to politics or religion.

To answer the second part of your question, there seem to be a few issues bound up here, and to be entirely honest I'm not sure which you are referring to. Some folks seem to be concerned that I have labelled blatant vandalism as a test at some point. While I am certainly not infallible, I don't believe I have done so: if a specific instance is pointed out to me, I will do my best to understand why I misinterpreted it, and not repeat that mistake. If an edit can reasonably be interpreted as a test, though, I will continue to label it as a test. On this point I am firm: I do not want to scare away potentially constructive editors by hitting them with a vandalism warning, when there is no obvious malice in their edits. The number of apologies and/or queries about how to do better that I have received is large enough that I think the effort worthwhile. Now I understand the concern that some folks may have about the edit summary for this being "reverted good faith edit." This is not an issue I had anticipated, but I intend to ask Andrew West (who writes the STiki software) whether this can be addressed, once the RFA is complete.

Finally, just a side comment that I prefer the term "be-mopped" to "crowned"; adminship is not a reward, after all, just the technical ability to do more (janitorial) work. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

11. You reverted an Editor here in the Arnab Goswami article and restored a comment The video was eventually proved to be doctored stating as a fact that the video aired by Arnab Goswami in Times Now showing Kanhaiya Kumar shouting slogans has been proved to be faked or doctored.The only source for this accusation in the article is the piece by Siddharth Varadarajan in his online portal The Wire Here. (Noting that it was Siddharth Varadarajan is the person who accused Arnab Goswami of airing a doctored video in The Wire and which claims that it is proven).

Can you explain how your edit does not violate WP:BLP policy and do you think that The Wire is a Reliable source particularly for a serious accusation on Arnab Goswami?(without any other third source and only one Primary source)  ?

(Note It has been removed by another Editor during this RFA as a WP:BLP violation.

A: Arnab Goswami is not a page I would edit under normal circumstances, but when the 2016 JNU controversy blew up, I was asked by some more involved editors to monitor the related pages. Several pages, including Arnab Goswami, were being swamped by drive-by editors with axes to grind. My edits to the article were limited to reverting folks who either introduced dodgy material, or who removed material that appeared sourced. On one previous occasion, for instance, I removed material critical of Goswami. In this case, I had not monitored the page closely enough to see that the version of the article that Samcooldude1430 edited, and which I reverted to, was not sourced well enough, and was not phrased neutrally, and that was my mistake. The Samcooldude introduced material that was not supported by the source they added, and I reverted them; but I should have gone on to dig further, and see that that statement should not have been presented as it was.

That said, the accusation itself has been so widely covered, and stated as fact by enough sources, that simply removing it did not seem to me to be an option. The Wire is not a primary source: it is an online news portal, and among the most reliable of online news portals. Nonetheless, a statement such as that should not have been based purely off of The Wire. Other sources, of which there are plenty, should have been added: and the statement itself phrased better, with in-text attribution where necessary. If anybody wants more sources, I can provide them, I don't want to add a vast number of links here. I would make a very rough analogy between this situation and Hillary_Clinton#Email_controversy; in both cases, the heat:light ratio is very poor, but there is enough of a fracas over it that omitting it altogether from the biography is inappropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Yellow Dingo

12. Consider this scenario (you are an admin). You come across a new page while new page patrolling that obviously meets a CSD criteria. Do you? A) Delete it; B) Tag it with a CSD template and let an uninvolved admin delete it; C) Leave it for another user to tag with a CSD template and then delete it; D) Do nothing or E) Other. Explain your answer.

A: I think my response to such a situation would depend entirely upon what CSD criterion was met. If it were a G3, or G10, for example, I would be inclined to delete it pronto, and inform the creator of why it was deleted. An attack page should certainly not be left lying around for any length of time. If it were a G11, I would check to see if the subject was notable, and if so, whether I could salvage anything from the article. If I were short on time, though, I would likely delete or tag and leave it for somebody else, depending on the severity of the puffery. Similarly, for a copyvio I would first blank the copyvio portions (which might be the whole thing), and then dig to see if a useful article could be salvaged: naturally, the copyvio-containing revisions would have to be rev-deled later. On the other hand, for articles that meet criteria that indicate less immediate damage (A7, for instance, or A9) I would tend to tag it and leave it for a while, in the hope that the author will heed the template and make the necessary improvements. On occasion, I might make the improvements myself. (I have deliberately not listed every one of the CSD criteria; if you wish me to do so, let me know). In general, I am a fan of the thinking expressed here (see the section about deletion). I would be more comfortable if there was scrutiny from two people for any given article, unless of course the article had the potential to cause immediate damage. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Awilley

13. What are your thoughts on users who voluntarily limit their reverts to 1RR instead of the required 3RR? (See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#One-revert rule) Would this be something you would be able and willing to try for a period of time? ~Awilley (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A: When I first started editing Wikipedia, I tended to treat 3RR as an entitlement rather than a red line, and got into several unnecessary conflicts as a result. I am certainly a fan of users voluntarily limiting the number of reverts they perform and starting discussions instead. I have tried to limit myself to one revert (in cases where I am interacting with a good faith editor) to one revert in the last many months. I have been largely successful, but not as much as I would like. I would rather not formalize such a limitation, simply because that would be opening myself up to being gamed; as several others have noted below, I edit topics that are frequented by editors with an axe to grind, and letting them know beforehand that I will not revert more than once would be a silly thing to do. I fully intend to continue trying not to ever revert a good-faith editor more than once. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Question from Kautilya3

14. How do you respond to the allegations of bias in dealing with Godhra train burning and Ayodhya dispute? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A: I have explained my general philosophy with respect to NPOV and South Asian articles above, so I won't go into it again. On those pages, it has been my consistent position that since the topics are controversial, we need to follow WP:RS even more closely, and in particular base the articles off of scholarly sources where available. Whenever somebody has engaged in a dispute with me, I have done my best to support my position with such sources, and invited them to produce sources supporting theirs. This has virtually never been done. The arguments of choice of folks in those disputes tend to be based on primary government documents, the nationality of the scholars involved, and a generic misunderstanding of how we treat reliable sources. On the few occasions when somebody arguing with me has produced a reliable source that I was unaware of (such as yourself, for example) I have engaged, and modified both my views and the article accordingly. I hope this answers your question: I don't particularly want to critique particular editors, although if you ask me questions about s single incident I'm happy to answer them. Vanamonde (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions from Montanabw

15: Would you agree that you are WP:INVOLVED and agree not to use administrator tools on any dispute related to India, Pakistan, Islam, or Hinduism, broadly construed? Are there any other areas where you consider yourself too involved to be a neutral admin and also agree to recuse?

A: Montana, I understand where the question is coming from, but consider for a moment: those are two of the six most populous countries, and two of the four most populous religions. I would be removing myself as an admin from probably millions of articles, the vast majority of which I have never even seen. I would consider myself involved in the following areas: South Asian political parties, ideological movements related to Islam in South Asia and Hinduism in general, communal violence in South Asia, post-World War II Guatemalan, Chilean, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Salvadoran history, the Iraq war, articles related to Ursula Le Guin and Arthur C. Clarke, articles related to the films of Hayao Miyazaki and Anand Patwardhan, articles related to anti-Apartheid music, and articles related to the evolution of snakes (a rather lengthy and varied collection, I'm afraid, but hey, there's many interesting things out there). There are also a number of isolated pages I have edited substantively, but those generally do not fall under any coherent topic.

These are the areas in which I have done substantial work, and in the course of delving into the content and the sources have developed predispositions about what pages should look like. In these areas (broadly construed) I am unquestionably involved, and will not use the tools. I do not however, see any reason why I should not use the tools in disputes related to, for example, south-Indian cuisine, the Sri Lankan civil war, or the Bangladeshi cricket team (unless of course the dispute involved a user I was involved with respect to). I have no generic biases towards the many peoples of the regions you named, nor towards its rich and complex cultures; if I have displayed such, I would love to hear about it, so that I may not do so in the future.

Moving beyond your questions a little, I would even argue that given the fraught nature of articles in South Asia (WP:ARBIPA and so forth) a certain experience with these pages is necessary in order to fully appreciate and resolve disputes in a policy-bound manner. There is more to tackling a content dispute, after all, than being civil and not having an ax to grind (though those would be excellent first steps); often disputes are insoluble without digging into the nitty-gritty of the source material and the behavior of the people involved, and background knowledge is invaluable. Once again, I understand where the question is coming from; but I would ask you to dig into my record and the disagreements listed below, before making your mind up my sense of judgement. Some of my areas of choice are such that, unfortunately, anybody who tries to stick to policy is likely to get hit for it, as many folks below have pointed out.

16: How, as a neutral arbitor, would you sort out the issues and resolve a dispute over two of the most currently contentious areas on Wikipedia? 1) Gamergate disputes, 2) adding or removing an infobox? (Note: This question contains a landmine; familiarize yourself with the issues and the ArbCom decisions before answering, if you are not already familiar with them.)

A: Just a quick note here to say that I have seen this question and plan on answering it, but need to do homework first. I am well aware that there have been ARBCOM cases about both issues, and active sanctions are in place; but I need to familiarize myself more with the cases. Montana, am I correct in assuming you mean 1) a content dispute related to Gamergate, and 2) a dispute over the inclusion of a specific infobox, rather than the meta-disputes that are also so common?

Okay, I've done some digging, though the first lesson I've learned from that is that there is just reams of information that needs to be read before I can have anything close to a good understanding of these issues. @Montanabw: I'm still struggling a little to understand the scope of your question, so feel free to ask me a follow-up if I don't address what you had in mind. First, with respect to infoboxes; based on my reading of this, if I ever came across such a dispute, I am inclined to run for help. The issues seem rather complex, and I would not want to mess something up thanks to a lack of understanding. Therefore, if I came across an infobox-related dispute that involved one of the folks involved in the original case, I would probably try to find an admin who had been involved with settling it then, and ask them to step in or give me some advice. If the disruption were serious, I might protect a page (if the issue were restricted to a single page, which it probably won't be). In the last resort, I might post to ANI, not in the "let's punish editor X" sense but "We need administrator eyes on this" sense. I'd rather not do that, though, because in my view the heat:light ratio at ANI is often poor. Nonetheless, I don't really want to enforce the restrictions that ARBCOM has set out until I have understood the issue much better than I can in the space of a few hours.

If, on the other hand, the dispute was between folks who had not previously been caught in this fracas, I would let them know that infoboxes were a matter of controversy, and that they might want to take it easy and tread lightly on the revert button. In the original case, one of the points the arbitrators made (if I understand correctly) was that adding a specific infobox was a content-related decision, and so infoboxes should not be added indiscriminately to articles as if that were a maintenance procedure. If I came across a situation in which this seemed to be happening, I would likely drop a note to the protagonists about this ruling, and ask them to obtain consensus in each case. Again, I would probably try to find an admin who had been involved with settling it then, and ask them to step in or give me some advice.

Second, with respect to Gamergate: I am a little more familiar with the Gamergate dispute, although I haven't done any content work in the area, and I see it as being an even larger minefield than the other area. This is partly because closely related issues like the GGTF are also highly controversial, partly because the disruption was widespread enough that ARBCOM has authorized discretionary sanctions. If I came across a dispute in these areas, I would first want to make sure that the editors were aware of these discretionary sanctions, although I would accompany the scary looking template with a note to say that they had not necessarily done anything wrong, but here was something that they should be aware of. Then I would dig into the contributions of the folks involved, to see whether they were there to build Wikipedia, or whether they was any evidence that they were there to push a non-constructive agenda. In doing this digging, I would also look at the history of the Gamergate issue on Wikipedia, which is complicated enough that I would have to understand before making decisions about editors' behavior in the area. Likewise, I would look into the source material to verify whether WP:DUE and BLP were being followed.

My subsequent actions would be entirely based on what I find. An editor who is behaving disruptively might require a warning, with the possibility of a block if disruption continues. Sockpuppets or editors that show no inclination towards editing constructively might be issued an immediate indef-block. Editors who are generally abiding by policy but are engaging in battleground behavior and edit-warring should certainly receive a warning, and if they have been warned before, then perhaps an immediate block, the duration of which would depend upon previous blocks/warnings and the nature of their conduct. A page that is being warred over by many editors would be a good candidate for protection, and instructions to the folks involved to build consensus via discussion. Two editors that appear allergic to one-another, but can otherwise do good work, would be candidates for an interaction ban. An editor consistently failing to abide by WP:BLP might require a block or a topic ban, although I would hope that a warning would suffice. If the dispute were large, and/or I had any doubts as to the applicability of a particular sanction, I would invite scrutiny from other admins are WP:AE. Which sanctions would be considered and enforced would depend upon the specifics of the situation: I can easily visualize situations wherein a warning might be sufficient, and others where a site-ban might be necessary (I would not, of course, impose a site-ban: according to this, that is not a sanction an admin should impose. Just discussing a hypothetical.) I would not, of course, impose sanctions if I were involved in a non-admin capacity, and I would not impose sanctions lightly: I discussed a number of possibilities to show that the options exist, and would be used if necessary. Additionally, I don't exactly intend to wade into this immediately if I receive the mop: I'm just trying to give you an idea of my thought process. I hope this answers your question. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Calypsomusic

17. You have proposed to merge the Ram Janmabhoomi article (in which you have made 68 edits in article space) into the Babri Mosque article. (Ram Janmabhoomi being an arguably important place and concept in Hinduism, and the temple according to some historical sources (Muslim, British, Hindu) was destroyed and replaced with the Babri Mosque during the Islamic conquests, although the iconoclasm has been controversial and disputed since the 1990s). Assuming you were not involved at all in the discussion or the article, how would you close the merge debate given the arguments at the merger discussion, and why?

A: Calypso, thanks for the question. This discussion is relatively straightforward: were I uninvolved in that dispute, I would close as "Consensus is against the Merge proposal." Nobody but the nominator (me) supported the proposal, and that argument was a poor one. The notion proposed by Kautilya and sort of supported by Regentspark had some merit, but it did not gain enough support. Ultimately, the argument that the two topics are distinct is the strongest argument.

Since it has come up though, I can't get away from the elephant in the room: why I made that proposal in the first place. In retrospect, my argument was half correct, but the proposal was still wrong. I had examined the Ram Janmabhoomi page, and found an excess of marginally relevant content, much of which was also at Babri Masjid. Based on this I proposed a merger, which was a mistake, because the topics are distinct, and each is important in its own right. What I should have done was to prune the irrelevant content and source, rewrite, and expand the relevant stuff. I did do some pruning, and Utcursch did some more, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

Additional question from Lemongirl942

18. Consider this situation. Editor A has created a new article about X company. Editor B alleges that it is an undisclosed paid editing job and raises the issue at WP:COIN. A then asks B to stop the "false allegations" and other editors chastise B as well, saying, allegations without proof are personal attacks. B then posts links to a freelancing website (like elance.com) which shows that a job was posted on the website recently to "create an article about X company on Wikipedia" and someone on that website accepted the job recently as well and it is marked as "successfully completed". If you were the administrator, what would be your course of action? (for example: block A/block B/ask B to post or email you more proof/delete article/any other or combination of actions)

A: There are several potential issues here. As outlined at WP:COI, editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles that they have a conflict of interest, and paid editing is one form of conflict of interest. At the same time, outing also needs to be avoided; and even if the individual has a COI, this does not necessarily mean that the article is in bad shape, or is about a non-notable subject.

Therefore, my first step would be to check whether the information that editor B posted to the noticeboard had any identifying information in it; if it did, (which sounds likely from your hypothetical) I would remove such information, and suppress the relevant revisions. I would inform editor B of what I had done and why, warn them that such posting such information constitutes outing and tell them not to repeat it, and let them know that if it was imperative that somebody look into the situation that involved private information, they should approach an ARBCOM member or a functionary by email.

Then, I would examine the edits of editor A to see if there was evidence of a conflict of interest. Although the circumstantial evidence is strong, there isn't actually a link to editor A that has been demonstrated, so I cannot assume a COI. I could also ask them directly, but given the situation you describe it is unlikely I would receive an admission in response. However, it is quite possible that a conflict of interest exists and is evident from their edits, in which case editor A would need to be warned about COI editing and why it is discouraged. I would ask them to focus on other areas instead, and if they felt they had to edit this area, then I would ask them to stick to the article talk space and propose edits there. If their behavior becomes disruptive, a block would be appropriate. Depending on the nature of the article, it might need pruning, or might be good enough to be left alone, or might need to be tagged with WP:CSD#G11. Finally, the behavior of the other editors supporting editor A on the noticeboard needs to be looked into. They might well be excellent editors annoyed with the casting of aspersions, but they might possibly be sockpuppets. If I found evidence of the latter situation, I would probably open an SPI and present the evidence there, unless they are extremely obvious socks, in which case I would block them myself per WP:DUCK. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:MSJapan

19. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Tucker (singer), you voted "weak keep", and you were the only person to vote keep, aside from the person who deprodded the article such that it had to go to AfD in the first place (I consider that person to have a vested interest in showing that their deprods are "good" and thus will fight the "keep" position). You, however, were an uninvolved user, and yet it seemed pretty clear to everyone else that there was a clear policy-based reason to delete this article. As an admin, you are going to need to deal with AfDs and policy questions, and they require judgment calls. Do you really feel that "two = multiple", when the sources are all local, is really the spirit of GNG? Put more broadly, can you recognize when a policy interpretation may be too loose for the good of the encyclopedia, and can you cite an example of when you had taken that position?

A: MSJapan, In a sense I am glad you brought that !vote up, because if there were any vote I could take back or repudiate over the last few months, it would be that one. No, the subject in that case did not meet GNG, and I made a hash of my description of the issues with sweeping for sources with common names as opposed to uncommon ones. I'm really not sure why I wrote that rationale the way I did: perhaps I had a bad day. I don't think a strict "two=multiple" definition is a good idea, nor do I believe it is the spirit of GNG. Rather, I would say that even two news sources can look very different depending on the depth of the coverage and how good the source is, and so whether or not something meets GNG depends more on the substance of the coverage and the nature of the source than a strict numerical value. By "too loose" do you mean situations where taking policy literally can go against the good of the encyclopedia? I'm a trifle confused about the second bit of your question.

Yes, on review, that wasn't as clear as it sounded the first time. It is perhaps better phrased as "Do you understand the difference between the spirit of a policy and the letter of a policy?" MSJapan (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

20. Another area that seems to have become more significant and more problematic as WP has climbed the SEO rankings is conflict of interest. Therefore, related to my above question, what is your view of the weight of a disclosed (or readily apparent) conflict of interest in AfDs? For example, is borderline notability of a subject, coupled with a clear intent to promote, a delete or a keep, and under which circumstances might you lean one way or the other? MSJapan (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A: COIs are indeed a thorny problem, and I've explained some of my thinking under Q18 above. I myself have a strong personal dislike of Wikipedia being used in a promotional sense, and have often pruned puffery from poorly written articles. In a deletion discussion, I think I would read what a COI editor had to say, but with a fistful of salt. I've come across several editors in deletion discussions that have had a COI, and there tends to be a lot of variation in their behavior; some will drown the discussion under walls of text, while others will simply make the best case they can and then leave it at that. Both cases are informative, although in different ways. When judging consensus, though, if consensus were unclear and both keep and delete !voters were making arguments of similar strength, I would tend to discount the !vote of an editor with an obvious COI, because I cannot be sure that they are giving me an honest appraisal. Therefore, under the circumstances you have described, I would likely lean "delete;" the exception might be if a neutral editor has managed to salvage a half-decent article from the original puff-piece, which sometimes happens. In such a situation, though, I might also take a third option: not to close the discussion myself but to participate instead, point out the COI if necessary, and give my own judgement, hopefully making things easier to assess for the person who eventually closes the discussion. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Vanamonde93: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Vanamonde93 can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support- Seems a good candidate to me. Only thing wrong is that the user was previously blocked for edit warring, but surely lessons have been learned from it. Class455 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
2. support as nominator. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - good content record and enough background experience with WP's dusty byways that I have confidence they'd be fine with janitorial tools. This is also one of those cliched occasions where one can say "I thought they were already an admin." -- Euryalus (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Certainly: an excellent contributor with plenty of experience and a clear need for the tools. Great content portfolio too. No concerns whatsoever. Omni Flames (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
5. Support: No concerns. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 11:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
6. Support as co-nom. --regentspark (comment) 11:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
7. Support Seems like an excellent candidate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   This editor seems to have joined Wikipedia only last month.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   @VictoriaGrayson: Yeah, I did. So what? I'm not a meatpuppet or anything. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

8. Support I have seen Vanamonde93 around a lot and always had a positive impression. Some very healthy content creation, including article creation. Good explanations regarding what they have learned from past mis-steps. Very healthy looking AfD participation. I'm unconcerned regarding previous, 2 year old block. 20k+ edits with over 50% to article space. Talk page show plenty of collaboration and ability to explain policy and personal actions to new and, um, difficult editors. Tons of CLUE here, this is an easy call for me. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
9. Support Only had positive interactions with this user. The one block in their log looks extremely harsh (blocked for edit warring after two reverts on an article that didn't have a 1RR restriction) so I definitely wouldn't hold it against them. Number 57 15:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
10. Support He will be a net positive to the project. We need more anti-vandalism admins. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
11. Support Seems like an excellent candidate.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
12. Support, my interactions with the candidate were positive and not problematic.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
13. Support Seeing the answers regarding the alleged POV has given my enough thought to support this nomination. Additionally, the "vandal edits" appear to have not been a misjudgment, but an honest use of the Stiki tool. I don't see a POV from the user's edits and they would be a solid admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
14. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 18:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
15. Support I did my homework, and changed my !vote from o to s. The edits I reviewed, some of which included articles the candidate created, reflect the work of a competent editor. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
16. Support Looks like a clear net positive to the encyclopedia. Many of the opposes are extremely unconvincing.Tazerdadog (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
17. Strong support - Vanamonde93 is an exceptionally good editor. He was one of the first people that I ran into when I started editing South Asia pages and I learnt a lot from his editing as well as his conduct in dealing with highly disputed topics. South Asia topics are a minefield with multiple nationalistic POVs. Vanamonde93 has always kept on the right side of the debates, with focus on reliable sourcing and NPOV balance. Speaking as a Hindu and a person of Indian origin, I can state with certainty that I have never seen him display any bias against Hindus or Indians. The comments in the section below are just a representation of the "minefield" I mentioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
18. Support Experienced in content creation and maintenance work. You can't have one without the other. Widr (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
19. Support After reading the candidate's answers to the questions above and looking over their contributions I see a careful and clueful editor that can be trusted with the tools. I am not swayed by the oppose votes based on the supposed bias against various religious and ethnic groups and I think they should read the answer to question 7 above. I also think some diffs are required by the editors below that make accusations as such. Valeince (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
20. Support - definite net positive, only block was unjustified, great CVU work. They can only benefit from having these additional tools. Zero^talk 20:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
21. Support - I can't find anything to substantiate the concerns below, and I see every indication of both a) potential for activity in admin-related areas and b) enough clue to use the sysop tools well. So probably a good choice for admin here! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
22. Support Lots of experience in content creation and with the background work, and seems level headed. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
23. Support despite a focus on content creation, the candidate has demonstrated competence on the maintenance side of the project as well. There are naturally more Indian editors than Pakistani editors on the English Wikipedia, so it's not surprising to see accusations of bias. SSTflyer 00:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
24. I'm happy to support a good editor and content creator who also happens to be a fellow fan of Ursula K. Le Guin. Jonathunder (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
25. Support I've seen Vanamonde around, trust the noms and like their answers to the questions. They learn from the mistakes we all make, and will be a net positive as an admin. Opposes not a concern here. Miniapolis 02:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
26. Support, per nom. Solid content contributor, experienced vandal-fighter and - despite some questionable cases in the past - level-headed and fair enough to make a decent admin. Majoreditor (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
27. Support - Experience everywhere I would want to see experience, good answers to the questions, and more importantly (to me), a willingness (if not eagerness) to step aside and leave the tools alone when they have a personal opinion on the matter that they want to express (per answer to Q6, "...In this particular case, though, I would be more likely to leave an opinion myself, and if I had time try to clean the page up, than try to close the discussion myself." To me, even if I was concerned about the candidate having a POV per the opposes, that would allay such a concern quite nicely. PGWG (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
28. Support firm editor who dares to take a stand. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
29. Support . I lack the authority to comment on the opposes below and my own research does not reveal anything egregious. Good balance of the right kind of edits in the right kinds of places and thoughtful answers to the questions above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
30. Support: Great experience where it matters, including content work and new content management (CSD, AFD). The answers to the questions show a clear-headed grasp of Wikipedia policy. I particularly appreciated the answer to question 4; it shows a good faith and non-bitey approach to edits made by new users, which can really go a long way in dealing with and helping out new users and is crucial to successful admin work. Airplaneman ✈ 07:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
31. Support: Solid editing background, whilst the one of the opposes was a sock and another failed to provide any diffs.--Catlemur (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)--Catlemur (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
32. Support, primarily due to the excellent answers to 3 and 7. I'm not convinced by any of the oppose rationales thus far, and I'm frankly flabbergasted that we're hitting an RfA candidate for assuming good faith too much. Treating potential test edits as good faith attempts to edit the encyclopedia is no less than required in a vandal fighter as per WP:NOTVAND, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE. The STiki instruction page cannot override our policies and behavioral guidelines, obviously. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
33. Support, looks great! Nsk92 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
34. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
35. The edit warring block is sufficiently long ago to ignore or treat as a lesson learned. Nice content work, I'm sure you'll make a fine admin. ϢereSpielChequers 12:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
36. Suppport: A review of the contributions show no problems, and answers to questions here and their contributions to WP:ANI/WP:AN3 show WP:CLUE. I have generally been favourably struck by their editing in contentious areas and handling of disputes where there's strong POV. There are occasional missteps, but overall it's pretty good. An admin with experience and an appreciation for the situation in such areas would be useful. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
37. Support, not an editor I know but there are no major issues that I could find and I believe they would be a net positive -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
38. Support: The only issue I can find is the labelling of vandalism as AGF, and even then that's a fairly trivial point. — Chevvin 16:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
39. Support. I wasn't familiar with this user before but have done some research. Good answers also. It's actually quite refreshing to find someone who doesn't shout VANDAL at every test edit, so I'm not really persuaded by some of the opposition. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
40. Support The candidate seems likely to become an admin with a strong content creation background, working in areas where that is desireable (AfD, PROD and DYK). Thoughtful answers to questions. Assuming a fair amount of newbie good faith is a laudable trait. The partisan warfare complaints below do not convince me, and in any case I would hope that the candidate would be wise enough to stay far away from such temptations, once be-mopped.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
41. Support - I've seen Vanamonde93 around and always been satisfied. Similarly, I'm happy with what I've seen on this page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
42. Support. My only interaction with Vanamonde93 has been at the current FAC for Left Hand of Darkness, and that convinced me that they are level-headed and rational in discussions. I've looked at the opposes and don't find enough there to concern me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
43. Support I'm not entirely sure what the oppose !votes are all about. It's worth noting that some of the users who criticized the candidate's apparent "too much assumption of good faith" have never or rarely used STiki. When the "good faith revert" button is used STiki users have the option of sending the user a talk page message explaining the revert (There also appeared to be some misunderstanding of policy on the !voter's end). I also fail to understand why we're opposing a candidate for their beliefs and stances. Must I be opposed on my RFA (should I ever run) for being Christian because I would offend everyone who wasn't Christian? If that's the philosophy then maybe we should oppose all humans running for RFA, because we're all biased; anyone who says otherwise is mistaken. Back on topic: Candidate's edits all look good, and I am certain that this user will be a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

    The answer to that question is yes. I now know that I can never support your RfA. The idea of a Christian being an admin simply scares me. </humor>—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

44. Support - I see nothing of serious concern. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
45. Support No reason not to trust them with a mop. Good content creation (far better than necessary) and a willingness to discuss with others. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
46. Support The candidate's invocation of WP:INVOLVED is important and shows a level-headed, competent way of thinking; that clears any latent concern the opposes raise below. Otherwise, no concerns, would be a positive addition to the mop team. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

    Support – no big problems, and pinging VictoriaGrayson, everyone can edit to the English Wikipedia, no matter where he/she came/comes from, but not everyone can be an admin, so that is when/why the !votes used. I respect your opinion, but the reason should be largely belonging to the Wikipedias. 333-blue 00:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

47. Support: Good content work and demonstrates use for the tools. The candidate's experience in disputes is a definite positive. — Esquivalience (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
48. Support The candidate has a good record of content work and appears to work productively in controversial areas, which is a definite plus for adminship. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
49. Support: Strong contribution record, good communication skills, collegial and polite. The answers to the questions are considered and thoughtful. I see experience in the right areas, and, most importantly of all, common sense. No "red flags". Candidate, it seems to me, will be a fine admin. --Begoon ^talk 04:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
50. Support-In the past, he was blocked in an edit warring, but he has moved on and contributed greatly. Andertonian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
51. Support nothing to make me concerned, plenty to be confident about with content creation experience. General clue and not a biter, seems to be willing to discuss things rationally when conflicts arise. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
52. Support: Good answers to questions, appears to be a level-headed person.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
53. Support Thoughtful, reasonable, clueful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
54. Support A very friendly editor /reviewer, helped me with my first DYK. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
55. Support Plentiful and mostly accurate activity on counter-vandalism and deletions; gets involved in difficult topic areas; has politely and effectively dealt with the challenges in this RfA. Finally look at this little ANI thread to compare & contrast the interventions of the two current RfA candidates: Noyster (talk), 08:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
56. Support (Moved from neutral) - Impressive record of content creation, good answers above, and clearly admin material overall. To be blunt, the STiki flap is not a serious concern. Moreover, I'm not convinced of the allegations of POV, which were the only reason I was previously neutral. The closing 'crat should disregard said accusations, absent firmer evidence. I wish the candidate the best of luck GAB^gab 14:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
57. Support as I see no concerns that make me believe the nominee would misuse the toolset. Steel1943 (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
58. Support I find the oppose votes unpersuasive, the labeling vandalism as good faith is a non-issue since the only policy we have that covers this states clearly that we can never be faulted for assuming good faith of other contributers, a couple of the other opposes are based on past content disputes and personal gripe. Since I see no valid reason to oppose I support. Kautilya's rationale is really good, noone can edit neutrally in a minefield like Indian nationalism and not get a couple of haters. In my experience Vanamonde has been both knowledgeable and neutral in his work in that field. Anti-indian or anti-hindu he is clearly not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
59. Support. I trust Vanamonde93 with the mop. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
60. Support. At my RFA, Vanamonde93 and I had a discussion about deletion. I'm impressed with his approach to the subject and I have full faith and confidence that they will be a net positive with the mop. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
61. Support Clearly a net positive. The issues raised about miss-labeling are not a valid reason for me to vote against the candidacy of a responsible editor with such a good track record. I am also not convinced about the alleged lack of neutrality. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
62. Support. Good answers above. Good mix of editing interests. As the STiki instructions say, "It can be tricky to differentiate between vandalism and good-faith edits that are nonetheless unconstructive." It's unreasonable to oppose this nomination simply because of the candidate's uncertainty over malice and greater willingness to assume good faith. What's important is that edits which should be reverted are getting reverted; further additions to an editor's contribution history generally will make their intentions clear soon enough. wbm1058 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
63. Strong Support. Clearly is experienced based on the fact that they've been around for 3 years, have over 20,000 edits, and has promoted multiple articles to good article status. Jdcomix (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
64. Support - Opposing on the basis of them marking vandalism as good faith is rather pathetic, Either way the edits were reverted so why on earth would it matter ? .... All for anyone knows the reverter could've hit AGF by mistake .... Not really something to oppose over, Anywho I don't see any red flags with this candidate and personally they tick all of my boxes (has been here +3 years, has edited more in articlespace than anywhere else has participated at AFD frequently), I see no issues with this candidate. –Davey2010^Talk 00:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
65. Support Very good answers to questions. Can't win here, you get opposed for not assuming enough faith and you get opposed for assuming too much faith. The neutrality concerns appear unsubstantiated. It is hard to spend any decent amount of time here without stepping on someones toes and if anything it will bode him well if he becomes an admin. AIRcorn (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
66. Support Good answers to questions, level-headedness, content creation. Other than this RfA, I'm not acquainted with the candidate personally, but I am very disappointed at the quality of the oppose arguments and 2) somewhat less disappointed by not seeing the usual "oppose, no content creation" camp in the "support" section. No such user (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
67. Support Having looked at the candidate's recent contributions, and the oppose rationales and diffs, I don't see anything that raises any red flags for me. The answers to the questions are reasoned and show a lot of good sense, not least about how they view vandalism, and it's clear that they are aware of past mistakes and have learnt and matured from them. As for the POV question - everybody has a POV, it's part of being a) a human being and b) alive. I haven't seen anything that indicates that Vanamonde93 has been editing to impose any POV unduly (the diffs presented in the Oppose section do not show that, to me at least), nor anything that makes me suspect that they should suddenly start editing with some kind of bias if they get a mop. --bonadea contributions talk 11:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
68. Support: My interactions with the candidate have been entirely positive and I find the arguments put forward by those who oppose unpersuasive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
69. Support Seems like good answers to the questions above and the contributions seems to be in areas where this level of access will be beneficial. Sunny Side Up (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
70. (edit conflict) Support per above. Seems like a trustworthy and knowledgeable user. Good tenure and contributions. Would make a fine admin. Jianhui67 ^T★C 13:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
71. (edit conflict) Support: The only reasonable argument I've seen is the concern about marking test edits as "good faith" in STiki. While the STiki instructions apparently say that test edits should be marked as vandalism rather than good faith, there is superseding policy in WP:VAND stating that test edits are not vandalism. If there's some overriding reason that STiki users should hit the same button for true vandalism and test edits (e.g., creating a machine learning training set for bots) then that button should be relabeled by the STiki developer. I don't see a basis for impugning this candidate's thought process on the basis of being confronted with that choice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
72. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' most serious concerns are unsupported and the other issues are unlikely to recur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
73. Support. Qualified. Good content. Good temperament. Awareness of past mishaps, if that's the proper word. I would not have marked the diffs in Q4 as "good-faith", but if that's what Stiki does based on Vanamonde's somewhat liberal reading of the diff, I have no problem with it--and I want to note that I appreciate Vanamonde's explanation in Q4. I love an admin who can explain things. In fact, I think it's a requirement. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
74. Support Good answers to the questions given, especially 8 and 10. I trust that they will be neutral in their dealings as an administrator. clpo13_(talk) 17:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
75. Support I'm not concerned with the candidate assuming good faith with the vandalism edits. Either way of they keep doing it they will eventually get blocked. I dont have any other concerns so why not?--Church ^Talk 17:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
76. Support– Allegations of POV have not been substantiated to my satisfaction, and diffs that have been provided shore up the candidate's reputation as a patient NPOV-pusher. Willing to work in minefields that disgust and drive away editors with less fortitude; qualified; and good answers, particularly to Q8, Q10b, and Q13. As to those opposers who want to see "[O]ne month of correctly labelling edits...", my only response is "Oh my gosh, really?". Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
77. Support, very much per Bonadea, Maunus. It appears the candidate has a number of inadvertent opponents, but I'm unconvinced. I don't know Vanamonde, but he answered the questions well. Should be a decent admin. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
78. Support I'm impressed by the answers, and the opposes have not convinced me. Gap9551 (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
79. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

    Based on a couple of the most recent opposes, I went and researched the content disputes that seem to have triggered them. I find nothing but Vanamonde being civil and sticking to Wikipedia's policies. If this is the worst he's ever done, he'll be a fine admin. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

80. Support per nom and on content contribution strengths. I enjoyed reading this editor's work while researching their history. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
81. Support. For me, the AGF opposes raised is a largely a non-issue as long as the editor understands what vandalism is and what is not. I believe they understand it sufficiently, and I don't mind an editor sometimes showing a friendly face to IPs or new editors who are testing, even if it means an extra click for reviewers. MikeLynch (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
82. Support. I have firmly resolved that I will only participate in RfAs and give my support to those whom themselves have had the experience of being blocked. I believe it should be a star on your bonnet, a feather in your cap, a merit badge, a trophy and an indication that you understand the 'power' of the block and its consequences. The Very, Very Best of Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  00:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
83. Support – I like the candidate's answers and the work they do here. I'm not persuaded by the opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
84. Support - We all have biases, it's part of why so many of us are drawn to this medium. That said, the process of suspending our prejudices and undertaking the civil process of crafting NPOV articles, mindful of collaborative give and take, is what we all should strive for, and what this editor (to my mind) has amply demonstrated. I take seriously the concerns of the O voters but I have not adopted their take. I trust this user with the kit. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
85. Support; WP:NETPOSITIVE and I like your answer to my question. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
86. Support — I am impressed by Vanamonde93's answers to the questions. The clarity and precision of the writing in those answers should be a great help in acting as an admin. I am not impressed by the unsupported accusations of bias by some opposers. V. has been candid concerning their learning curve, and seems calm, tenacious, and familiar with content creation. — Neonorange (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
87. Support. Experienced and knowledgeable editor, with excellent and thoughtful answers to questions. Working in the India/Pakistan area is fraught with danger to one's own reputation, and I put trust in the support !vote of User:Kautilya3 who has an impressive record in that area and knows what's what. Anyone who acts neutrally in that subject area and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies will attract howls of protest from one nationalist side or the other (or even both). None of the accusations has been supported by any evidence, and so those !votes will surely be discounted by the closing crat. Marking vandalism as good faith due to the foibles of some tool or other? That's unimportant trivia - it's the other way round that would be bad. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
88. Support Candidate is qualified and has my trust; well-rounded and solid answers to questions. Spencer^T♦C 10:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
89. Support pretty much as per Boing! said Zebedee's rationale above. I edit extensively in the India/Pakistan area and have welcomed Vanamonde93's efforts there. Sure, they're human and make occasional mistakes but those are trivial things. The people who are questioning neutrality etc really need to take a closer look at themselves. Indeed, in some cases perhaps the wider community needs to take a closer look at them. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
90. Strong oppose candidate may have independent thoughts and opinions, some of which are different to mine, this is completely and utterly unacceptable and my sockfarm will sink this RfA soon enough ... no, wait, Support seems to have good all round experience and will have no problem with the tools Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
91. Support Let him have it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
92. Support Yes, assuming good faith on some vandalism edits, while frustrating to other editors, only slows the process down a little -- and seems to me vastly less problematic than the other way around. I've certainly seen the candidate around and assumed he was an admin: very competent and nice person, seems to me. Of course, my eyes completely glaze when I suspect we've got warring POV editors on the Indian/Pakistan geopolitics taking their endless, dreary squabble here. No one seems to have made anything stick on that account -- beyond WP:Boomerang. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
93. Support: This person is willing to do work that needs to be done and they have shown that they are competent. Anyone willing to do difficult work on controversial articles will sometimes make some people angry, so I'm not bothered by those who oppose on that basis. I'm also not bothered by the kinder than necessary response to borderline vandals through STiki.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
94. Support I have seen this editor around, and have no fault to find with the edits, specifically those in admin areas, which I have seen. I am a little unhappy over the issue of labeling vandalism edits (I am pretty certain the examples are vandalisms, not tests) as good faith, but am prepared to accept that this is a software fault, given that the correct procedure was in any case followed. I would ask this editor, on acquiring the tools, to give edits like this a second look. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
95. Support per answers to questions. I get the feeling this editor has been around the block in terms of dealing with conflict, and I hope this will give them a valuable perspective as an admin. ~Awilley (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
96. Support - While a legitimate concern, like many have pointed out before it’s not as if the candidate marked egregious vandalism as good faith edits. I personally like to see admins assume an extra dose of good faith, so there’s that. Anyhow, moot point since they have addressed it in detail and promised to be more careful. Regarding bias, all I see are accusations made by users the candidate has been in content disputes with, and other editors from the region jumping on the bandwagon concerned (perhaps, rightfully) about these "allegations" which, as far as I can tell are completely unsubstantiated and without any merit. The nomination by RegentsPark and endorsement from experienced editors like Sitush, Kautilya3 and B!sZ allays any such concerns. There sure is a lot of canvassing going around and sock-puppets and accounts that have not edited in months rushing in to oppose does not give me much confidence either. I see an editor with solid content experience and lots of clue, one who is able to explain their actions clearly, one who is civil but firm with npov standards, one who is willing to pause and listen to feedback, and one who quite evidently has the interests of the project at heart. I trust them not to abuse the tools. Easy support. - NQ (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
97. Support basically as per nominators. epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
98. Support – I think enough time has passed for actual evidence of the POV accusations below to be put forward (the dearth of diffs is telling), and I'm also happy to neutralize a vote claiming 24,000 edits is not enough for an admin-hopeful (that can't possibly be serious, can it?) I also watched Vanamonde carefully transform The Left Hand of Darkness into the FA-candidate it is today (on my watchlist since I added an image ages ago), and the editor demonstrated some serious chops and ability to work collaboratively. Finally, I appreciate that Vanamonde appears to have an abundance of good faith in other editors (apparently too much for many in the section below), and is willing to follow Wikipedia-level policies before adhering to whatever walled-garden whims they have in place at Stiki. All in all, seems a great candidate for admin. Antepenultimate (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
99. Support. I don't usually !vote in these, but having looked at the opposes, I'm inclined to add my support. I've seen a number of people using the "reverted good-faith edit" canned edit summary in cases where the edits seemed to me blatant vandalism, but it's hardly a major problem. Deor (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
100. Support. Upon reading through the oppose votes (and disregarding those which are POV-motivated), the main rationale for opposition seems to be that the candidate has misidentified vandalism as good-faith editing, and is thus incapable of assuming the responsibilities of adminship, which requires a thorough understanding of what is and isn't vandalism. While that would indeed raise questions of competency, the editor's responses to the questions above (particularly question four) erase any doubt I have in their understanding, and I have no concerns over their abilities. As for the allegations that Vanamonde93 is biased: the important question to ask is not "Is he biased?" (as most people, in some way or another, are), but rather "Will he let his bias cloud his judgment or interfere with his ability to perform an administrator's duties?" Judging from his behavior overall, his reaction to being confronted with the allegations above, and the fact that he acknowledges his past mistakes and seems to have sincerely learned from them, I believe that the editor is mature enough to handle adminship. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
101. Support. Answers show a lot a clue, and there's evidence to back up the claims. Vandal false negatives only bother me at closing. Plenty of controversy, but reserve to balance it. Glrx (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
102. Support. Candidate seems to have plenty of experience, and remains level-headed and civil in their interactions with others. Any concerns I had were brought up in the questions above, and I was thoroughly impressed with the answers. I expect Vanamonde will make a great admin. Ajpolino (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
103. Support. Seems OK, checks out. The oppose argument seems to come down to two points: one, labels vandalism as good faith edits. But so what? He reverted the edit, didn't he? It's a minor pecadillo. Two, is alleged to be biased re Hinduism. But there seems to be a lot of smoke and not much fire to this allegation. The few diffs actually offered don't prove any such thing. Support. Herostratus (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
104. Support as a fellow STiki user who labels a lot of reverts as good-faith. Seems like an overwhelmingly net positive; none of the opposes convinced me otherwise. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
105. Support The POV concerns gave me pause at first, but as I read through the responses, I have confidence that this editor will apply the appropriate amount of distance to matters when needed, but at the same time will not be reluctant to act where needed on account of overly broad false concerns. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 05:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
106. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 07:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
107. Support: Best candidate I've seen here in a long time. The opposes seem baseless to me, either blaming Vanamonde93 personally for auto-assumption of good faith by a third-party tool (despite the fact that he follows up in user talk with correct notices), or making no-evidence accusations against him of PoV. The content work is solid and consistent, the nuanced policy understanding is there, and temperate approach is fully evident (and enviable; I wish I had that gift). I would like to see answers to the two-part question in #16, which speak to my admin-related concerns more than most of the other questions, but the answers to #1–15 were excellent. Frankly, it's really hard to edit in controversial socio-political areas on WP without generating a whole navy of missile-launching "enemies", yet this candidate has done so, and that speaks volumes. So does totally overhauling to WP:FAC level a major sci-fi article (i.e. something that could easily have turned into a pissing match with fandrones). All I see for opposition is a small flotilla waving sticks in his general direction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
108. Support increasing reading pleasure --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
109. Support all of the editors that are coming out of long periods of inactivity just to oppose this RfA on unsupported claims of bias are really just demonstrating why the candidate should pass. After all, if there really were legitimate reasons to oppose this candidacy, the oppposers would have dug them up by now. Lepricavark (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
110. Support if 'OMG assumes good faith too often' and 'only 24,000 edits' are the only negative thing about the candidate then I'm happy to trust them blind. --Pgallert (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
111. Support. Editors talk about how RfA can become a difficult process for an editor who has been around long enough to have made wiki-enemies, and that this fact unfortunately discourages many of the best potential candidates. Well, here we have Exhibit A. In fact, for my own thinking about RfA, I care very much about candidates' abilities to navigate difficult content areas in a trustworthy way. And that makes me come down on the support side with very high enthusiasm. I've seen how some of the South Asian topics can attract particularly clueless POV-pushing. That this candidate has attracted a "fan club" is not a problem. And that the candidate remained calm and reasonable (that EW block is ancient history), as well as articulate, is a strong positive. I like the statement about INVOLVED, and that's good enough for me. The Stiki thing does not stick for me. And I have a lot of respect for the nominators. We need more admins with this kind of background. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
112. Support first time participating in this process, and I feel like I need to support to cancel out some of these biased oppose votes. Prevan (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
113. Support - CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 17:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
114. Support: Answers to the questions show good self awareness, and the ability to recognize (and accept) when he's wrong. Examination of edits show a cool head in areas prone to partisan eruption. I think Tryptofish nails it with the comment about consequences of wiki-enemies. Lastly, the Stiki-wicket looks like a matter of coding of the tool more than anything else. Likely it should have neutral revert button like TW does, that neither suggests vandalism nor good faith, but that's a matter for the tool's talk page. In any case, I don't think this indicates an inability to differentiate vandalism from GF, but as the candidate says in 4, more of an awareness of how the user will perceive the revert, with an unfortunate automatic edit summary mucking the works. Crow^Caw 18:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
115. Support: I've long been impressed by Vanamonde93's positive contributions, level-headedness and neutrality: I think they'd be a credit as an admin. -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
116. Support. --JBL (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
117. Support I have no concerns that Vanamonde will be anything but a positive addition to admin team.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
118. Support No concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
119. Support I see no problems here with a new mop Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
120. Support Wikipedia needs editors and admins who are willing to take the heat that sometimes follows during systematic vandalism, amazing OR+POV-pushing, and clean up of predominantly unsourced articles in South Asia / Southeast Asia / Religions / Philosophy space. @Vanamonde93 has been one such contributor to such efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
121. Support Seems like a great candidate Orser67 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
122. Support - mainly because some of the opposers seem like borderline nutjobs...--Stemoc 03:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
123. Support - user seems clueful and won't break the wiki (yeah, I know this is an old-style vote rationale!). Carcharoth (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
124. Support - I found him a patient, precise and know-how editor! He'll make a good admin. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Vanamonde93 belongs the 'pro-Islam/pro-Pakistan/anti-Hinduism/anti-India' camp, which makes it impossible to add even the most basic academic sourcing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   Some evidence of that would be nice.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 16:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   Here you go, "Vanamonde93's support". This is part 1. And User:Calm321 became User:Xtremedood. Ponyo blocked Xtremedood for socking --John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Struck comment from blocked sockpuppet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

   HUH? I don't see any connection here.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   And how exactly did John Jaffar Janardan become interested in an SPI case from 15 months ago if he's been here for a scant 7 months? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   Because it's a sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   Discussion of VictoriaGrayson's !vote is on the talk page: [11]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   NOTE: !Vote by now-blocked John Jaffar Janardan removed as a sockpuppet by Bbb23: [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   Note: - VictoriaGrayson dropped this bias-bomb days ago and apparently hasn't edited since then, so any pings and other requests that she clarify and substantiate her claim that the subject is pro-X and anti-Y have gone unanswered. As of this note there are about 37 hours left in the RfA. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Marking all vandalism edits (including for instance this 34,000-byte deletion [13]) as "good-faith" edits, which is plainly incorrect. The Stiki instructions are clear and even test edits should be classified as vandalism [14]. Candidate has been doing this for years. This is very basic stuff, and an admin candidate needs to at least get the basic stuff right. I don't know what the problem is -- not caring, going too fast, not taking the time to make the right choice, editcountitiis, or what, but this is just too glaring for me, right off the bat. I just don't personally feel the candidate currently has the maturity and rigor for adminship, but I wish them well in the future. Softlavender (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   "Test edits should be classified as vandalism". That's not what WP:NOTVAND says: Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism. If the Stiki instructions say something else then that seems a bit confusing. I agree that your example doesn't seem good faith, though. --Begoon ^talk 17:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   That's not what the Stiki instructions say [15]. If the candidate can't adequately control what the Stiki software actually does, then they should switch to Twinkle or something that correctly labels vandalism as vandalism or disruptive or nothing or anything but "good-faith", in my opinion. I checked dozens and dozens of the candidate's Stiki usages and they continually label clear vandalism as "good-faith" and have been doing so for over two years. Softlavender (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   "All" doesn't seem an apt description - this STiki listing shows the candidate as reverting 20% of edits handled on STiki as "vandalism" and 22% as "good faith". This doesn't look out of line amongst the massive variation among editors on that list. The issue has now been addressed adequately I think under Q4 above: Noyster (talk), 17:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   Removing vandalisms is the most important thing, not caring about edit summaries, but that seems strange. 333-blue 00:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose I've been involved in a number of contentious interactions with Vanamonde93. I don't necessarily see that as being a disqualifying factor for adminship in and of itself, particularly since I edit bios of US politicians almost exclusively and contention there seems to go with the territory. What does concern me however, is that in many cases Vanamonde93 seemed to be wikistalking me. There are a number of instances where his/her first (and in some cases only) edit to the article was to revert my edit. And some of the articles were fairly obscure. I don't believe that behavior is consistent with adminship.CFredkin (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   Oppose based on the concerns stated above and discussion below. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   Oppose The editor needs to label vandalism as such. Limitations of Stiki cannot be reasons for labeling clear cut vandalism as good faith edits. Labelling vandalism as good faith edits takes away the time of other editors in re-labelling such editors' subsequent unhelpful edits as vandalism. Honestly, if all these edits can be labelled good faith edits, and if we could therefore expand the definition of good faith edits and suggest all vandalism reverting editors to do so, we would be really wasting quite a lot of time. I would be confident of this user once he has invested at least a month in correctly labelling vandalism edits as vandalism. Lourdes 09:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC) The editor has added to his reply, accepting his mistake and confirming that he will take due effort not to label vandalism as good faith edits. I am removing this oppose. Lourdes 01:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

4. Oppose I don't think labeling vandalism edits as good faith edits is appropriate. Per Lourdes, I would also be confident if this user has invested one month in correctly labeling edits as vandalism. — Music1201 ^talk 15:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose Studying contribution history leads me to conclude that this editor does not consistently demonstrate the necessary temperament, judgment, restraint or clue one would expect of someone given the tools. Keri (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
6. Sympathethic Oppose simply because, although I have seen this user before, I am not comfortable with a total of only 24,000 contributions with the highest only being 12,000 (that's or articles) with Wikipediaspace following by some 1,000. I honestly think this is still too soon and there's still considerable space and time for contributions and improvements added. I'm quite lenient but I still would not be comfortable with questioning my confidence of what this holds. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   I am not comfortable with a total of only 24,000 contributions: SwisterTwister, are you serious? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   If everyone had standards like that, we would have less than half of the admins that we currently have. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   I've barely got half that. I'd better resign all my bits for being obviously too inexperienced and incompetent, because edits like this just don't stack up that fast.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   'Comment Just for the record, I have been an admin for over nine years, and have about 25,000 edits (including deleted)--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

   Also for the record, I passed RfA just 3 years ago with about 7,000 total edits. I'm now up to 9,700 (woohoo!) #WP:Editcountitis ~Awilley (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

7. Strong oppose He is a biased editor as some others have already pointed. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   Diffs and evidence is also moved there. --AmritasyaPutra^T 00:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

8. Oppose An excellent editor, but given the situation raised by Softlavender, I don't think this editor has enough understanding as to which edits are considered good faith and which ones are bad, especially if one of your intentions is to work in areas involving editors. I suggest more recent changes patrolling between now and 2 September. Minima© (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose Prodigyhk (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose based on the concerns raised regarding edits related to India. I also am concerned with the prospects identifying they want to continue being involved in vandalism fighting but not sufficiently using the STikitool correctly as raised by many people here. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
12. Oppose per above. Concerns with user's ability to discern good faith edits from vandalism -FASTILY 04:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
13. Oppose per concerns raised above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
14. Oppose due to serious concerns on neutrality and objectivity, some briefly mentioned by others on the talkpage. There are numerous cases of biased and/or factually wrong editing.

    a) For example, regarding the Godhra massacre, where 60 Hindus were burned in a standing train by a mob [16], Vanamonde has (as said by user Sdmarathe) "in past blamed it on Hindus (I could cite your diffs for that)", claiming "it was not persecution or massacre but rather an inside job even after due process."[17] --Calypsomusic (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

    That seems to be quite a disingenuous accusation by Sdmarathe. The only thing I can find remotely close to this is a discussion in Talk:Godhra_train_burning/Archive_2#.22Staged_trigger.22 in which Vanamonde93 is trying to guess what a cited source meant in a particular quote. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Please read [18] where Vanamonde is arguing based on single outdated source of Nussbaum to push for accident theory --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    I have read. Vandamonde was making a policy-based argument for the inclusion of a theory. That you read that as support of the theory itself is your issue, not his. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    I have not time at the moment (maybe later), but as far as I remember, he was not only arguing for the inclusion, but also for the exclusion of details (such as there was a mob at the standing train), or on overrepresenting the inside job conspiracy theory, even though many people were convicted in court for the massacre and received life sentences. Also in other articles, for example on the Ram Janmabhoomi temple, he was arguing that it is disputed that a temple ever existed or was destroyed by iconoclasm, and was therefore proposing to delete the article on the temple (merge it into the Babri mosque article). This was in the 1990s a popular view, (though not supported by archaeology etc.), but is now largely discredited and the Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court have accepted the findings by India's apex archaeological body showing the existence of a temple. (also for example [19],[20]). --Calypsomusic (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

15. Oppose Several edits were made by Vanamonde93 that maliciously negated corroborated and reliable sourced statements that sided with either nationalistic or Hindu ideology. The NPOV is being questioned because he appears to require heavy burden of proof for POV that is opposite to his POV however readily accepts any contention that supports his POV. If he can provide evidence that he will treat both points of view with equal respect and burden of proof, I will have no issues supporting his candidature. But at this point, I have serious reservations from the past unnecessary reverts that he has made to my edits. He has even made several factual errors - including the ones on Godhra Massacre and the role of Muslims in the riot as well as death toll. Despite mountain of evidence that presented, he gave credence to a rumor that the Godhra fire was started by Hindus - without providing reliable sources. [21] This conduct is unbecoming of an administrator that is supposed to push WP:NPOV. I have no reservations about his knowledge of Wikipedia and if he can adhere to WP:NPOV, he will be a great admin. But until then, I will have strong opposition --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    "Despite mountain of evidence that presented, he gave credence to a rumor that the Godhra fire was started by Hindus - without providing reliable sources"... Sdmarathe, where is the diff to support this allegation of yours? This is a very strong accusation and can get editors who give such credence banned or restricted from topics. If you cannot provide diffs that support this claim, remove your oppose based on this claim. If you can provide multiple diffs, you should approach the community (ANI for example) and get the editor restricted from commenting on this area. Either way, either provide diffs and go to ANI or remove your accusation. For information, I have opposed this candidate's Rfa for a different reason, yet don't think that you should allege such strong accusations unless there are diffs clearly supporting what you claim. Lourdes 00:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Lourdes- the assertions are on the talk page on Godhra and naroda pages and persecution of Hindus pages. I will provide diffs as soon as I get on a computer (sorry not used to wiki from mobile where I am right now.) as I mentioned my objection to the candidature is solely based on lack of wp:npov, and not subject matter expertise. --Sdmarathe (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Please look at the archive discussion on Godhra train burning where single outdated source of Nussbaum is cited as RS enough to proceed with accident as a the main theory in the lead. [22] ``Sdmarathe (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    If you can't find anything more than a single discussion from 2014 in which Vanamonde93 was making sound policy-based arguments, and remaining remarkably civil dealing with the usual POV-pushing and nationalist bullshit that seems to crop up in the strange world of India-related topics, then your rather hold assertion above doesn't really hold any weight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Sdmarathe thanks for clarifying. Your link to a discussion page simply shows an argumentative editor who, two years ago, seems to be blindsided by one questionable RS and arguing for its inclusion with many editors. Discussion pages are for discussion and clarifications. If we're supposed to not discuss and debate our points of view on discussion pages, where else do you think Vanamonde is supposed to discuss? Can you show any diff of his edit on the said article which supports your claim? If you cannot, then my suggestion is remove your oppose or remove the allegation. Lourdes 04:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    And I would request editors to not shift the discussions to the talk page. Other editors need to know why this oppose is being questioned by editors, specially editors like me who have opposed this Rfa. Lourdes 04:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Lordes - it is not just one article and it is clearly not 2 years ago- There have been edits and reverts made as late as 2015. As I previously said, the POV concerns outweigh any positive at this time for me - because being an admin one has to adhere to NPOV in situations of disputes. Sorry I can not change my vote until I see evidence of NPOV being enforced by Vanamonde. He is a very good editor if only he pushed NPOV. He is extremely cherry picking of WP:RS and dismissive of contrary WP:RS evidence --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

16. Oppose While bias is a serious issue, marking vandalism as Good faith edits is even more serious. It might come across as an inability to distinguish between the two. Not the kind of stuff that an admin would do. As far as bias is concerned, it is very worrying to see such a user might get the mop. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Vanamonde93 has strong POV problems, especially matters related to India, Narendra Modi, Hinduism, RSS and BJP. Whilst it is good to watch and maintain pages, I have noticed in his edits that majority of his edits and efforts are to update and maintain negative content on the articles. He is very deeply involved with the pages, upto the extant of ownership and his POV is certainly doubtful. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose. Extremely biased editor that doesn't have the temperament to be an admin. 50m race walk (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    This !vote was made immediately after Vanamonde adviced the editor not to make personal attacks[23], seems like inappropriate retaliation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    NOTE: !Vote by now-blocked editor. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    More important, editor was a sockpuppet and was blocked for that reason. Shouldn't this !vote be struck as invalid? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Struck indeffed sockpuppet !vote — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

18. Very Strong Oppose - I am extremely unhappy with this case - You supported pure vandalism - [24] Not expected from anyone leave aside admins. Extremely unhappy VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 11:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    @VarunFEB2003: How is that vandalism? See [here]. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    That ping won't work, because you didn't post the template and your signature together, due to your typo, so here it is again: (@VarunFEB2003:), because I'm interested in the answer too. At first glance, Varun appears to have been prompted to do this by a message from a single-post IP on his talkpage, but perhaps Varun's investigation has found something that made him so unhappy and caused him to feel it was "pure vandalism"? --Begoon ^talk 13:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Clearly VarunFEB2003 is mistaken in his interpretation of Vanamonde's !vote. The fact is that Vanamonde actually struck his comment and reversed his !vote to delete in the very discussion. But the fact is, even if Vanamonde had not struck his !vote, that's no reason to oppose. This is turning out to be so silly... I am repeatedly defending the very editor I am opposing... Lourdes 13:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    No I am not mistaken! I have lot of evidence against him, he acts as an anti-India figure which I personally do not like at all, so I'd still support it as pure vandalism as calling Narendra Modi (The Prime Minister of India) as Butcher of Gujarat is unacceptable. Vandalism happens but I see there is no reason to promote it by support votes. Anyway my vote doesn't change but I am quite sure that he is gonna gain these rights seeing the support section. Not only that I am unhappy with his use of StKi as well. Thanks and Regards VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 03:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

    It is not vandallism. But with his other edits it could be seen as part of a consistent pattern of political bias. With his edits on the political party BJP, the BJP article is essentially sourced to anti-BJP and pro-Congress sources (like guha, jaffrelot and sen). Sure, some of them deserve to be cited, but anti-bjp sources are clearly vastly dominating the article. After many discussions, the article still has some pov problems. The Godhra attack is not clearly labelled as an attack (due to his attachement to the inside job conspiracy theory), it omits the BJP viewpoint on controversies like education[25], it implicitly makes an equivalence between real refugees and economic refugees and criticizes the BJP stand against economic refugees which then in the cited source is the same as the Congress stand on the issue [26] etc. --Calypsomusic (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

    He also changed his !vote as well. It seems like some (but by no means all, just a small amount) of the Indian editors are freaking out over someone with a certain bias. As long as he shows he can be neutral, and I don't see any good proof against him. Everyone has strong biases, but opposing someone because of their beliefs (unless it is something like White Supremacism or something that's illegal) is just stupid. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

    If you elaborate on this, Varun is simply angry because an editor has frankly expressed his opinion. If he's going to oppose on this RFA, just because of the fact that he hates their beliefs, I'm gonna say this Varun isn't acting very civil right now. The "I am extremely unhappy with this case - You supported pure vandalism - [27] Not expected from anyone leave aside admins. Extremely unhappy" pretty much explains why. Have a strong opinion isn't the case; it's just that this user isn't respecting others and has previous problems in the past. @VarunFEB2003: Because you are a fairly new and young editor, I suggest for you to read WP:Guidance for younger editors. WikiPancake ^{✉ 📖} 14:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

19. Oppose IMO differentiating good-faith and vandal edits is a key requirement to hand over the mop. The user unfortunately fails in this one. With so many allegations of POV and Anti-India bias, would be happy to see him come clean with an RfA later sometime. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
20. Oppose Giving administrator rights to someone alleged of a strong bias against a particular country will be a wrong decision. A administrator is also expected to have a concrete knowledge of what constitutes vandalism and what does not. Bharatiya29 15:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Are allegations enough to be proven guilty? Maybe you should add some evidence? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

21. Oppose Need an admin to be non-controversially neutral. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Good to see you popping in to edit, Yogesh, along with the other usual pro-BJP contributors etc. Is anyone neutral? What if the admin doesn't act in that capacity where perceived bias exists, ie: follows INVOLVED etc? - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Yogesh Khandke never edited the article Bharatiya Janata Party. Those in support section, asking replies from "Oppose" voters will not say anything to Sitush for calling them pro-BJP contributors. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

    I didn't say Yogesh edited the BJP article. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

22. Oppose Not the best candidate to have the admin powers, hardly neutral -sarvajna (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Based on what, exactly? Your difference of opinion regarding the Gujarat train thing? You've more or less come out of retirement to make your comment, having made almost no edits for months except for a very few at the start of August. There is something odd going on with many of these "oppose because of POV" people. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    As I explained earlier I was inactive not retired, given the history of conflicts between both of us your comment hardly comes as a surprise to me. -sarvajna (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    You haven't addressed my query: why do you consider Vanamonde93 not to be neutral? I've got no memory of past "conflicts" with you (too many edits, too many people), and they would be irrelevant to this discussion anyway. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Seeing the usual Hindutva warriors in the oppose section is only further confirmation that this candidate is suited for adminship, being willing to keep them at bay is an asset and one Wikipedia is severely short on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    Labelling all the oppose votes as Hindutva warriors itself is indicative of the bias out here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

    ROFL, I am not a Hindu Warrior. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

    That's an obvious misrepresentation of what I wrote, I'll say no more. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

23. Oppose As per concerns raised by Rsrikanth05, Arun Kumar SINGH and ƬheStrikeΣagle. Marvellous Spider-Man 00:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
24. Oppose followed some of the a.m.links - yes there's some kind of edits that I also don't support. Regards I'm so tired (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
25. Oppose: Despite the nominee claiming in their reply to Q15 above that they would not intervene as admin where they are INVOLVED; like " South Asian political parties, ideological movements related to Islam in South Asia and Hinduism in general, communal violence in South Asia, post-World War II Guatemalan, Chilean, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Salvadoran history, the Iraq war,...." and so on; it is a fact that admin's views/comments/votes do get more weightage in discussions than someone who is new/previously-blocked-for-whatever-reason and such. Admin tools come with this un-denied privilege and user's with claimed-bias towards such a large chunk of article should not be crowned as admins. (Using "crown" intentionally even if nominee doesn't consider it such as yes it is a crown in many respects.) In addition, allegations of stalking along with these allegations of biased editing do not add up to much a good candidature. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
26. Oppose - inability to discern between good faith edits and vandalism, concerns about user being a biased editor, block log is also concerning. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 15:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
27. Oppose An editor with very strong partisan bias (he uses sources, sometimes good sometimes worse, but usually from a very leftist POV especially on Latin American history), never covering the other side of the story. For example using Noam Chomsky's opinion on Jeane Kirkpatrick as a definitive statement for her in the lead section, briefly railing against me and Rjensen (Talk:Jeane_Kirkpatrick#Axes_Grinding). He's a good editor when he compromises with people with different POVs, but from experience, such editors do not have the objectivity to become good admins (and for the record, I should never become one either). --Pudeo' 18:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

    @Pudeo: From the talk page discussion, I see that the offending text was indeed removed, after some discussion. All the editor seemed to be asking for is discussion. As for POV, I defy you to find anyone without a POV on Jeane Kirkpatrick or George W. Bush. Editors are allowed to have a POV, what matters is whether they are willing to work in good faith inspite of this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

28. Oppose: This editor is closely connected IRL with certain politicians and their associated NGOs. Is therefore not sufficiently unbiased to even be an editor at Wikipedia, what to speak of being an admin. Has a pronounced Battleground mentality when it comes to their own pet causes and bias. AAP ka Lawyer (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

    This editors account is less than two months old and has a total of 9 edits prior to !voting in this RfA.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

    How is the last edit biased?--Catlemur (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

    Perhaps this might give a clue: Aam Aadmi Party. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

    It is also a little problematic that his vote is based on an a statement about the candidates real life which can only be proved or disproed through outing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

29. Oppose: As per concerns raised above. Pratyush 06:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PratyushSinha101 (talk • contribs)

Neutral

After reading the comment below, I am keeping my vote here before I decide one of the 2 options. VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 12:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved to oppose! VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 03:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Holding here awaiting answers to the questions on POV and explanations of the vandalism reverts. Katie^talk 15:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   For the moment, as I am curious about the allegations of POV. The vandal revisions as well have my interest, as those appeared to be clear-cut. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning Support Per RickinBaltimore and KrakatoaKatie. The POV allegations have to be cleaned up.ThePlatypusofDoom Moved to Support (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

2. As the other folks here, the POV issue needs to be cleared up - administrators with POV issues have caused problems in the past. Conversely, I am also noting that the accusations without evidence are likewise improper, especially given the battleground phenomena that have plagued the topic area concerned, c.f the ArbCom case linked on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. GAB^gab 16:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Moved to support. The issue appears to be unsubstantiated. GAB^gab 14:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

   Placeholder neutral. Neutral for now. I am not familiar with this user, so I will move to support or oppose after some input and time.Jianhui67 ^T★C 04:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Moving to support. Jianhui67 ^T★C 13:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

3. No big problems, but he/she used the edit summary seems like an incorrect way, though, and pinging VictoriaGrayson, everyone can edit to the English Wikipedia, no matter where he/she came/comes from, but not everyone can be an admin, so that is when/why the !votes used. I respect your opinion, but the reason should be largely belonging to the Wikipedias. 333-blue 00:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
4. Parking here for the moment. Quite honestly, the diffs and threads provided as evidence for POV-pushing are WP:BOOMERANGING into the ones bringing them up. I have yet to see anything convincing about POV pushing on the part of the candidate. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
5. Neutral - I usually support but this diff [28] makes me hesitant. A NPOV tag is essentially painless, and it's a good placeholder to indicate a dispute exists while consensus develops. It's not sufficient to make me oppose (since after all Vanamonde93 was civil about removing the tag), but it's sufficient to make me neutral. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. I have no present reservations, but am keenly interested in the answer to the two-part question 16. I found the other answers satisfactory so far, and the accusations of opposers largely baseless (especially blaming the candidate for the behavior of a tool that auto-assumes more good faith than it should; candidate manually leaves correct talk page notices as followups). That said, most of the support votes are not very specific, just generalized feel-good stuff. I trust the numeric weight of them to an extent, but the #16 answers are key to me; I primarily care about administrative reasoning with regard to policy, sources, encyclopedic mission, and enforcement against disruption of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
   Switching to support.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• Comment- This user is not that good as he looks like. User:Calm321 is a confirmed sock of Xtremedood. vanamonde was supporting Xtremedood's socking in his SPI. It's due to Vanamonde that Xtremedood mananged to use his socks. Vanamonde supported Xtremedood as Xtremedood was editing with his anti-Hindu bias. Vanamonde93's edits are very much anti-Hindu and anti-Indian. I can prove it. The article Umar Khalid was deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar Khalid (2nd nomination). In the first AFD vanamonde voted keep as Umar Khalid made pro-Pakistan slogans in Delhi. He has kept the communal riot articles in his watchlist. If any editor increases the Hindu death figure, then he will revert it back, but when someone will increase the Muslim death toll, he won't revert it back, even if it's original research and not according to sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.37.59 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We can find more evidence. --John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@1.39.37.59: You may be presenting a good case, but don't be anti-Islam. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not @Emir of Wikipedia: But I can't support Pakistani editors who make anti-Hindu edits. I don't know which country you are from, all these problems escalated with the release of a movie called Bajirao Mastani. Another problem is that Pakistani anomymous IPs try to vandalize the page Indian Army and insert false information in these pages 2016 Pathankot attack, 2008 Mumbai attacks. Some established Pakistani editors try to show Lashkar-e-Taiba in positive light. These things can't be accepted, and anyone who supports them can't be a neutral administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.57.125 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Why can't we be anti-Islam, Emir? What if we are atheists?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: I'm an atheist, and I think it's moronic to oppose an editor because of his beliefs. As long as he shows that he can put his personal views aside and be neutral, like any decent Wikipedian, I don't see a reason to oppose due to beliefs. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not a Muslim but I'm not anti-Islam, I'm not a Hindu but I'm not anti-Hinduism, I'm not a Christian but I'm not anti-Christianity, etc - "not X" is not the same as "anti X". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Victoria please don't make such comments here. This is not the right place. It won't show good about you. We have to be secular and respect all religion to oppose Pakistani anti-Hindu editors. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: We can't be anti-Islam or anti-Hindu or anti-Indian, as Wikipedia is neutral. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

---

• Comment - Please read this and reply Thanks VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 12:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

---

• Comment I'm not trying to single anyone out, but so far the candidate is being asked to prove a negative, and no diffs nor other evidence has been provided. The accusers of POV must make a much better case. I find the candidates rationale to the Umar_Khalid AfD to be rational, and ascribing motives to someone else seems like a type of personal attack. A consistent pattern of biased editing, particularly unsourced, needs to be demonstrated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I need to clarify. My concern is solely about the accusations of POV, the the willingness of some to hold the candidate responsible for the unsubstantiated claims of others. CFredkin and Softlavender make the type of arguments that are specific and verifiable. I may or may not be concerned by them, but I have a basis upon which to make a judgement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Since most people don't know the difference between anti-Hindu and anti-Hinduism, it would would be useless to explain them. He is very clever editor. It's the "selective" reverts he makes about unsourced changes and his support for editors like Xtremedood who was pushing his POV in Mughal–Maratha Wars and Battles involving the Maratha Empire. If he would have been neutral, he would have reverted every unsourced edits. Why he doesn't revert original research, when the unsourced edit matches his anti-Hindu POV? He will revert unsourced edits, if it is against his POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.37.138 (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So, to make sure I'm understanding right, the issue is that at one point Vanamonde was not wholly convinced that Xtremedood was a sock? (In that diff of Vanamonde's comment, it does not say anything about supporting Xtremedood's actions.) If there are other instances of anti-Hindu POV behavior, can you provide specific instances and links to those instances? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to do all the work. You can deeply check his edits. He is clever and aware of WP:NPOV. You must have read the question by Pharaoofthewizard. Now Arnab Goswami was critical of the students who raised anti-India slogans. If he doesn't like an organization. Two RS sources will print negative about the organization, three WP:RS sources will publish postive about the organization. vanamonde will cherry pick the sources to support his own POV. He is doing this for months and add his "selective reverts" of original research and unsourced edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.57.110 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Candidates are allowed to have biases. Why? Because everyone is biased about something. It's impossible to avoid and I haven't seen anything from any of the oppose comments in the form of evidence that would indicate they would disregard something like WP:INVOLVED when conducting administrative actions. Mkdw^talk 20:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

---

• Comment. The question that VictoriaGray readded by @Joshua Jonathan: (diff) was removed by @BU Rob13: because it was added before the RfA was opened (diff). Just making it clear there was no bad faith in its removal. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

---

• Comment AmritasyaPutra has been socking from OccultZone and now he is using Ekvastra. 1.187.204.133 (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a grave accusation; AP was cleared from these charges. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

---

• Comment is there a tool to get breakdown by number of edits and ranking by page name on the 24,000 edits (>50% to mainspace) done by this user. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Prodigyhk: There's this tool, which can be found at the bottom of any user's contribution history page, labeled "Edit count". Not sure if that answers your question or not, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I am slightly peeved at this point by some of the comments I see in the votes section. Stop making claims of neutrality issues or abhorrent nationalism if you're not going to back them up with strong and accurate diffs. I am shocked that casting aspersions and personal attacks against an editor they don't like is being though of as an appropriate means of action. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed. At one point, bureaucrats began "clerking" these discussions, after a "reform" RFC. This is certainly an occasion where I'd welcome that, to deal with unsupported aspersions and personal attacks. It's monumentally unfair to the candidate to allow the RFA to be turned into an extension of this tired old, partisan conflict in this way. --Begoon ^talk 05:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  Precisely, I couldn't agree with you more and would also welcome some 'crat clerking here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Any editor in good standing can 'clerk' an RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Then it's a good idea to look at what he says are his major contributions on his user page. Especially those related to Cold War era Guatemala like 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, Operation PBFORTUNE, Guatemalan Revolution and List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United_States. There are NPOV concerns on almost every article [29], [30] and here for example over descriptions like "brutal". Generally the Cold War/CIA is a contentious topic area regardless, but the pattern is railing against US foreign policy from Noam Chomsky's favourite line of argument (the left-wing groups did human rights abuses in Guatemala for anyone that cares as well). I don't mind such editors as long as they can make compromises, but they don't make good admins because they lack objectivity. I don't follow any India-Pakistani articles, but some opposing votes mentiong that topic area cite the same issues I mentioned here. --Pudeo' 20:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed, Mr rnddude. VictoriaGrayson disappeared after dropping her "Strong Oppose becuz of bias" bomb. How is it fair to the candidate to levy an accusation without proof, and more importantly, without any confirmation through a process like ANI, or something. If the guy has an anti-Indian bias, shouldn't he have been brought somewhere for community scrutiny? Maybe he has, but that would be part of the proof you'd bring to this discussion. "The guy is anti-Indian. See, here are three trips to ANI with resulting sanctions." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the comments by User:NQ, User Cyphoidbomb and others that they want to see proofs of bias by Vanamonde, and his claim that editors are not providing such proofs: First, I'm not going to say that Vanamonde is an anti-Hindu as that would be rude. Many examples of bias have already been mentioned on this page and on the talkpage, on Ram Janmabhoomi temple, on Golwalkar, on Godhra train attack, etc. Would NQ and the other users care to take a look at them?

In the BJP article where he made most of his edits (496 edits), after many discussions, there are still pov issues (less than before, but still too many for an article with good article status), for example:

• The Godhra attack is not clearly labelled as an attack (due to his attachment to the inside job conspiracy theory). Also in many other articles, he is pushing the inside job conspiracy theory.
• it omits the BJP viewpoint on controversies like education [31]
• it implicitly makes an equivalence between real refugees and economic (illegal) migrants, since in Bangladesh, it is atheists, Christians and Hindus who are refugees from persecution, and disregards that in one of the cited sources the BJP opinion is the same as the Congress opinion on the issue of the latter [32]
• With his edits on the political party BJP, the BJP article is essentially sourced to anti-BJP and pro-Congress sources (like guha, jaffrelot and sen). Sure, some of them deserve to be cited, but anti-bjp sources are clearly vastly dominating the article. it was not easy at all to make him see that the article should include a wider variety of opinions and sources. [33]
• The BJP article states: Anju Gupta, an police officer in charge of Advani's security on the day of the demolition, appeared as a prominent witness before the commission. She stated that Advani and Joshi made provocative speeches that were a major factor in the mob's behaviour. But in this source, [34], it is said that the " BJP on Monday termed as "false" the statement of senior IPS officer Anju Gupta in a court against L K Advani over Babri Mosque demolition and said the veteran leader did not give any speech on the day the structure was razed down. "
• The Partition and the Bangladesh Liberation War were the two cases of communalism with the largest numbers of victims, most of the victims of the latter were Hindus. Vanamondes simly removes this second-most important case [35], and IIRC in the Persecution of Hindus article
• Wrote in the BJP article: "Historians studying the riots found that there was a high level of state complicity in the incidents" But the sources were not historians, so again misrepresentation.

and in other articles:

• removal of atrocities against Hindus in Pakistan and other places reported by human right groups like HAF, for example [36]
• BLP violations on a BJP politician [37] --Calypsomusic (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Calypso, if your hope is to convince people that Vanamonde is a POV warrior so they will vote against him, you are shooting yourself in the foot. You have only proven that you yourself are a POV warrior. In every example you bring up, we find Vanamonde making policy-based arguments for the inclusion or removal of specific content. Even the BLP violation you pointed out at the bottom is actually a verifiable and noteworthy incident that actually happened, as I pointed out somewhere else on this RFA. Every person has a point of view, and every source has a point of view. There is no such thing as an unbiased editor or source. What makes someone a POV warrior or unduly biased is the insistence on making an article appear a certain way because of that bias, while deliberately ignoring sources and policy. As far as I can tell, its only Vanamonde's detractors who are doing that. As far as I can tell the editors voting oppose over POV concerns are largely those with prior grudges against Vanamonde, and otherwise the accusations are actually driving people to support his adminship. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

He likely wanted to be admin since some time, so he was not trying to deliberately ignore policy (though I can't say that he interpreted policy objectively always either). But "on making an article appear a certain way because of that bias, while deliberately ignoring sources", there are examples already mentioned on this page and the talkpage, like his pushing of the inside job conspiracy theory regarding the Godhra train attack in several pages using an outdated source (mentioned already on this talkpage), and in the talkpages of the BJP article, I gave several examples where he was making the article appear in a certain way because of that bias, while ignoring other sources (making it appear as the destruction of the Babri Masjid was a planned conspiracy by Advani and BJP leadership (also BLP problems here, omitting a discussion of the central philosophy of the BJP (he didn't like the source[38], although on this particular topic there is no better source), slanting the paragraph on immigrants from Bangladesh in a biased way because his sources say so (but common sense, and a source I provided would show that the BJP is not opposing real refugees and one of the sources even says that the BJP opinion is the same as the Congress opinon (I briefly mentioned this also above), omitting the BJP view on the educationt controversy, ), etc. You can look these up in the talkpages of the BJP article.

Indeed, in other articles too there are many cases where he pushes factually wrong or outdated information in articles because his prefereed source(s) say so, while he claims that the other sources are not as good as his source is (and in some cases, he must be aware that he is pushing his bias over neutrality , objectivity or even factual truth). But he is also not a blatant pov warrior (and I never said that) like now banned User Darkness Shines (whom he was supporting though).--Calypsomusic (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Calypsomusic - I want to see a cogently argued response from each person who is claiming this, because this situation reeks of canvassing, and reeks of a group of people inappropriately using an RfA to settle a content beef. There have been several editors such as yourself who have popped out of hiatuses to make the claim. You haven't contributed to the project in over a year. Where did you come from? And there's at least one user accusing the candidate of bias who disappeared into the night without the burden of substantiating her oppose, and at least one sockpuppet offering their thoughts. Fishy fishy fishy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)