Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eukesh


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Eukesh
[ Voice your opinion] (32/19/11); Scheduled to end 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

- I would like to request for sysop access in English wikipedia. I am more active in South Asian wikipedias. I have sysop access in 5 wikipedias (Nepal Bhasa, Nepali, Kashmiri, Pali and Bhojpuri and have served as a temporary sysop in 5 more (Gujrati, Oriya, Panjabi, Dzonkha and Bod Skad/Tibetan) and run a bot in Nepal Bhasa, Hindi and Sanskrit. Here, I am working on Nepal and South Asia related articles. I have felt a need of a person with knowledge of the region and sysop access to maintain the quality of articles. Eg- we have article called Madhesay (an offensive term for Madhesi and IP addresses editing template like template:Newar. Also, when a user vandaized Sherpa, his/her IP address was blocked which prevented others (mainly newcomers who didnt know much abt wikipedia) sharing the IP address from editing. If there is a candidate who is better qualified than me from Nepal or around (working on development of the regional articles) who can look up these regional issues, let that person be nominated. Thank you. Eukesh 18:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would like to serve for the regionalization of the wikipedia. There are many articles and templates pertaining to Nepal and South Asia which need to be monitored. I think that we need a person with sysop access who has knowledge of these subjects. Some of the templates need to be semi-protected eg-Template:Newar and some articles like Sherpa need to be semi-protected as well. Also, there are many articles which have faulty information. I can help in their correction. Maintaining NPOV is another aspect in these articles which needs attention.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Well, I have served as a sysop in 10 wikipedia and am running bots in 3 wikipedias. My best contribution to wikipedia is my contribution to the increase in the number, depth, quality, navigational facilities, edittools and frontpages of almost all the South Asian wikipedias. I consider development and propagation of js based direct Indic input system and the propagarion of culture of main page index to be my best contributions outside English wikipedia because these facilities have helped significantly in the navigation and editing of South Asian wikipedias. In English wikipedia, I consider Nepal Bhasa as my best contribution till date.


 * 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: Yes, I have been involved in conflict over editing in Bhutanese refugee. It caused me a bit of stress. I requested some admins for moderation as well as warned the other editor who was personally attacking me to behave properly. I asked the other editor to use only verifiable sources. I took some break from the page and edited it a bit to represent the best accepted facts.


 * 4 Optional question from Pascal.Tesson
 * What leads you to believe that an article like sherpa needs to be semi-protected? Same question for Template:Newar?
 * A:I believe that page Sherpa needs to be semi-protected because it has been vandalized by an IP address on a number of occations. This had led to the blocking of the IP address. Unfortunately, I share the same IP address and was blocked as well. If we semi-protect the page, the assault (which I think is a mistaken one by a non-user for free web provider/blog) can be prevented. About the template Newar, again IP addresses were adding pages which had nothing to do with Newar culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eukesh (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Optional question from Naconkantari:
 * 5. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly?  Are there times when it should not be invoked?  Nacon kantari  23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 7. I notice you don't have email enabled. Is there a particular reason for that? Email will often be the only way blocked users can reach you. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Eukesh's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Eukesh before commenting.''

Discussion
Total: about 11,100 edits to all Wikipedias. Among these are substantial edits to the MediaWiki namespace in some of these wikis. Given his experience running bots on three wikis, the candidate has shown a commitment to building all Wikipedias for which he has the language skills to contribute. It would be a mistake, in my opinion, to judge him only on the basis of his work within the English Wikipedia. YechielMan 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Using the edit counter, I am taking a few minutes to compile edit counts on all of Eukesh's Wikipedia accounts. He also has accounts at other wikis, but I'm not dealing with those.  Numbers are rounded to the nearest 100 because the exact number is not important to me.
 * en.wikipedia: 1000
 * new.wikipedia: 8300
 * ne.wikipedia: 900
 * sa.wikipedia: 100
 * hi.wikipedia: ~370 (with account Eukesh and युकेश)
 * mr.wikipedia: 100
 * bh.wikipedia: 200
 * pi.wikipedia: 300
 * rmy.wikipedia: <50
 * ks.wikipedia: ~50
 * bn.wikipedia: <50
 * bo.wikipedia: 10
 * dz.wikipedia: 7
 * Well, we are certainly happy that Eukesh is among users who allow Wikipedias in various languages to interconnect. However, processes and practice can vary quite a bit from one wiki to the other. My main concern is the candidate's understanding about how the en.wiki functions in practice. Pascal.Tesson 01:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Eukesh is a skilled organizer in the functioning of wikipedia, with succesful initiatives. He initiated the South Asian Script Enhancement Project that resulted in the implementation of automatic South Asian specific scripts in 14 Wikipedias. It started from a debate at Promoting the South Asian languages projects and by now is probably the only succesful South Asian project. Regarding the competence, he has done a lot of work in anti-vandalism, categorization etc. in all those wikipedias enumerated. Regarding the sysop jobs and sysop tools issues, I consider he has the necessary knowledge, he already has helped in adjusting monobook.js codes in most of the wikipedias where is active, he improved tools in Nepal Bhasa (for example, you may see the current edit bar at Nepal Bhasa wiki). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am happy that a lot of people are expressing their views over here and would like to thank all of the people participating here. I think there are a few things that I need to clear here for the discussion to proceed better. I think that there is very doubt of my intents of sysop access by now. Thank you.--Eukesh 18:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * About question 4, let me elaborate on Madhesi thing as well, Madhesay is a DEROGATORY word. Madhesi people are currently struggling to establish their place in Nepalese society. This struggle has led to death of many people and very turbulent times in Terai. Although I havent found a reliable source to cite that the term is offensive, the term Madhesay has not been used officially anywhere.
 * I do not want to focus only on Nepal and South Asia related issues. However, since I have more experience in these issues, I would like to work more on these articles. I would be happy to do the maintenance tasks esp categorizing, polishing, protecting pages, blocking vandals and translation into English. Also, I can run my bot to establish better linking between English and South Asian wikipedias, if needed.
 * I did not write about sysop chores previously because I thought that it was understood that anyone who applies for sysop access would do so keeping the chores in mind. I have been doing antivandal, categorization etc in Nepali, Nepal Bhasa, Hindi, Pali, Bhojpuri, Kashmiri, Sanskrit etc. for a long time now. I dont mind doing the chores here.
 * About image upload skills, I have been planning to shift the images that I have uploaded here gradually to commons so that all the wiki-projects can have a fair share of them. In fact, I have uploaded some of the images there already. I think that the uploads there are upto mark. You can check my contribs there.
 * I am currently working on creating and expanding articles related to hospitals of Nepal. The list and template exists because I have not made up my mind till the moment as to which is better for navigation amongst the two. The Nepalese hospital project has just started and a lot needs to be done on that.
 * Well, a person who thinks that ANY hospital in Nepal is not significant to have an article either does not know about Nepal or about hospitals at all. These articles are in primitive state at the moment. I am working to gather information by visiting these hospitals, taking pictures myself as many of these hospitals are working in places where internet is very scarce. If the community does not approve of this endevaour, please inform me and I will move this project to Nepali, Nepal Bhasa, Hindi or Marathi wikipedia.
 * About lack of technical knowledge, I have experience in technical aspects like modifying .js, .css, changing namespaces, running bots, creating front page, reporting to bugzilla or anything of that sort. So, I dont know the basis of this comment.
 * About my lack of knowledge of community events in English, the system of requesting is a bit different here than elsewhere. I need to improve on that. However, I dont think that it necessarily shows that I lack competence in protecting pages, deletion/undeletion, block/unblock, reverting, arbiteration, anti vandalism, watching the less watched pages, verifying facts, etc. which I believe is the core of sysop access. I have been practicing these virtues almost everyday in other wikipedias.


 * Consensus not numbers: This is an exceptionally broadly experienced candidate. While some people have taken his intention of working mainly in specialist areas to be an argument not to promote, I frankly see no downside to his intention.  It isn't as if we could only promote a limited number of administrators and if we promote Eukesh we miss out on another who would do a better job.  We do have a very strong bias towards English-speaking cultures in our administrator ranks, and so it seems wrong to me to turn away a willing volunteer who has proven trustworthy in a variety of Wikipedia environments. --Tony Sidaway 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree with tony here, we don't have a limited number of admin slots. Admins who know specific areas are just fine, and may be more of a benifit to the project. I don't see anything that makes me think that he will go nuts after recieving the bit. What I see here is a user that can be trusted to learn. Regards. —— Eagle 101  Need help? 04:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support per my comment above. YechielMan 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support It doesn't matter to me what you want to work on. I don't think you'll abuse the admin tools, so here's a support. Frise 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Work on so may language editions is impressive, shows trust of the (several) communities. If he can be a good sysop on multiple wikis, I have no doubts that he will be able to be a good sysop here. RyanGerbil10 (Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support Because you have adminship in other wikis, I will support. However, I see little need for the tools so this support is only weak. Captain   panda  02:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. It's about trust people. Eukesh is an excellent contributor that will do no harm. The differences from one wikipedia to another are not so enormous that they can't be figured out easily. And he clearly has experience on multiple projects, so he likely knows the differences better than those opposing. I find the opposition particularly unconvincing and unfortunate. - Taxman Talk 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Eukesh has been active on Marathi wikipedia (my home wiki-project) along with many others. Eukesh has a wider view of wikipedia concept than your garden variety contributor. From my vantage point, Eukesh has a moderate view on most conflict-prone topics and seeks to find a middle-ground while maintaining the veracity of content. Eukesh has my support. asnatu 19:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support I describe Eukesh as a skilled organizer and a diplomatic user. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - shown trustworthy, will not misuse tools. Adminship not a trophy, but the only reason to not give adminship to candidate is to protect en.wiki. However, I very much doubt user will misuse tools, whether accidentally or purposefully. Concerns about WP:N are not enough to withdraw support; many users disagree on this type of matter; it's hardly clearcut. What's more, I'm not sure that this would make that big a deal on his (her?) use of the tools. Part Deux 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support a good contributor, and the candidate meets my guideline.-- danntm T C 20:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - I admire your dedication, and I support your efforts on the hospital articles you mentioned. Keep up the good work. Of course I'm assuming you will adapt rapidly to feedback in the position, and would apply measures such as semi-protection for only so long as they were needed. The Transhumanist 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support Eukesh is a skilled organizer and a diplomatic user. I am also an admin in Nepali wikipedia and I have found him worth. He deserves both the diplomatic skills along with the wiki web technologies, that is why he has been leading most wikipedia including Nepali and Newari wikipedia and RajeshPandey 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support looks good - activity over a large number of projects shows a strong commitment. D X-Rama's arrow (break it down)  22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) No evident reason to oppose this candidate obtains. Normally I would withhold support pending an endorsement, but in this situation that seems unnecessary as the candidate has already demonstrated competency with adminship on other projects.  Therefore, I have no reason not to support this candidate's request, and do recommend that he be promoted.  Kelly Martin (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. While the candidate has amply demonstrated his competency and commitment in other Wikipedias, some opposers raise strong objections, related to his lack of experience on EnWiki. From my point of view, however, EnWiki is marred by a substantial and pervasive cultural bias, its admins appearing often as a self-perpetuating body of culturally homogeneous old boys, sharing cultural stereotypes as well as habitudes. I am not doubting anyone's good faith here. On the contrary, I have often been impressed by admins' willingness and capacity to listen to dissenting,"foreign" voices. Still, a community cannot embody a culture different from its own. This candidate has some of the cross-cultural skills that are badly needed if EnWiki is to overcome its bias. It is clear that cultural diversity creates problems, shrinking the group's common ground and making communication problematic at times. Still, diversity is essential to provide a dynamically balanced picture of issues that are often multi-cultural in nature. Bar some minor technical and attudinal weaknesses that he should be able to overcome quickly, Eukesh can give a very useful contribution here. Stammer 11:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - I dont see any definite reason to Oppose..-- Cometstyles 13:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - When he is trusted in so many other Wikipedias, I do not find any reason that he should not be entrusted with adminship in English wikipedia where more stringent checks and balances exist for administrators which preclude the possibility of any serious abuse of his authority as an administrator. I also agree with Taxman and Rama. Moreover, English wikipedia certainly requires administrators exposed to South Asian realities as I have sometimes encountered highly unusual information in certain pages related to South Asian topics though I do not exactly remember the pages. A sure support. --Bhadani (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - terrible, querulous, irrelevant opposes. The likelihood of him going mad with the tools approaches zero. The insulting xenophobia is inappropriate as well, and I strongly suggest the 'crats strike all such opposes - David Gerard 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * David, I think it would be good for you to argue specific oppose opinions rather than dismiss all of them as querulous, irrelevant or even xenophobic. Nobody has been arguing that Eukesh is likely to go mad with the tools and this isn't the sole relevant question for adminship. Many of the opposes are from people simply saying that they don't believe Eukesh has the required experience on en.wiki. Now it's perfectly fine for you to disagree with that assessment but why would this be irrelevant? Pascal.Tesson 04:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Changed from neutral. Support per Bhadani's excellent supporting comment. – Riana ऋ 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Large body of experience, no significant concerns raised below. The differences between en. and other wikis are not extraordinarily significant; the primary rules and goals are identical. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Experienced as sysop in other wikipedias, won't abuse tools here. As mentioned above, the primary rules and goals are similar in all wikipedias.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Experienced user, judging from YechielMan's analysis above. Also he demonstrated a very mature, but no nonsense, attitude when interacting with on the talk page at Talk:Bhutanese_refugee as well as on the users own talk page. Very impressive stuff that is clearly demonstrates that Eukesh would be an excellent admin here in the en wiki. David D. (Talk) 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: Has been a highly active user and coordinator among many South Asian Language Wikipedias.  He has lead an effort to breakdown barriers in contributing to Wikipedia by various language users.  Adminship at English Wikipedia will help to continue his good work.  --Natkeeran 00:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: I have no problem with you trying to keep part of wikipedia stable - vandalism is pretty frustrating, but sometimes IPs make an edit which I am not sure what to make of (and sometimes valid). Welcome aboard (hopefully) cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 08:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Eukesh is a long-term Wikipedia user who has made many efforts with interwiki co-ordination. He also worked with bots with me and introduced me into the Hindi Wikipedia. -- Wolf  talk 19:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Eukesh is one of the most active editor in all of South Asian wikis. He is a skilled organizer and a trusted one. I am impressed by his commitment in improving Wikipedia articles in so many languages. He is trusted, skilled, committed, and knows a lot about the sysop chores. - Indiver 06:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per experience and technical knowledge. —AldeBaer 14:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) --dario vet  (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. He's been around the block. Haukur 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. If people can use the tools, we should give them when they have demonstrated they're not likely to abuse them. Er rab ee 14:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I have spot-checked Eukesh's 1000 edits on English Wikipedia and found nothing troublesome, and several I'd compliment, such as inviting users to the Assamese Wikipedia. In addition, I trust the user not to blow up the 'pedia based on a clean block log on every site he has access to. I have no worries that Eukesh will not be deliberate and careful as he learns to use the additional tools on en.wikipedia. -- nae'blis 15:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Eukesh is a very polite, modest, and cool-headed person; this is, IMHO, the first quality that an admin should have. Moreover, he is quite active member on Wikipedia[s]. He is a prolific (=P) editor. (Don't be misguided by his edit count; his edits are mostly very substantial and probably require hours to write.) So I am in support for his request for adminship. I am sure he can contribute much more to wikipedia and put a smile on the face of lurkers like me who come here mostly to find information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kushal one (talk • contribs).
 * 15) Support Eukesh is a fine wikipedian and have helped wikipedia through countless efforts. I am also very impressed by his number of contributions he made to wikipedia. Runewiki777 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per nom.  Amey Aryan DaBrood&#169; 18:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Weak Oppose-I am concerned about the answer to question 1. You appear to only want to maintain the articles related to Nepal and South Asia. Unfortunately my reason for opposing is that unlike the Wikipedias that you may contribute to as a sysop, the English Wikipedia is a lot larger and currently we have 1182 sysops here. Now I am not saying that we have too many sysops and we should oppose all future RFA candidates because of our current number. However, it is extremely easy to get assistance for the tasks you wish to help out with (looking at question 1 WP:AIV and WP:RFPP would be good places) here. If you planned on at least handling requests for sysop assistance (blocking vandals and protecting pages) on those pages, I would support. Frankly, I don't think you need the abilities of a sysop. Fun  pika  01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose as well. Seems to be trusted in other Wiki communities and has contributed heavily there, but I'm unable to get an objective view as to the quality of the contributions.  Even assuming they are all spot-on, which I am willing to do, I am uncomfortable with the answer to question 1 as well.  Generally I believe that if someone is trustworthy and willing to help there is little reason not to hand over the mop and bucket but this user has not displayed any interest in assisting with janitorial duties.  The answers seem to indicate the user wishes to have sysop privileges so as to selectively protect articles he is contributing to.  I'm sure this is done in all the best intentions but if the desire is to maintain a few select articles the correct way to handle it would be to make the requests where appropriate - AIV, RFPP, and so on as mentioned above.  Again, if there was a willingness to actually contribute to janitorial sysop chores, I'd say support, but that seems lacking.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. While the wide range of contributions to multiple wikis is impressive, Eukesh's contributions show a lack of knowledge regarding proper licensing and uploading of images ( for example), how to use redirects instead of moving articles around, and so on. Creation of templates such as Hospitals of Nepal in addition to the all the articles listed on List of hospitals in Nepal lead me to question his understanding of WP:N--these hospitals can't all be notable enough for an article, and the mass of stubs shows this. These kinds of things are important to understand as an admin as they are frequently dealt with. I recommend spending another 2-3 months gaining a better understanding of the policies and guidelines here, and then trying again. I would support then as long as a better understanding is shown at that time. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Contributions on other language 'pedias are fine, and they certainly demonstrate technical knowledge. The problem is, en is significantly different from most others, so I'm not comfortable with someone having sysop tools based on experience elsewhere. -Amarkov moo! 03:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose due to the issues presented above regarding lack of substantive knowledge in the English Wikipedia. In addition, before this nomination, he submitted it using a subheader to Requests for adminship/AndonicO (see my original message). This indicates even a further lack of knowledge of our basic processes. Please spend a few months learning the ropes and participate more in the community, I'm sure you'd succeed. Michael as 10 11:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Adminship is about trust and competence. While work on other wikis demonstrates the former, the en.wiki is sufficiently different such that it does not necessarily demonstrate the latter. Editor's experience in project-space here is very low.  Malformed RfA is another negative indicator that candidate has basic knowledge still to learn. Xoloz 17:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can agree a user is trustworthy, then I'm sorry to be harsh, but you are damaging the project by opposing in spite of that by removing the good they can do with the tools. If someone is trustworthy, then we know any mistakes they make will be small and small mistakes can be fixed easily. He works with bots and has plenty of competence, small formatting mistakes are not a problem. - Taxman Talk 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If I really believed that competence was irrelevant to adminship, I'd support giving every registered user adminship -- very few of our registered users are vandals; but, a great many of our newer editors would make legions of little errors, wasting loads of time correcting them. I understand that small errors can be corrected, but an uninformed admin can make loads of those small errors in a short time, creating a big problem.  I'm glad the editor knows bots and coding well, but that is hardly synonymous with adminship.  I'm sorry to be harsh, Taxman, but I believe your view is short-sighted; if it were generally accepted, we'd have lots of very nice newbies making thousands of tiny admin mistakes each day, and Wikipedia would be become even less reliable than it already is. Xoloz 20:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We're very far from talking about a newbie here. It's you making the leap to allowing everyone under the sun, not me. Eukesh has shown over thousands of edits that he's not likely to make lots of mistakes and has shown the ability to learn. That and trust are what we need. - Taxman Talk 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay...but I made that "leap" precisely because I don't think we're too far from talking about a newbie to English Wikipedia. He hasn't made tens of thousands of edits here, so I'm worried he might make lots of mistakes here.  I understand you disagree; but, I hope you acknowledge that my point isn't completely unreasonable. Xoloz 15:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But he does have lots of experience, so opposing based on NIH is not helpful to the project. If you didn't have los of evidence to go look at to see the type of contributions he does that would be one thing, but you do. If you choose not to go investigate his contributions that's one thing, but opposing based on that is unreasonable. Your point isn't completely unreasonable, but opposing a talented editor based on it is. - Taxman Talk 19:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness Wikipedia could disambiguate NIH for me. :) Seriously, while I might have missed something, I see nothing in his en.wiki contributions which stands out so spectacularly to render the question of his competence here conclusively.  Insufficient record exists here.  Opinions will differ on that also, but I do always scan contributions before giving comment at RfA, so you know. Xoloz 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The short sightedness of only looking at en.wiki contributions is dissapointing. - Taxman Talk 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's funny that each of us sees the same fault in the other. :) Xoloz 20:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per answer to question 4. --After Midnight 0001 02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - can't trust to be fair. Αργυριου (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose – I stumbled across this discussion while looking at a bunch of Nepalese hospital stubs created recently by Eukesh that probably don’t meet WP:N. (I was trying to decide whether to tag them for notability or for deletion.) It looks like Eukesh only wants administrator access to protect articles in which he has special interest.  Template:Newar, for example, was not vandalized.  The IP mentioned seems to have made good-faith contributions, so if Eukesh wants to block them from editing, it demonstrates a lack of understanding about how things are done on the English Wikipedia (IP edits more).  This is a stated a desire to misuse protection.  I don’t know about offensive terms in other languages, but Wikipedia is not censored (WP:NOT), and Eukesh sounds like he wants to start censoring (e.g. Madhesay, see his many attempts to censor, including here, here, and here).  There is plenty of work that Eukesh can do for Nepal and South Asia that doesn’t require admin access. Jaksmata 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - How Eukesh managed to become an admin on ks.wikipedia with less than 50 edits is beyond me . Edits for bh.wikipedia (200) and pi.wikipedia (300) are also very low for an admin. It's obvious things aren't done the same everywhere. Jaksmata 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Words like Madhesay do not deserve an article, just a mention at List of ethnic slurs, this is not censorship. About the adminship at ks.wiki, as you can see, as a whole he has more than 11,000 edits, succesful initiatives in South Asian area and for these reasons he received the admin status. Most of his edits at ks.wiki are admin related, badly needed there (the other admin was not active since January 2005). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Quote from Eukesh: "The term Madhesay is a highly offensive ethnic slur. Any article with such ethnic offense should be deleted." (from Talk:Madhesay). This is not true.  Several slurs have their own articles that should not be deleted.  Before Eukesh started editing the article, there was no indication that anyone was being offended, and the article was about an ethnic group.  Eukesh did not add it to a list of ethnic slurs - he tried to get it speedy deleted, twice, even after his first request was denied and it was suggested that AFD would be appropriate (see my links above).  I have little doubt that if Eukesh were an admin at the time, he would have deleted the article immediately, possibly abusing his admin powers. Jaksmata 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed several have article, others don't have. If the mainstream doesn't know about the meanings of a certain word, this does not mean they cease to exist at Wikipedia. I wouldn't imagine an article named Nigger or Crow that would very seriously present the Afro-Americans, as the initial article Madhesay did. Moreover since, in this case, the issue is somehow confined to the South Asian people, it is pointless to accuse Eukesh of wrongdoing while he gained the respect of such a diverse community. Nothing to suggest POV or possible abuse of admin powers. As other users said before, he showed already his commitment for the project of Wikipedia and mature approach. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jacksmata, the article did not cite any source and had been marked for POV before I put up the deletion tag. Besides, I think that you do not understand the gravity of the Madhesi situation. People are being killed everyday because of this Madhesi unrest. You can check any Nepalese newssites or mail to any of the Nepalese journalists, leaders etc. or maybe just ask people at Nepalese wikipedia about the term and the present volatile situation. The reason why I considered it for immediate deletion is because the article was started by a Pahadi person. Such kinds of issues, if found by Madhesi extremists, can lead to a lot more violence. Admin or no admin, had I been in your place I would have checked out what is happening in Nepal before making such a reckless statement about how I tried to break the "culture" of English wikipedia. About template Newar, please feel free to contact ANY person who has even a modicum of information about Newar and if they think that any of the two articles which have already been deleted (with no tagging from my side whatsoever) is more than self advertisement and deserves a place in Template Newar more than say article of any other Newar person, I will stop editing in this wikipedia. I think that the basis of any encyclopedia is knowledge. When people question my attempts to improve the level of knowledge, reliability and quality of articles here with their stereotypical attitude, I do not feel that we are in the process of contributing to the betterment of the world but are striving for our petty personal satisfation by chashing the egos. I have been conrtibuting even to wikipedia in languages which I dont know and have been developing input system for them, fighting vandals, writing to people of the language community to join wikipedia for the betterment of the language and dissemination of knowledge despite my busy schedule as a medical student because I believe in humanity and thought that wikipedia is a one of the best place to demonstrate it by sharing of knowledge. However, I think that we are so much obsessed with the peripheries over here that the core has been forgotten altogether. I dont care whether I will make it as an admin amongst thousands of admins here for I have served as the only editor and admin in places like Pali, Bhojpuri and Nepal Bhasa. However, if we proceed with this level of focus on schism between wikipedias, lack of trust and egoism, wikipedia wont be the place it was meant to be -the free encyclopedia (in good spirit). Thanks.--Eukesh 17:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Seems to only want admin tools to use for their own articles and ones related to their other admin work on other wikis. Jmlk17 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an objection shared already by other opposing users, again presented as a personal opinion without justifying it. There are created some borders (you state "their own articles", "their other admin work") and afterwards they are imposed on the newly made category of "them" (vs. "you"). Sorry, but I reject your categorisation, I still hope I don't belong to "them" category in this wiki. The presentation of the work in a specific cultural and geographic area was intented to show the accomplishments, not for sectarian purposes. It included a sense of fulfilement but that did not imply the exclusion of other cultures. I contend that this implication is only imagined by the opposing users who supported it. I see there is currently at least other candidate that states too an involvement in disseminating the knowledge about a certain geographic area. However, in that case nobody objected, the status upgrading of that user was not considered menacing (because the area belongs to the Anglosphere?). What is the message sent by this opposition point to future candidacies? That they have to shun to present a possible involvement in non-Western areas? Who is sectarian here? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Three sentences, written by the candidate in response to the question of what admin work the candidate intended to do, worry me a great deal:  Also, there are many articles [about Nepal and South Asia] which have faulty information. I can help in their correction. Maintaining NPOV is another aspect in these articles which needs attention.  This bothers me for two reasons:  first, and lesser, correcting faulty info and maintaining NPOV don't require admin tools; second, on the English Wikipedia, there is a strong tradition that admins who edit specific articles should not generally use their admin powers as a way of changing the article to language that they prefer.  So even mentioning "admin powers" and "faulty information" and "NPOV" in the same paragraph seems to me to imply either lack of knowledge of that tradition, or disagreement with it.  That tradition is very important:  we want editors who feel free to express their opinions (say, on article talk pages) because they aren't worried that they will be warned or blocked by an involved editor who disagrees with them and is using his/her admin powers in support of his/her edits.   -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this issue was answered already by David D. when acknowledging the mature approach in NPOV debates. About the tradition, again many users considered that certain minor adjustments would not be a problem. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern is with intentions with regard to having admin powers. David D.'s comment about past editing by the candidate doesn't fully address my concern, nor was he specifically discussing the three sentences I quoted.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Q4, and the apparent lack of knowledge regarding a) the protection policy and b) the different functions administrators can apply when blocking a user.  Daniel Bryant  00:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Daniel.Bryant. Once the candidate has gained a little more experience of when the admin tools should be used on en.wiki, I would gladly support. WjBscribe 16:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." That's a no-no for any admin in my book. Shanes 11:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose as per the answers to Q1 and Q4, and as per the reasoning above of [User:Funpika|Funpika]], Nihonjoe, Xoloz, Jaksmata, John Broughton, and Shanes. DES (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Please accept my oppose as I too am concerned in very similar ways with your answers to Q1 and Q4 (in so far your need to gain the tools is not established - and indeed you would be able to overcome the problems of vandalism to those articles within your spectrum of interest by asking a current admin to assist). I also agree with many of the concerns expressed by my fellow editors above.-- VS  talk 08:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Oppose For not having email enabled, or Luna Santin had to ask on one of the questions, which is not a good sign. It's essential for all blocked users to be able to send you email, so that they can reach you to appeal their block. Sorry.--U.S.A. cubed 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Once you enable email, I will see no reason why to oppose.--U.S.A. cubed 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. I'm not so much concerned about the e-mail address issue, but rather your answer to question one. Your answer tells me that you don't need the tools at this time (i.e. the improvements you plan to make can be done without the tools). Sr13 (T|C) 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Regretful Oppose Your responses above make me nervous that you've not developed your antennae enough about how things work at the English language Wikipedia, which seems (from your answers) considerably different from the others where you no doubt do excellent work. --Dweller 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral for now Difficult to evaluate the candidate based on his en. contributions and I don't speak Gujrati, Oriya, Panjabi, Dzonkha or Bod Skad/Tibetan! But I have to agree with Funpika that there might not be any rush to give him sysop rights given the type of things he wants to work on and so I'm leaning towards opposing. Pascal.Tesson 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC) I'm now leaning support as the supporters have made a number of convincing arguments. However, I still feel that the answer to my optional question shows that Eukesh does not understand the protection and semi-protection policy on this wiki. If he does get promoted, I ask him to take the time to learn more about the policies and guidelines of the English wiki before using his tools actively. Pascal.Tesson 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral: While his contributions to the other Wikipedia are quite large I do not feel there is enough experience in this project. I trust the user however I feel that more experience is needed for this user in this project to be fully deserving of the tools.  Orfen   User Talk | Contribs 02:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. It would be good if you could use edit summaries more often, it helps others understand what you changed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, leaning oppose. Your sysop work on other Wikipedias, your willingness to help here, and your flexibility, are commendable... However, I know from firsthand experience how different the English Wikipedia can be from the other Wikipedias, and I feel it would do you good to spend a little more time here. The answer to question one leaves a little to be desired in terms of understanding our protection policy and the role of an admin on enwiki. Answer question four, that will give other editors a better view of you. Grand  master  ka  03:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral per Grandmasterka and Tesson. — An as  talk? 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral for now. Syosp access in other wikis is good.  Yet, adminship is not a trophy.  Also, policies differ from wiki to wiki. However, I need to see the edit count of this user to make a decision. Neutral for now.  Real96  09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral, needs more time spent on enwiki. It does not mean you are an admin on other Wikipedias so you will become an admin here. You are doing quite a good job, and keep that up. Every Wiki has different policies, so yeah. Terence 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral per Amarkov and Michaelas10. – Riana ऋ 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Switching to support. – Riana ऋ 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per everything above. Give it some time - another month or so, so that we have more english wikipedia edits to judge by.  -_ Pastordavid 16:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I believe that this user can be trusted to be as good an admin as possible, and I am not concerned with the possibility that they may focus solely on a grouping of articles vs. the entire en project. I am particularly interested in the answer to question 4.  Once I see that I will be prepared to give further opinion. --After Midnight 0001 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC) - changed to oppose --After Midnight 0001 02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Although this user's sysop access in other wikis indicates knowledge of the wiki system, I don't think that the answer to q1 indicates an actual need for the tools. I don't consider inexperience to be an issue, when the candidate's experience on other-language Wikipedias is taken into account, but an RfA candidate needs to give us some idea of what they want to do with the admin tools. Wal  ton  Need some help?  18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Leaning Support. I really really want to support, and I definitely see the trust in this candidate, but I just think that our policies/proceedures take a bit more work to get used to than the other wikis. Get another solid month of work here under your belt, and I will be happy to say strong support. ^ demon [omg plz] 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. The last sentence in the response to Q1 is "Maintaining NPOV is another aspect in these articles which needs attention." The only way that admin tools can be useful in maintaining NPOV is through blocking POV pushers or protecting pages. The rest are things editors without the tools can do. I think that, in general, admins should be cautious in employing the tools in disputes in which they are involved (e.g., protecting, blocking), exclusive of obvious vandalism like replacing the text of an article with "SDKF S(*&#J". As the candidate seems to acquire the tools specifically for this purpose, I am wary of supporting. As the candidate's contributions to multiple wikis are commendable, I will not oppose on this reason alone. I remain neutral, reserving the right to change my opinion (either way) if new developments arise. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral You would obviously be an asset to the English Wikipedia given your extensive involvement in multiple WikiProjects. Opponents have raised concerns that the English Wikipedia may be somewhat more tolerant of user differences and disagreements than some other projects, and as a result are concerned that you might be more inclined to block or otherwise punish a user for conduct which, under the rules of the English Wikipedia, is permissable. Suggest you wait a little bit and, in your next RfA, directly address these concerns and assure us that you understand the cultural differences involved and you'll be a little bit less quick to use enforcement powers here than might be appropriate somewhere else. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.