Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tariqabjotu 2


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

Tariqabjotu
[ Final] (124/2/1) Ended Fri, 17 Nov 2006 03:22:56 (UTC)


 * Questions for the candidate


 * General comments


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


 * Wow - 6 nominations! Actually Blnguyen's is like 2 noms, so 7! Rama's arrow  23:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Support Oppose
 * Well, this isn't really related to the request for adminship per se, but does anyone agree that there are enough co-nominations? A few serve to reinforce the nom statement (especially those from people who opposed in previous rfas), but too many serve to overdo it. Picaroon9288 02:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great compliment, and a show of solidarity. Why not? :) riana_dzasta 05:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its excessive. Either a user is fit or unfit for adminship and any number of co-noms won't change that. We don't need what amounts to personal testimonials. It makes it sound like the nominators don't trust the community to make the right decision so they have to beat us over the head with information. pschemp | talk 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with pschemp. It really puts me off when there are so many co-noms. What one may perceive as a sign of solidarity may appear to be peer-pressure to another. Agent 86 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just jealous that I wasn't one. With the work he's put in and the difficulties he encountered wtih previous RfA's, I think he deserves all the co-nom's he can get. Peer pressure? I supported because I believe he will do well with the mop. I believed it the last RfA. What ever happened to RfA not being a big deal? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  00:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Suprised it's been so long since the last one. -- Steel 01:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. G .H  e  01:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong, strong support It was about time! Will be an outstanding admin.-- Hús  ö  nd  01:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. He's done a superb job with current events.  He would be a greater asset to Wikipedia as an admin. --Aude (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Very Strong Support awesome editor. And would people queue up please? I've been edit-conflicted twice. Rama's arrow  01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support a patient and dedicated editor who will make an exceptional admin. Tariqabjotu is dedicated to the project and is one of the smartest, most knowledgeable editors its been my pleasure to know here. He is calm, meticulous and insightful and shows a broad and deep understanding of Wikipedia policy. An excellent candidate. Gwernol 01:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support Can't miss this one. Well deserving candidate. -- Ganeshk  ( talk ) 01:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support as co-nom -- Samir धर्म 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Mike | Talk 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Another breaking my wikibreak support. - Aksi_great (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Support. I don't do many edits on the Middle East and Islam articles but I have read many of them. In a "corner" of Wikipedia where NPOV is very tricky, Tariqabjotu's edits have stood out as being neutral, and he is highly deserving of the mop. Jcam 02:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support as nominator because it outnominates mine. - crz crztalk 02:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support - Outstanding contributor -- Lost (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Strongest Possible Support Fantastic user, great person, will become one of the finer admins. Yank  sox  02:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) I won't make a cliche, I won't make a cliche, I won't...aw, forget it, I thought he was already one. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong support, possibly my strongest ever. Tariqabjotu is a great editor, with plenty of article writing and wikipedia-space activity, and has always shown an enormous amount of maturity and judgement. And when it comes to use of the tools, he looks like he'll work very productively. Finally, It is very reassuring that he has never seemed even remotely overeager. Picaroon9288 02:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, strong candidate. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support I can see no reason why not. Plus the stream of contributions seems to more than warrant adminship. James086Talk 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong Support. Always was qualified, always will be. I've been very impressed. I wish I could have conominated. Alphachimp 03:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support -- light darkness (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Very pleased strong support after edit conflict Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim ''' 03:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Strong co-nom support -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Always has thoughtful contributions. Seems to be very community oriented. Seems like a solid editor all around.  David D. (Talk) 04:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support (edit conflict) what more can I really say, he's fully qualified and extremely impressive.-- danntm T C 04:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Strong Support Give this candidate the Gold Plated Mop, Please! Trumpets in the background… JungleCat    talk / contrib  04:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support excellent work over at mosque. KazakhPol 04:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Great contributor, and well-qualified. ×Meegs 04:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 04:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support He's made a lot of usefull tools and wonderful edits here. -- BlueSquadron Raven  04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support for good work in one of the most emotive areas of WP --Steve 05:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Obviously very hard working in a very important area of wiki.  Spinach Dip 05:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support very strong candidate for adminship. (aeropagitica) 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) What a no-brainer this was. riana_dzasta 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Strong Support. Without reservation. He is well qualified for the tools.-- Dakota 05:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Why ever not? --210physicq  (c ) 05:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support well-rounded user, buttons are no big deal  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 06:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support, should have become an admin ages ago and does excellent administrative work already. Kusma (討論) 07:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Most definitely worthy. – Chacor 07:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Strong Support. My dear. How long have I waited for this nomination. Some controversies in the past have cost the community of not having this wonderful editor as an admin before. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Strong support. We've waited an absurdly long time for something that really should have been a forgone conclusion long ago. Per noms. Grand  master  ka  08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. I also awaited this nom for a long time. I still think that the reasons that the previous RfA failed were pretty sad; Ambuj and Grandmasterka put it well. Duja ► 08:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support It is time to give him the mop. A very good user. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  08:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) One of the best. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 08:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Nomination's too long support. Can we put the nom and questions on a subpage and transclude it here? It takes up a largist number of lines. :P Kavadi carrier 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support, great user. He should be an admin long time ago. --Ter e nce Ong (C 09:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Strong Support Oh my God, yes, yes! ↔ A NAS ''' - Talk   09:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Absolutely.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) I Supported before, but the contibutor even improved since. Agathoclea 09:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support per above answers, an excellent choice for Admin. ▪◦▪ =Sirex   98=   10:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) El_C 10:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support of course.--Kchase T 10:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Support. Zaxem 11:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Support, seen good things from this user. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Jaranda wat's sup 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Support Seeing as absurdity rules, I guess I'll support you for having a username that starts with T and ends with U ;) In all seriousness, you're a great editor, and I think you'd do well with the tools. Th ε Halo Θ 16:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Support semper fi — Moe  16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Strong Support Truly remarkable editor, highly trustworthy. This promotion should have happened ages ago. Xoloz 17:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Opposed last time, IIRC. This editor has improved a lot and is now worthy of support in my view. I do not think too many co noms is a valid reason to oppose because I don't agree that co noms necessarily beat us over the head. Rather, at least often, they bring different facets to our attention we may have missed. I actually rather like a number of co noms as it shows strong support by folk who have done some research. But then I am biased on this point, I had 4 noms, including pschemp herself, although her nom didn't bring much new info about me to light, to be sure. Also I don't think that the candidate has a lot of control over conoms. C.f. Phaedriel's candidacy, there were a lot of co noms piling on after the fact. How does one politely tell co noms no? Not really fair to the candidate to oppose over this, IMHO. Support ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Support, has both the maturity and commitment required of an admin. ITAQALLAH   18:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate. - 18:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Copy and paste: Support -- Deserved. Szvest 20:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC) -- Szvest 19:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®
 * 64) Definitely, I thought the candidate already was one, and I'm disappointed in seeing that he previously was denied adminship solely for expressing his religious views on his user page. --Rory096 19:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Shine On - Support. Kind Regards -  Heligoland  |  Talk  |  <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">Contribs  19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Strong Support. Very experienced editor; has contributed a lot to Islamic related articles.--<font color="#007BA7">TBC Φ <font color="#007BA7">talk?  20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) For Sure. Very good editor; has contributed much to a niche category.--<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t <font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e <font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">h <font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">tennisman  20:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Support per above... Addhoc 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Support. Qualified candidate who shouldn't have the excessive number of nominators held against him. Agent 86 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Support I've been waiting for this to come up again. :) <i style="color:#FF00FF;">~Kylu ( u | t ) </i> 21:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Support Seems to pass all my criteria, and will sure not abuse admin tools. Nothing from the last three RfA I should worry about. Incivility is rare.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) Support. I've supported before, and I'd gladly support again. More than meets my criteria, and will make a great admin if given the chance. EWS23  (Leave me a message!) 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Support per norm.Sharkface217 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 74) Strong, strong support Will be a welcome addition to the Wikipedia Community.-- <font style="color: #082567">User:Kevinwong913
 * 75) Strong Support Great editor, who writes articles from NPOV, and is qualified to be an adminstrator. Hello32020 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 76) Strong Support well balanced and positive/cooperative editor. Go Tariq! (→ Netscott ) 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 77) Strong Support The arguments presented above are much more convincing than those in the oppose sectin. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 78) Support Trust all the noms judgement -- Ageo020 ( Talk  •  Contribs ) 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 79) Merovingian ※ Talk 01:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 80) Strong Support Fantastic Wikipedian!  Nish kid 64  01:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 81) Support. Very impressed with this user's work, particularly on the Mosque article. Even complimented him on it at the time. He should make a fine admin. —Lantoka ( talk 02:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 82) esoppO Editors who suffer from hypernominatia, hypoPOVia and a reflexive urge to respond to opposers in invisible ink must be treated with a dose of Admin-X. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 83) Support no evidence he will abuse admin tools and the userpage issues of the past have been addressed.--MONGO 08:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 84) Support as I did last time. DarthVad e r 08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 85) Strong Support Edits, working and handling style of articles, dealing style with problems etc. Mustafa Akalp <sup style="color:blue;">TC 10:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 86) Strong Support. Very friendly user and excellent editor. I would be glad to see him in our company of admins. - Darwinek 14:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 87) Support, long live Tariqabjotu the admin! You've made over 13,000 edits. Some people become admins with 1/13 of your edit count! Not only that, you do pretty much everything on Wikipedia. Support big time. SupaStarGirl 15:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 88) Support. Has dealt with criticism well, and shown restraint in waiting until now to run again. No serious issues identified by opposers. Easy support. --kingboyk 15:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 89) Very strong Support- He is an editor who always tried to update wikipedia with current affairs. In addition to that incivility is rare.  Nileena joseph (Talk 15:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 90) Support --thunderboltz<sup style="color:green;">(Deepu) 16:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 91) Support. Partially because I think you'll make a good admin, partially because those opposes are so ridiculous. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 16:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 92) Support. Decided to be sensible when his friends weren't. pschemp | talk 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 93) Support. Michael 17:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 94) Support. My concerns from the last RfA have been completely addressed, and as I've seen only good or outstanding contributions from Tariqabjotu, I'm feeling slightly silly about them now. Sandstein 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (Er, the objections, not his contributions, obviously.) Sandstein 18:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 95) Support per nom. John254 18:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 96) Yes. --Docg 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 97) Strong support savidan(talk) (e@) 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 98) Support Although I personally agree with what ALM Scientist said, the nature of Wikipedia is that it does not care if your main priority is your religion or Wikipedia. And as long as Wikipedia policies at least seem to be your main concern, other editors are okay with you. BhaiSaab talk 03:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 99) Support without reservations. NoSeptember  03:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Civil user, who won't abuse the tools. Hello32020 03:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Duplicate !vote (see number 75). --  tariq abjotu  04:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Hook, line and sinker --Srik e it (Talk 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: This time I again failed to be 100th. But, following Srikeit is it self great to support a great editor! --Bhadani 04:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Sandy (Talk) 15:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support &mdash; The current RfA nominations lineup is the best in Wikipedian history, bar none. &mdash; Deckill e r 16:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep It Up! I can see him being very beneficial as a sysop here. Have not seen him around, but he'll help the admins with a lot of work if he gets the mop, bucket, and keys. I'm TrackerTV and I approve this message (sorry, Mailer Diablo, had to do it after the 2006 midterm elections). 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) support, always been good from this viewpoint/wangi 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Will make good sysop. -- <font color="#0082B8">Ch e <font color="#0082B8">z  <font color="#698b69">( <font color="#0082B8">Discuss <font color="#698b69">/ <font color="#0082B8">Email <font color="#698b69">) 02:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. - BanyanTree 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Pepsidrinka supports. 03:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, As per the nom. Shyam  ( T / C ) 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Support. I've remember tariqabjotu/joturner back in '05, and I've seen nothing but improvement since then. The man should've been promoted a long time ago. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Not your typical candidate, I must admit, but after careful consideration I see no real reason to oppose. — freak([ talk])</tt> 06:20, Nov. 13, 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, same as first time! -- M P er el ( talk 06:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong Support I've had only positive interactions with this user in the past, all of which lead me to believe that they will be an excellent admin.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 16:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Super strong support - I'm tired of seeing his reports at WP:ERRORS and him only being able to close "no consensus" votes at WP:RM. Nothing but respect for this excellent user and soon-to-be administrator. — Mets501 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Long overdue. the wub "?!"  23:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per all the above comments.--Jersey Devil 01:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support I'v not seen him but his edits look good all around. He should be good at being an administrator.-- John Lake 01:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. It's nice to see that the - frankly, vile - opposition to has last RFA, based purely on Jo's religious beliefs, and not based at all on his actions on Wikipedia, has finally died down.  Proto ::  type  09:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Another-little-note-on-my-talk-page-support. ^^ - User:Samsara (talk· contribs) 20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support --Ligulem 11:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support: Obviously. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Co-nom support Computerjoe 's talk 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - Been here a while, should be an asset. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Strong Support Promotes civility as a means to dispute resolution. KP Botany 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - incivil user, makes comments calling another user a 'paedophile' --Phaedriel 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC) imposter blocked indef
 * Oppose Incivil, currently under ArbCom probation on the Solar system article. --Phaedriel 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User blocked indefinately as an evil impersonator of Phaedriel. <tt>^_^</tt> &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  <font color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 11:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Last time I voted for support. Have to see what he has been doing since last time. Since last time he is no more member of The_Muslim_Guild and stopped working actively in Islamic article. WHY? He removed everything he had in his userpage disputed or pro-Islamic. WHY? Now he rarely comes to Islamic articles and if he comments on talk pages of Islamic related article, he tries to become so neutral that it beats non-Muslim editors too. I want to know people with their personalities. Like for example a person X is a Jew and love his religion however, when exposed to facts he will accept them. I love to support such a person X for adminiship. I hate that idea that a User has to leave his own personality and identity (like in this case) just to be an admin. Why it is so important to be a stupid admin that he changed his beautiful userpage and good set of ideas written on them? I am very confused about Tariqabjotu now and do not know his personality anymore. If something is wrong and we cannot say it wrong LOUD and CLEAR just to be an admin then such a post is ugly post. --- ابراهيم 11:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinions, ALM; but Wikipedia is not about religion at all, it is about citing reliable sources and verifiability. Don't you think that an administrator should upkeep the policy of neutrality? And if you don't think so, I am sorry to say, you do not understand what adminship is all about. The pages (including your userpages) are provided to users for the furtherance of the cause of making this encyclopedia, they are not to be used as a tool of propaganda. Now he rarely comes to Islamic articles and if he comments on talk pages of Islamic related article, he tries to become so neutral that it beats non-Muslim editors too. – I request the users participating in this RfA take this statement as a testimony from a fellow user who has known Tariqabjotu since a long time. Thank you. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  <font color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 13:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We first are humans with emotions and thinking. I love Muhammad more than my life but when a user gives me new facts about Muhammad death that was not pleasant for me being a Muslims. I updated Muhammad page myself with the facts I received. That is neutrality which I can accept. However, if neutrality means I should not have any love associated with Muhammad, Islam etc and I should be an emotionless, dead person then sorry that what I never wish to be. Thanks for point my userpage as a tool of propaganda. A year ago Tariqabjotu user page was also like that (may be even more pro-Islamic). However, he had changed it, just to be an admin and I will never do that. Believe me I could be neutral, nice and sincere with wikipedia, even with my propaganda user-page. So could be Tariqabjotu but alas he decided to choose the different path. --- ابراهيم 14:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not seen him in Muhammad, Islam and other Islamic article since long time. That was his primary area of interest. May be his interest are changed now dramatically or may be he wanted so bad to be an admin? In both case I am confused about his personality. He give comments like We, as an encyclopaedia, should be trying to avoid the appearance of promoting one holy book over all others. Wrong that is not neutrality and we should present facts and only fact. For example if Bible in some sense is better than Quran then so be it and vica versa. We should be neutral in accepting all sort of facts with open mind but neutral does not mean to present all A=B. We should not try to make all people happpy with us but should try to be on the right side always (even that make all against us). --- ابراهيم 14:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I immensely respect the views of ALM, and he has every right to hold his views. However, I do not believe that Tariqabjotu has changed his user page to become an administrator. I do believe that Tariqabjotu has all the right to keep his user page in anyway he likes unless the style and contents violate the general principles and policies of wikipedia. Moreover, no one should display an attitude of holier than thou as it is perhaps a self-befooling process, and serves no purpose. I also request ALM to contribute more actively to wikipedia in whatever way he feels comfortable to make this a true encyclopedia. I also apologize in advance if he feels offended though I am sure that he is mature and is not touchy. --Bhadani 15:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Changed to support after candidate showed some sense - Since ALM thinks that not being a religious fanatic is a valid reason to oppose, I'm going to oppose because there are too many co-noms. Seems about the same level of absurdity. pschemp | talk 14:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very disappointed you have chosen to do this. WP:POINT. This is ridiculous, and I must strongly urge you to reconsider the disruptive point you're trying to make with this !vote. – Chacor 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not point. See my opinion above. I honestly believe there are too many co-noms and find that extremely off-putting. The fact that I acknowledged my view to be absurd doesn't mean I don't believe it. pschemp | talk 15:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter whether strongly supportive comments are listed under "co-nomination" or in the "support" section? And why should a candidate be opposed on the basis of admittedly absurd belief? In this case the result won't be affected but is it your view that the candidate really should be denied otherwise deserved adminship on this basis? Newyorkbrad 22:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Brad (and others), I feel we shouldn't question pschemp about her !vote any longer. --  tariq abjotu  22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll accept your recommendation. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With due respect pschemp, I'd bring ur attention to this . Tariq did not ask for so many people to nominate him. He also made it clear that it was ok if the offers were not followed through, so I'd say nobody realized it was never decided there would be 6 co-noms until well after the nom was created by Blnguyen. Rama's arrow  18:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rama, it was Tarq who added the nomination to the RFA page when it was ready. He could have at any point requested only a few co-noms, or removed the excess ones. His decision to leave them in when the practice of excessive nomination has been consistently frowned upon makes me wonder if he is willing to stand up for anything he believes in, or will just go along with the crowd as an admin. Tarq had final say on what the nom page looked like, yet he chose to leave it that way. No one forced him to leave all the noms on, therefore, he is responsible. I know many many other people who had the good sense to say tahnk you anyway, 2 or 3 is enough, yet Tarq did not do this. It makes me wonder why. pschemp | talk 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent me. I will vote support even for a person who is atheist and I am not saying one should be a religious fanatic or even religious at all. However, I should know a person and I should be sure about his personality. Not like Tariqabjotu about whom I could say only one thing for sure now. He loves to be an admin. I do not know who he is anymore. --- ابراهيم 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you would support an atheist but not someone who you think is a bad Muslim? That's incredibly hypocritical. Religion should have *nothing* to do with a vote here as it has *nothing* to do with adminship. If Tarq quit being Muslim and became Buddhist, why should you care? Its his personal decision and in no way affects his ability to be an admin. pschemp | talk 15:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will also support for some person who is bad Muslim; however he should stand for what he is. It is not like he is so desperate to be an admin that he removes from his user page his views. He changes his dislike and likes for being an admin. Then I might give vote against him. --- ابراهيم 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think that it is not wise to enquire along this line of thought. ALM is entitled to his rationale and the rationale is not irrational at all. Kavadi carrier 15:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose - per most of the concerns brought up at Requests for adminship/Joturner 2, also per pschemp --T-rex 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the last AfD is now history though I admire you for your conviction. As regards the concerns of pschemp, I would like to add a point. I do not believe her views declared as absurd by herself: she is entitled to her views. I was just thinking of a better absurd scenario. A nomination receives 100 co-nominations and 0 support but 2 opposes and 2 neutrals. For persons who follow the beaten path, it would be a failed nomination, but for the more enlightened ones the nomination would have perhaps been a success ab initio and though I am not sure as regards the co-nomination(s) being interpreted as an implicit support, may be the closing bureaucrat would most likely interpret in this way and promote the nominee in such a scenario! There is no such live case, but wikipedia is highly dynamic and situations like the one imagined by me may happen. Moreover, punishing the nominee for the misdeeds of the co-nominators (by co-nominating) looks an amazing reason to do so!  Like pschemp as asserted on her user page, "I get confused easily" too. :) --Bhadani 18:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See my response to you above. Basically, Tarq was the person to add this page, he could have removed or refused as many co-noms as he wished, yet did not do so even though excessive co-noms are frowned upon. This makes me wonder about him. pschemp | talk 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (Fine. BTW, please do not presume that I have not read your comments above. I read the comments many times! --Bhadani 02:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Then please consider this, I had expressed an interest in adding a co-nomination, but he chose to email me to discuss my co-nom, in which he asked me to (re)consider adding a nomination. I'd likely have tagged on a co-nom myself, but chose not to following the email. He still has my strongest support. I cannot fathom how other people adding noms at their own free will (of course, Tariq could choose to remove any of them, but that'd be downright impolite, and tbh not what many of us would want in an admin) should influence this. – Chacor 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that although I find the multiple noms to be annoying that is not my actual reason for opposing --T-rex 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I think that potential admins who respond to every oppose vote are not secure enough, and cannot accept an oppose vote, so they should not be admins. Diez2 18:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The candidate has not responded to a single oppose till now! -- Lost (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Darn, I spent that long looking for Tariqabjotu's responses to each Oppose vote, you managed to get in first and point out Tariqabjotu hasn't (upto now) made any replies to anyone who has voted 'Oppose'. I don't like to see someone getting a raw deal out of RfA so I'll vote in Support of the candidate. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">Kind Regards -  <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">Heligoland  |  <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">Talk  |  <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">Contribs  19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I change my vote to Neutral because I am more interested in presenting only my views against him which I have done. --- ابراهيم 16:26, 10 November 2006 (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.