Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amakuru

Amakuru

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (99/2/0); Scheduled to end 15:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Amakuru (talk · contribs) – For my first-ever RFA nomination, I proudly present Amakuru, who has been around the project much longer than I have – since 2006 – and has amassed over 28,000 edits (~top 2500 by count) with substantial contributions to Rwanda-related articles. This editor came to my attention via their frequent use of the {{RMnac}} template. His clean block log, lengthy move log and drama-free talk page attest to his pleasant and civil interactions. A large portion of Amakuru's deleted pages are due to "request deletion for page move", so no worries there. Administrator's Noticeboard search finds just 20 items. I checked most of them; some relate to page moves; no concerns. If you dig back to 2006 (beyond the statute of limitations in my book), you'll find that Steve participated in a userbox discussion that's in the template gallery at the Lamest edit wars exhibition. But even back then, he had the right idea. Note that this discussion preceded the 2010 creation of {{User in the United Kingdom}} and 2011 creation of {{User from the United Kingdom}}. Requested moves has a near-perpetual backlog, and Amakuru has not been shy about closing some of the tougher ones, so will be a welcome addition to the administrative team. wbm1058 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind words, Wbm1058, and for nominating me as your first RfA recommendation. I accept the nomination.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 11 April 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: The admin privilege I expect to use most often is the ability to move a page to a target which is not a simple redirect. I have been active in WP:RM since my early days in Wikipedia, reviewing proposed moves, evaluating them against policy (particularly WP:AT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), researching online to determine commonly used names in reliable sources, and then casting a !vote on the request. In 2013, considering myself sufficiently familiar with the process and policies, I began performing non-admin closures of move requests myself, and continue to do so frequently to this day, working to reduce the often extensive backlog at WP:RMB. Many requests which I close as "move" are not possible to carry out as a non-admin due to the target having a non-trivial edit history, and at present I rely on either the Template:Db-move or the WP:RMT technical requests board to ask an admin to assist. It would be more efficient, both for me and for the admins who carry out those requests, if I were able to perform such moves myself. In addition to closing fully listed requested moves, I also anticipate assisting with uncontroversial requests at WP:RMT. Leveraging my knowledge of the article title criteria, I would assess whether the request is indeed uncontroversial, and carry out the move if so. I don't intend to close deletion discussions or block users, because I have only limited experience in the WP:AfD and WP:AIV arenas. I would only anticipate carrying out a delete as part of an article move, or in very clear cut implausible redirect cases, such as this one.

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

A: My most significant content contributions are the featured articles on Rwanda, and Rwanda's president Paul Kagame, which I developed through extensive rewriting and reworking with reliable sources, mostly working alone. I also have a shorter featured article, Maraba coffee, which was written and promoted in 2006, my first year as a Wikipedian, and the good article Rwandan Revolution, which I developed from creation. Other articles in which I am the majority author are Rwandan Civil War and the most viewed article in the Rwanda space, Rwandan genocide; I am working on both with a view to featured status. African topics are often less well covered in Wikipedia than others, with fewer editors working in the area, so I gain great satisfaction from knowing I have made a difference in making these topics part of Wikipedia's best work. I have participated intermittently in evaluating other articles, including comments on FA candidates, and good article nominations (e.g. Talk:Andry Rajoelina/GA1). Finally, in addition to the major content contributions and WP:RM work already noted, I carry out a considerable amount of WP:WIKIGNOME activity, including mass corrections of links to disambiguation pages, reporting main page issues at WP:ERRORS, and fixing typos and clarifying texts in the course of reading articles. Although not having the same major impact as article writing, deletions, and vandalism fighting, I still wear the WikiGnome label proudly, as it helps to keep the place from descending into chaos!

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: In my early days as a Wikipedian, when my username was User:SteveRwanda, I became involved in an argument and edit war over a user box at Template talk:User United Kingdom, which subsequently made it to WP:LAME. I'm not proud of edit warring over a userbox, but it did teach me some valuable lessons, particularly how small issues can get under one's skin. Thankfully I am not involved in too many disputes, but when they do come up I always do my best to stand back from the immediate issue and engage with all involved editors in a calm and polite manner, with a focus on the underlying issues and compromises. My content editing rarely attracts conflict, which I hope is a reflection on my consistent effort to remain neutral, especially in the often controversial arena of Rwandan history. Similarly, the majority of my move closes are accepted without further discussion. In a few cases there is a dispute, including three cases this year, at Talk:Hours (David Bowie album), Talk:Montgomery bus boycott and Talk:Gun Hill Road (road). When I receive a note on my talk page, querying a close, I make sure to look thoroughly at the issues again, try to understand the problem from the other user's point of view, and then reply with an outline of my thinking, taking into account the other user's arguments, and remaining polite and friendly. In some cases, where I feel my close was not clear cut, I will reach out to other involved parties to reach a compromise, as I have done at Talk:Gun Hill Road (road), or seek advice from an experienced admin, as I did here.

---

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 Peter SamFan

4. How much anti-vandal work do you expect to take part in, i.e., do you expect to block users or protect pages a lot?

A: Hi Peter, the honest answer to this is that I don't anticipate doing a lot of proactive anti-vandal work, at least in the near future. I think we all have different areas that we enjoy, and like to spend more of our time in those areas, and for me those areas are content creation and requested moves, rather than recent changes or new page patrolling. That said, I am familiar with the process, and I do actively fight vandalism as and when I see it taking place on articles on my watchlist, or generally while browsing the wiki. I have used the escalating templates test, uw-vandalism1, uw-vandalism2 etc. for notifying users when they have been carrying out obvious vandalism or tests. I always assume good faith to start with, often using the welcome-test template. In cases where the user persisted in blatant vandalising, and the maximum warnings already applied, I would block the user or IP as outlined at WP:ADMINGUIDE/B, probably for the suggested 31 hour period.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Cordless Larry

5. Hi Amakuru. In December 2014, requests for comment on user conduct were closed down, and editors directed to other dispute resolution processes instead. Do you think the current processes available for dealing with complaints about editors are sufficient and effective?

A: Hi Cordless Larry, I actually have had WP:AN/I on my watchlist for some time now, and I find it very informative to dip in and out of the conversations that go on there, even though I've not participated in too many of the discussions myself. I know that page has its detractors, as evidenced by some of the delete votes at WP:RfC/U which also called for deleting AN/I, but I think by and large it does the job it is supposed to, namely allowing for swift reporting and blocking of disruptive users, and fairly swift decisions on short term disputes, but through the reasonably fair and open process of discussion amongst admins and others. The possibility of WP:BOOMERANG is also I think a useful thing - often people out themselves as disruptive by shouting just a bit too loudly about others who are just going about their business. I have a less thorough understanding of ArbCom cases, as there is usually a lot of text on those pages to read through, and I've never been involved in one myself. However, from what I can gather ArbCom picks up where AN/I leaves off in being able to deal with the more protracted and difficult disputes between users. I think there is sometimes a tendency on Wikipedia to have too many ways of achieving the same goal, for example at WP:Questions, there is an unnervingly large number of possible places one might go to for asking a question, which has the inevitable effect of thinning out the number of experienced editors available who might actually deal with the questions. The same goes for complaints about editors - if there are five different places to do it, then you might only get a fifth of the coverage on each one. As such, to answer your original question I do think the processes are sufficient and effective, from what I know of them, and it looks like a good thing that WP:RfC/U was closed down, to concentrate the process in fewer venues. It's possible there might be cases I've missed where it hasn't worked well though, and I would be interested to hear your view on this same question. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from FiendYT

6. With administrative powers, which area of focus would you be mostly concentrated in, and why?

A: Hi FiendYT, I don't expect to drastically change my areas of activity here, should I be granted the mop. I would still be active with my content creation work - Rwandan genocide, Rwandan Civil War, and History of Rwanda being specific things I want to work on; and I would still be most active administratively at WP:RM, closing and participating in discussions, as I already have been. Most likely I would start paying more attention to the various things at WP:AN, and familiarizing myself with all the different processes there. There are plenty of entries at WP:AN/RFC, for example, which I could learn from. As noted in question 1, I wouldn't start diving in and applying administrative actions in all sorts of areas with which I'm not familiar. But on attaining more experience with different areas, I would be proactive in trying to reduce backlogs in those areas, particularly those which typically receive less attention. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Winterysteppe

7. What edit(s) would you put on a resume?

A: This is a very interesting question, thank you. I will have a dig around later today and get back to you on this one!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Winterysteppe, I'm back with a few examples... maybe not the absolute best, and there may be something I've forgotten about in ten years of editing, but I think these give a reasonable picture of my work here.

1. [1] - this is just one of hundreds of edits I've made to Rwanda over the years, but it was a significant one because it brought in the lead of the article in roughly the form that later became featured, and which remains similar today. The edit was also the result of a valuable collaborative process I was going through with other editors at WP:Peer review/Rwanda/archive2 at that time.
2. [2] - this was quite a long !vote that I cast at a WP:MRV discussion going on at the time, in which I analysed in some detail my reading of the discussion that had taken place in the corresponding move request. I got positive feedback on my comments by the closer of this MRV (see the close of "Cannabis (drug)" at WP:Move review/Log/2014 January), who cited my evidence as a leading reason for overturning the close.
3. [3] - I've included this as an example of a time I feel I satisfactorily dealt with a potential conflict. A user had disputed a close decision on my talk page, which I felt had some validity, but I wanted to make sure I was including all the others who had participated in the discussion before going ahead and changing the close. The proposal met with a solid consensus, and there was no further dispute.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
4. [4] - for this last edit, I mentioned WP:WikiGnome activity in question 2 above, so I've included this because it was my very first use of the WP:AutoWikiBrowser to help with large scale gnome activity, back in 2006. In this case I was correcting a link on the page which pointed at KIA (a disambiguation page), to make it instead point at Killed in action (but pipe linked so it still showed as KIA). I have carried out probably thousands of small edits like this in my ten years here.

Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from QEDK

8. Do you think IAR is the fundamental rule on Wikipedia? Explain your stance.

A: Hi QEDK. I wouldn't call IAR *the* fundamental rule, as in the only one that matters, but I would certainly label it as *a* fundamental rule, alongside a few others, such as civility and the fact that we're here to build an encyclopedia (basically I'm referring to WP:PILLARS here, of which IAR is one, and which I broadly agree with as the most important aspects of our project). Of course the actual text of IAR is not just "ignore all rules", which if taken at face value gives free rein to any sort of vandalism imaginable, it is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". Phrased like that, it appears obvious to me how fundamental this policy is. Improving and maintaining Wikipedia (which by definition is constructive and not destructive) is essential to the project and should never be disrupted by bureaucratic rules which hinder that improvement.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

9. Do you think a banter page on Wikipedia will promote collaboration and fun or do you think Wikipedia shouldn't delve into such kind of pages? (This is an opinion-based question, trying to see how you tackle the question.)

A: I think in principle this is a great idea. Wikipedia editing can sometimes be a lonely process - unlike Facebook etc. there is no instant feedback or social element following contribution to the site, except for the occasional press of the "thank" button (which has been a great addition IMHO), or a comment on a user talk page. I recently attended my first ever Wikipedia Meet Up ([5]) and found it a very rewarding experience, being able to just chat freely about any topics, Wiki or non-Wiki, rather than focusing solely on building the encyclopedia. Having said that though, the devil is in the detail, and making sure we achieve a balance. It would be a shame if we set up a banter room and then found that editors ended up spending all their Wiki time there rather than getting on with article writing, vandal fighting, deletion discussion, and all the essential things we need to keep this project alive. Hopefully this wouldn't happen, and the community is generally quite good at self policing and recognizing when a particular process is hindering the project, but it's something to keep in mind if a decision is ever made to add such a forum. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Omni Flames

10. Say that you're cleaning out backlog at WP:RM. You come across a move discussion which has already been relisted 4 times. There are 17 who have voted in support for the move, and 9 who've voted against. However, you have some concerns about abusive sockpuppetry being used to influence the outcome, and many of the support votes are simply "per above" or "I agree". Some of them don't have reasons for their vote at all. What do you do?

A: Hi Omni Flames. First of all, if I was evaluating this situation I would do what I always do, and look at the strength of the arguments made by those voting on each side. It might be that the arguments made by the nine opposers are flawed in some way, while the support arguments (those that give reasoning beyond the "me too" votes) were solidly based in policy. In that case, I would close as moved despite the fact that there appeared to be gaming of the system through sockpuppetry, indicating clearly why I considered the oppose votes invalid. Conversely, the oppose votes might be grounded solidly in policy, while the one or two reasons given for support are spurious. This situation is a little more tricky, because of the apparent majority support, but with a large tranche of me too votes, I would probably close as no consensus or even "not moved" in this situation, again indicating clearly why I fail to see merit in the support votes. In both of the above two situations, if my grounds for suspecting sockpuppetry were well founded, I would follow up the close by starting a discussion at WP:SPI, to allow the good folk there to look into the matter further, and possibly eventually do a checkuser check if required. Finally, in the most difficult case, where the arguments of both sides have merit, and the strength of voting is what will decide whether there's a consensus or not, I would place a note on the request itself indicating my suspicions, and suggesting that it not be closed yet, then I would initiate the aforementioned discussion at WP:SPI to get to the bottom of the matter. Ultimately if the SPI investigation concluded that they were socks, then it could later be closed as no consensus or not moved, while if the conclusion was that there was no foul play, then it could then be closed as moved.

11. Another question about Requested moves. A discussion has been running for eight days, and consensus is clearly in support of the proposal. 14 users have supported moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland Republic, and no concerns whatsoever have been made. How do you close the discussion?

A: Hi Omni Flames, I see that the article mentioned has a specific ARBCOM sanction in place on it, requiring move discussions to be carried out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and a notice to that effect is prominently displayed at the top of the talk page. It is not immediately clear to me whether that means any discussion must itself take place on that page, or whether a link from there to the RM would satisfy the requirement. (This move request took place on its own page and a note was placed, although predictably it failed very quickly and was snow closed, so it's unclear if the Ireland community viewed it as valid). If no note had been placed on the Ireland collaboration talk page, or if it was clear that participants at that board were not aware or not accepting of the RM, then I would close the RM as not moved on procedural grounds, citing the ARBCOM ruling. In the unlikely event that a note had been placed, and the Ireland collaborators were aware of the discussion and had agreed to proceed with it as a regular RM, (i.e. if it was clear that the ARBCOM ruling had been adhered to), with 14 supporters to move to Ireland Republic, then I would not close the request, but would actually cast a !vote of my own, to "Oppose" this move on WP:COMMONNAME grounds, citing this NGRAM showing us that the proposed name is very little used in reliable sources compared to the current name.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

[I hope this follow-up question is fine, here; I am not the original questioner, but clerks set me straight If need be.]

Having previously closed an Ireland move discussion (back-in-the-day), I think your answer shows considerable clue (on the admin part, I make no comment on the n-gram part), but would you consider moving the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration using a move template? Why or why not? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've dug through the Ireland records a bit more, and I can see that the precedent is clearly to host move requests on the talk page at the collaboration project, as happened at WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 28. As such, if a *new* move request were to be opened on the article's talk page, I think it would be the correct action for an administrator to move the discussion to WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and then make sure to notify the editor who started the request that that has been done. In the precise case above, where the discussion has already been going for a full listing period without anyone from the Ireland project noticing (this seems highly unlikely to be honest, but just for argument's sake), I might still be tempted to do a procedural close and advise the nominator to reopen at WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, pinging any users who had already cast !votes on the original RM. I say this only because the 14 !votes cast in this first "invalid" part of the run, when the Ireland WikiProject was not involved, could muddy the waters when coming to close the relisted debate later on, and possibly lead to appeals to ARBCOM etc. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

• Edit stats posted on talk page. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak Support I can't think of any way how he would misuse the tools, and his contributions are nice. The only thing that I have with him is that I don't see much anti-vandal work recently. Admins fight vandals by blocking them and protecting pages. Peter Sam Fan 15:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

   Not all admins need to be active in the field of fighting vandals. Often, the project needs people who know how to close a discussion (in such a way that no review is necessary) and who can do the technical part of deleting, like at Afd or Cfd. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

2. Support - looks like a good candidate. My own searching through their contributions shows a pattern of well-reasoned and civil interactions with other editors, and they have a use for the bit with their RM work. Delete and block aren't hard buttons to use either, but I appreciate that you understand your lack of experience, and seeking advice before jumping in to those areas would be a good thing. Thanks for applying! Ajraddatz (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support as per WP:ORCP discussion. Lately, the backlogs at WP:RM have gotten quite severe, so we could definitely use another Admin over there closing discussions. I have no other concerns here currently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support: long history of solid work, with admin tools an obvious way to make things go smoother. --JBL (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support - seems to be a WP:NETPOSITIVE as far as I can see - not much AV work though. I'd like to see a bit more of that, should they become an admin, but they seem experienced enough in article creation so I'm definitely supporting. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Support Reviewing the edits from the user, I would agree with Ajraddatz in that their contributions have been done civilly and in a manner I would expect from an admin. I like the fact that they would "look before they leap" when it comes to admin actions, though a bit more work on the anti-vandal side is also a plus. Overall however I feel this would help with the site if they were made an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Support per above. DexDor ^(talk) 18:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
8. Support. I wasn't sure but based on a thorough review of how the editor has managed to keep calm and worked out on some very politically sensitive topics, I have no doubts about giving them the tools. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
9. Sweet baby Jesus yes. HiDrNick! 19:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
10. Support Clearly demonstrated need for the tools, no reason to oppose. And I appreciate the fact that the user doesn't intend to rush working in areas they are not familiar with. Widr (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
11. Support after review - what Widr said directly above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
12. Support per above. WP:RMB could use his help. Bradv 19:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
13. Support per all above --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
14. Support, looks great. Nsk92 (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
15. Support (Moved from "Neutral".) My concerns aside (which I stated in my "neutral" vote), this editor is obviously a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project, and has an obvious need for the admin toolset. Let 'em have it! Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
16. Support Searching through their contributions at AfD, RM, and their edits at AN brought up no concerns. I was slightly concerned by Andrew's post in the oppose section, because his complaint has some validity; particularly, the use of primary government documents to paint perhaps a rosier picture of Kagame than scholarly sources might. However, in light of the massive amounts of other content building work that I found no issues with, I believe that the candidate can be trusted with the mop. Creating 300+ articles is no mean achievement, and something I hope to emulate one day. Additionally, every talk page post I could find has been courteous and helpful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
17. Support. A strong content creator, a seasoned editor, a frequent non-admin closer. I checked various talk and discussion archives and they handle themselves well. They are not just hat collecting, or it would not have taken them a year to follow up on a suggestion that they become an admin! Fences&Windows 20:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
18. Support - has clue. shoy (reactions) 20:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
19. Support. Amakuru's qualifications tick nearly all the right boxes for me. They started the same year as myself, but their edit count is so much higher than mine. They appear to have the right temperament for the job, also; something else I place high importance on. I would like to see more AfD work, more conflict resolution, and more direct assistance given to other editors, but I see no reason to oppose this nomination. This is the first RfA I have ever supported. I wish you well, Amakuru; all the best, Prhartcom (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
20. Support Was a little concerned with AFD participation, not necessarily the numbers, but the fact that well over half of his participation was in the last few months. Looked a little like building up numbers before an RFA. But a look at his older comments reassured me that he had enough experience and knowledge in this area to eventually close these if they so wish. Also his recent AFDs are not just pile ons to build up positive numbers, but early and reasoned responses. Participation in requested moves all looks good and having the tools would be very helpful to them here. Excellent content contributions, many in an area that needs more contributions. Nothing troublesome from a quick look through their talk page contributions either. AIRcorn (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

    I just looked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#Amakuru and lack of AFD participation was brought up. The dates coincide with their increase in AFD participation, so any concerns I had on this little anomaly are well and truely satisfied. AIRcorn (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

21. Support, see Precious on the user page, from July 2012, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
22. Support per the above and an honest/reasonable answer to the question about vandal fighting. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
23. Support Perhaps not as much boldness as we need from new admins, but editor seems reliable and unlikely to abuse the tools. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
24. Support: need for tools is perfectly valid; no significant concerns about how Amakuru would conduct themselves as an admin have been raised; in ten years of contributions to wikipedia they seem to have been a significant net good. Looking through Amakuru's talk page and some of their recent move closures, they appear to make good decisions, explain their reasoning well, and deal well with any concerns raised. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
25. Support. I almost never participate in RfA, but Amakuru is too good an admin candidate to pass up. Excellent article work, a strong focus on underrepresented areas, and work "backstage" tasks like WP:RM where there's a dearth of admin attention. Their non-admin closes are always sensible, and they're responsive when questions arise. I think Amakuru has demonstrated both good sense and a need for the tools, and I can't imagine him abusing them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
26. Support I fully expect a net positive if Amakuru is given the mop. Pichpich (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
27. Support Will put the mop to good use, and I see no indication that the candidate would abuse the tools. Miniapolis 22:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
28. Support Being unfamiliar with Amakuru, I spent a fair amount of time looking through his contributions and talk archives. I see someone with a long history of solid content contributions, who appears to be extremely fair and level-headed, and who I believe would benefit Wikipedia greatly if he were to become an administrator. One year ago, Wbm1058 lightheartedly created a new section on Amakuru's talk page recommending creation of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amakuru. Even back then, Amakuru's response was consistent with his answer to the "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?" RfA question, and this makes me confident that Amakuru both has a need for the administrator tools and will use them wisely. « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
29. Support per all the comments throughout -- interpersonal interactions by this editor are quite good. Its also useful to note the focus on WP:Systemic bias topics, means that we give the mop to someone working in areas we aren't very good at supporting and developing positive-- though Admin rights are not just a badge of honor -- for better or worse, they often can change the perception of editorss less versed in our community, Sadads (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
30. Easy decision, I only wish I wasn't so swamped IRL at the moment or I would have co-nominated. Amakuru is here for the right reasons as demonstrated by his great article writing, including several FAs. He has top communication skills – I have been impressed when interacting with the candidate at various discussions and when I have seen him respond to queries about closes they have made at RM. He has a strong understanding of RM and the relevant naming policies/guidelines, as has been demonstrated at the many individual RMs participated in and strong analyses of consensus at MRV. Additionally, RM is an area of the project that is currently crying out for more admin assistance. I am confident that it will be a huge positive to the project if Amakuru is given the admin toolkit. Jenks24 (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
31. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
32. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
33. Support User has been editing since Feb 2006 and has created over 324 articles.Is a clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
34. Support I normally insist on a fair amount of experience with AfD/CSD/PROD before I will hand someone the delete button. But in this case, the candidate's minimal experience in those areas is outweighed by the fact that he doesn't plan to focus on them, the clue he shows when he does get involved there, and his frank recognition of his limitations. He has a clean block log and seems to have a calm demeanor and excellent communication skills. I think it will benefit the 'pedia to give him a mop. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
35. Support with confidence, no issues or concerns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
36. (edit conflict) Strong Support – as a frequent participant at RM, I have seen Amakuru's expertise in that area. While I do not always agree with his opinions, he almost always reads consensus at RM discussions accurately. The RM backlog is almost perpetually long, and granting Amakuru the tools would allow him to perform RM closures more efficiently. SSTflyer 00:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
37. Support - absent a strong reason to oppose I'll typically support, and right now I don't see any strong reasons to oppose. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
38. Support - I'm with Banedon. I don't see any real reasons to oppose and Amakuru seems like they know what they're doing, so I think we can trust them with the tools. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
39. Support Longtime trustworthy user; I see no reason to expect that he'd misuse the tools. I figured that the oppose would be some petty "not enough edits in area X", but it's a solid "this person has given reason for us to question whether he'd use the tools properly". I respect the opposer's interpretation of that situation, but I have to agree with Ricky's statement that this is really the kind of situation in which we're encouraged to remove the POV tag. Someone who's been editing for ten years is bound to attract detractors if he's a problem-causer; the absence of a block log and the long track record mentioned above are evidence that he can be trusted to use the tools wisely. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
40. Support per nom. Seems like a solid candidate. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
41. Support - I'm liking the length of service, the talk page, the edit history, and many of the support rationales above. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
42. Support - I can see no reason why this user shouldn't be an admin, and we are in great need of more admins.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
43. Support per nomination. — Music1201 ^talk 02:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
44. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
45. Support. I don't really know this user, but I have seen him around a lot at WP:RM, a place in need of more administrators, and he seems sensible and well-balanced. Support per per Cúchullain and Jenks, two admins who would know. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
46. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
47. Support. Who doesn't appreciate more admins? ZoidXsa (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
48. Support - Exceeds my RFA standards. Mkdw^talk 05:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
49. Support Experienced and reasonable. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
50. Support - Wow, looks like this user is ready to become an admin. Good luck with the tools!! --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
51. Support - everything I am reading about this editor is positive and constructive. Ten years of committed, constructive service! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
52. Support Promising.Daniel Kenneth (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
53. Suport - Everything about Amakuru looks good. With 10 years under their belt, they certainly have no lack of experience. What I see from their contributions is a history of peaceful and civil interactions with other editors, which is a plus. Their work at Requested moves is excellent too, and we could use some more active admins there. I would also like to add that I was very impressed by your answers to my questions, especially question 11. Best of luck! — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 09:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
54. Suport - No red flags, overall a reasonable and steady editor who presents as a net positive for the project. Keri (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
55. Support. Commendable contributions and conduct, with a breadth of work including other wikis such as German wikipedia. I will be glad to share the toolbox with him. – Fayenatic London 10:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
56. Support Looks fine to me. Lack of CSD work is OK by me, as he works in RM. (I work in CSD but not RM...) Seems to have enough clue to broaden his scope if needed without causing problems. Peridon (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
57. Support as solid history of editing, 10 years editing, knows what he wants to focus on. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
58. We need to promote more newcomers, but I can't hold it against the candidate that he has more than 1 year experience and more than 3000 edits. —Kusma (t·c) 12:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
59. Support, I honestly thought he was already an admin. Graham87 12:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
60. Support. Amakuru would certainly benefit from access to the administrative toolset, he is helpful and civil when interacting with others, and he displays clear competence in his area of interest. /wiae /tlk 13:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
61. Support Amakuru passes most of my prerequisites in my standards. I'd like to see more involvement in conduct disputes (or even general Wikipedia namespace for that matter) and CSD work. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
62. Support. I took my time and reviewed the user's history along with the questions here, and all looks good to me. Give him the mop. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
63. Support. This is easy; one more good, drama-free user to help with requested moves and moves over redirects. If he does more, that'd be even better. If not, it's still a help. and 10-years here, suggests he's not going away. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
64. Support – happy to. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
65. Support. Clear need for tools and the worst thing anyone has found to oppose is the removal of a single POV tag according to policy. That's pretty shocking, really. ~ Rob^Talk 15:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
66. Exactly as per Cúchullain, Jenks, SSTflyer. Well deserved. Dohn joe (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
67. Oh, for sure. Seen him at RM and his dedication to getting moves done is great. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
68. Support. Long-time editor, track record of good work on discussions that lead to admin action, good responses to questions. Deryck C. 15:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
69. Support. Despite moving pages at de.wikipedia without having the slightest clue about Naming Conventions there. But because he apoligized for his mistake and my trust that he won't misuse his admin rights I support the request for adminship. --Gereon K. (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
70. Support. Appears to be a level-headed individual with a good record, and wants to use the admin tools for all the right reasons. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
71. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 17:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
72. Support I think you have what it takes. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
73. Support - based on review. Kierzek (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
74. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
75. Support but keep up the very good content creation. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
76. Support - I'm confident you'll be a competent admin. Cloudbound (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
77. Support - CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 21:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
78. Support Candidate's activities would clearly benefit from having the tools, and no concerns about misuse or improper behavior. Gap9551 (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
79. Support After a review of Amakuru's contributions, I think they will use the admin tools the way they're meant to be used. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
80. Joining the landslide as per Sadads, Nyttend, et al. Highly experienced editor who is working in undercovered content areas that need attention (Rwanda); RM could certainly use more admin hands, too. Recommend you branch out into CSD work, since backlogs can be troublesome there. GAB^Hello! 21:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
81. Support - I had the pleasure of working with Amakuru to maintain the Rwanda article's FA status last year (read: I identified some problems and then badgered Amakuru to fix them). This showed me that he is very good at content creation. As discussed below, perhaps he's a little soft on Kagame, but views on him are quite polarised and it's hard for anyone to stand above that debate. As for his other activities, yes, he may not get involved in AfDs very often, but I think this is made up for by his work with requested moves. Overall, I'm happy to support Amakuru's candidacy. I'm confident he will make an excellent admin. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
82. Support – Appears to understand the areas in which they plan on focusing their work. Best wishes.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
83. Support - I don't see an indication that they will abuse the tools. SQL^{Query me!} 21:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
84. Support as a solid long-time editor who appears ready, willing, and able to handle the tools. - Dravecky (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
85. Support -FASTILY 22:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
86. Stephen 22:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
87. Support - I like the idea of an admin that knows his niche and will fill it with vigor and experience. His focus will most likely help in an area of the encyclopedia that hasn't seen the "sweep" of a Janitors broom for awhile. Mop and bucket ASAP. Buster Seven Talk 23:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
88. Support: A user who has interest in doing the work and who has shown that they are qualified to do it. Well thought out answers to questions are a big plus.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
89. Support: I had a brief encounter with Amakuru in a move discussion, and he struck me as a cool-headed person with a calm demeanour. -Zanhe (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
90. Support We need more administrators with this high degree of competence and experience. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
91. Support Trustworthy and experienced candidate. He can easily branch out into other areas of admin activity like CSD/AFD, blocks, and protections as he gains more confidence with the mop. INeverCry 23:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
92. Support - Excellent answers to the questions posed above, and we definitely need more help at WP:RM. I note that the sole oppose vote (as of this time) is based on the removal of {{POV}} from Paul Kagame. However, I note that in the template's documentation page, a valid reason for removal is lack of continued discussion. As there had been literally no discussion in the 10 months that the template had been in place, I conclude that the removal was valid. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
93. Support. I have no interactions with this user but as a candidate seems to meet my informal requirements: ability, civility, reliability, industry. I like specialty as well. BusterD (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
94. Support - Thoughtful and measured candidate. Solid and patient approach to conflict and problem solving. Username is 57% awesome. Kuru (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
95. Support - content editor a plus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
96. Support - I've seen some of those pages. They're pretty good NightlyG (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
97. Support I am very impressed with the thoughtful and accurate answers that the candidate has given to the full range of questions. Significant contributions to our African content is also a plus for me. I see no real negatives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
98. Support, competent editor. Cavarrone 06:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
99. Support, based on interactions at move review, I fully support. PaleAqua (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The candidate has worked on the FA Paul Kagame. This person is [BLP violation removed] but the article puts it more diplomatically, "Kagame has a highly dominant personality, which he uses to enforce his rule and to ensure that his vision for the country is followed." There are multiple complaints on the talk page that the article is biased. Most recently, a {{POV}} tag was placed on the article. This stayed there for a while and then the candidate removed it without discussion. This worries me. Andrew D. (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

   The tag is dated May 2015, the only discussion is at Talk:Paul_Kagame#POV_2 and the editor points out the actual policy that it hasn't been discussed in 10 months. Doesn't removing it from a FA seem appropriate? The discussion does remain but it's a single reference to one CNN article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Just to clarify, that tag had been put up almost a year earlier [6] along with a new section on the talk page [7] - to which no one responded. User:Amakuru gave the reasons for removal in his edit summary [8]. Per the documentation at Template:POV, this decision was entirely correct. Bradv 17:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

   I should also point out that the assertion that [BLP violation removed] is not exactly something that a BLP article should be alleging, particularly the loaded word [removed], unless the sources leave absolutely no doubt that such is the case. Sources about Kagame are often quite polarised, some being excessively flattering, and others completely hostile, which makes writing a neutral article quite difficult, but I strove always to represent what the sources said in an unbiased manner. For the record, I have received some positive feedback on the article's neutral tone, for example here and here. The article covers the controversies surrounding him, including possible retribution killings, alleged human rights abuses, and the indictments from France and Spain. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

   What does any of this have to do with being an admin, though?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

   Admins often close discussions and, per WP:INVOLVED, are supposed to do this in an impartial way. In this case, the candidate removed the POV tag from the article on the supposed grounds that there had been no discussion. But this was not really true because there had been repeated attempts to start such discussion on the talk page. The candidate was not acting in an impartial way because they had an interest in the topic. Declining to discuss the substantive point but then acting on a technicality seems to be gaming the system. If they were an admin, they would have additional power to abuse such technicalities. Andrew D. (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

   Thank you, I can see that connection now, though I don't think Amakuru was in the wrong in this case.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

   I have removed the violations of WP:BLP. Editors are reminded that the policy applies equally to projectspace, except where truly necessary - it isn't here. See WP:BLPTALK. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

   If anything the removed text is a remarkably charitable description of Kagame, but I don't seem to be as hypersensitive to these things as the rest of the community... won't restore it, but it seems a bit much. I accept I'm a minority in this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

   I provided a selection of terms to indicate a range of opinion and it's easy to find sources to support this language such as the New York Times. Dweller's action provides a good example for 3family6 of how admin powers are not just a humble, uncontroversial matter of mopping. So far as I can see, the action was not based upon any discussion or consensus and it followed a recent difference of opinion with Dweller elsewhere. Kagame still has to stand for re-election but admins are appointed for life. That's why I am quick to oppose when I spot a problem; we don't get a second chance. Andrew D. (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose. --Masterwikia1 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this user's vote should probably be discounted, considering that they gave no reason for opposing, and this is only their second edit outside of their own userspace, the first being them randomly removing sources from an article without an edit summary. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral (leaning towards "support"). (Moved to "Support".) I'm neutral because I'm quite familiar with this editor's WP:NAC closes for page moves. They all seem to be proper, but as a non-admin closing WP:RMs to move that require a deletion, I probably would have steered clear. Reason being that WP:RMAI doesn't state anything specific in regards to a non-admin performing closes that require a page deletion, but WP:NACD states ...Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement. Since the nominee does not currently have the technical ability to implement their closing outcomes that require a page deletion, they technically violated WP:NACD on these closes by utilizing the technical move request board and/or WP:G6 (page needs to be deleted to move another page) tags. For this reason, it makes me wonder if the nominee would circumnavigate policy condradictions in other ways as well, and for that reason, I cannot support, but I'm not leaning either way leaning towards "support". Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(Struck out statement regarding WP:RMAI which was proven otherwise.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(Attempted to clarify that I'm leaning towards "support".) Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Steel1943: I think the above text refers to non-admins closing deletion discussions. For RM, a non-admin is expressly permitted to close as moved, even in cases where they are unable to carry out the move. From WP:RMNAC: Where a move is not technically possible without administrative intervention, non-admins are permitted to close the discussion and then tag the redirect with db-move. They may also file a technical move with a link to the closed discussion. If the instructions forbade me from closing those, then I wouldn't have done so. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response Amakuru. I guess I hadn't seen that section for some reason: As a non-admin who performs discussion closes from time-to-time myself, I, was more or less, going by my historical knowledge of these pages' instructions. To illustrate, see this edit where text was added stating that closes that require deletions not be performed by non-admins (but is then contradicted later in the text on that diff's page version), and see this edit about 8 months later where that information was essentially reverted. Oddly enough, I tried to look through the talk pages of RM for the instructions, and I could not find any definite discussion stating that WP:RM is excluded from WP:NACD. Either way, you may be in the right to do what you have been doing, but as I stated previously, whether doing those closes is "right or wrong" depends on whether a non-admin chooses to follow WP:RMAI or WP:NACD but not both since they contradict each other, as well as depends on which one someone else looking at your actions chooses to follow since, again, WP:RMAI and WP:NACD contradict each other. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Moved to the talk page if you wish to continue the discussion. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• Note I was just checking Amakuru's AfD contributions, and I noticed that the tool actually gets one of them wrong; Amakuru was actually the nominator for this discussion, and his stats are better than the tool makes them out to be. Given the importance many people grant to activities around deletion, this might be important to note. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to post the same comment. Moreover, the article Hervin Ongenda was deleted at AfD (against Amakuru's advice to keep it) but recreated shortly thereafter and it's now clear that it belongs. Note also that the tool fails to classify Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uzham (Amakuru !voted delete, article was deleted but draftified) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Bell (footballer, born 1923) (still ongoing but will clearly be closed as keep, which follows Amakuru's !vote). With a relatively small sample, I think it's important to note that Amakuru's AfD stats are better than what the tool reports. Pichpich (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yikes! I'll push an update to the tool that makes it recognize "Draftify" as a synonym for "Userfy". As for that false nom of Timothy Ming, looking at the tool's logs, the unsigned template above Amakuru's comment was formatted in a screwy way, making the tool think that the entire thing - from the beginning of India89's !vote to Amakuru's sig - was one large vote. Hope this helps. APerson (talk!) 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, should be fixed now. APerson (talk!) 02:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)