Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Titodutta

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Titodutta[edit]

Final (139/6/4) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 19:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Titodutta (talk · contribs) – I am proud to present to you Titodutta as a candidate for adminship. Tito has been contributing to Wikipedia for almost four years, and has proven himself to be a dedicated member of the community. Tito's main area of contributions is to Indian articles. He brought Swami Vivekananda to Good Article status, and he has an impressively long list of DYKs, many of them also related to Vivekananda. That is no coincidence; Tito was one of the founders of WikiProject Swami Vivekananda, and has created many articles about him for a celebration of the 150th anniversary of his birth. Tito writes about all sorts of Indian topics, though, not just that one. To see what I mean, just take a look through his impressively long list of new articles; as of today, there are 527 of them.

Tito is not just an article writer, but an article reviewer as well. He has quite a few Good Article reviews under his belt, for example Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/GA2, Talk:Independence Day (India)/GA1 and Talk:Independence Day (Pakistan)/GA1. He is also a well-known face at WikiProject India, with 343 edits to Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics. His interests also extend to editor retention; he was a regular reviewer at Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations before it moved to Meta, and he has adopted quite a few newer users. Not to mention that he single-handedly created this user award page.

He is also not shy of contributing to admin areas. Tito has extensive recent page patrol experience with STiki and Huggle - he is number 59 on the STiki leaderboard, with 6426 uses. He also has 147 edits to RFPP, and the AfD comments of his that I checked all showed sound reasoning with a clear base in deletion policy. On top of all this, he is unfailingly civil, and very helpful to new users. I think he would do very well as an admin, and we certainly need more admins who work in India-related topics. I hope you will join me in giving him your support. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Strike Eagle

I'm quite glad to co-nominate Tito for adminship. Mr. Stradivarius has given a rather clear picture of Tito but I would try my best to mention anything he has forgotten. Titodutta is clearly the most civil user I have seen here for years. He never gets into battleground mentality, no matter how heated the discussion gets. He is a great content writer which is readily evident from his staggering 98 DYKs, a GA and 527 articles! For those suffering with editcountitis, he has more than 67k edits too! Tito comes first in editor retention and promoting wikilove, inline with his civil behavior. Tito is a regular attender to the real-life events too. I was really taken aback by the way he called me and requested me to attend a recent conference, all with his own resources. I guess 99% of us wouldn't do that and that shows his dedication towards the project.

On the admin front, Tito is an ardent anti-vandalism fighter using STiki and Twinkle. He has quite a lot of edits to RPP among others. He is very helpful at the WikiProject India noticeboard and works hard to get everything solved by consensual discussion rather than trying to impose seniority and authority to get things done. Among others, he has (co)nominated two users ([1] [2]) for RfA, both being successful. All in all, I think Tito is one of the most civil users around, something which has become almost extinct here. He has enough experience in the admin domain and I think he would make a great admin. We surely need more admins to work in the Indian space and I think Tito perfectly fits in the role. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Antanana

Hello there. First of all, alas, but I am not an active contributor to English Wikipedia. I have my hands full with contributing to Ukrainian Wikipedia and other projects, but I am a really active (and thoroughly dedicated) reader of English Wikipedia. And I would like the project to grow and develop. And be clean ;) (as an administrator of Ukrainian Wikipedia I do know what I am talking about. and keeping a project clean-and-shiny requires a lot of dedication). The user was the reason I had watched a Bengali-language film (to create an article about the film by the user's request ;). I do believe that it was one of the wikiwonders, as I cannot think of any sound reason for me in my real life to watch a Bengali-language film (I adore books actually). This quality of motivating people met by chance, cross-project, cross-language is just really fascinating. and though day-by-day administrator's duties are not that fancy, it can help. to keep going on. thus I would believe in the user and give him a chance to find out for himself whether this role really fits him and whether he can do more for the project he likes. best, --アンタナナ 19:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Mr. Stradivarius. I accept this nomination. Regards. --Tito☸Dutta 09:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks Strike Eagle and Antanana for your support. I accept these. --Tito☸Dutta 19:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I want to start with page protection and requested move-related works. Then I'll focus in areas such as redirects for discussion, categories for discussion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. There are not too many active administrators on the India noticeboard. Sometimes we need admin tools there. A year ago, I was inviting admins to join this board and help us. I'll try to serve this noticeboard. I'll participate in WP:ANI and WP:AN discussions too.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Online activities I have been mainly working in India-related articles. Some of my best contributions to Wikipedia—
Offline activities
  • I have attended a few real-life events of Wikimedia India, including 2014 Wikimedia India conference, Bengali Wikipedia 10 years celebration
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 in conflicts over editing several times.
  • Most of these conflicts or disagreements were easy to handle. Firstly I try to talk to the user(s), either on article talk or user's talk page and try to reach a consensus.
  • Sometimes these conflicts are really complicated. For example the Asaram Bapu- BLP issue (see talk page discussions too). This issue was taken to administrator's noticeboard twice (or thrice probably). Someone informed Jimbo Wales about the discussion. He came and his edit was reverted too. It was one of the most difficult debates I have participated in.
    A similar example is disruptive edits at India against corruption and related articles.
When disagreement occurs, I try to stay calm and relaxed. I also try to watch my words. And the most important thing, I always prefer policy-based arguments. Thanks.
Additional questions from DGG
4 Have you ever worked with articles from students in school classes? Please comment on any special concerns in dealing with such articles.
A: Thank you for your question. No, I have not worked with articles from students in school classes. Someone from WMF or Wikimedia India mailed me last year and requested me to conduct few workshops. At that time I failed to co-operate there because of real life difficulties and other issues. From September-October (2014), I have started attending real-life events of Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia India. Currently I am trying to work on a project, where I may need to conduct a few workshops in schools and colleges.
Now, let me answer the second part of your question: last December (2014), I attended a conference where I represented Wiki(m/p)edia India. There I was in charge of the Wikipedia help (question/answer) desk. Obviously many people (students. teachers etc.) came to us and asked many questions. There I noticed that most of these people do not know about Wikipedia policy. There people/students/teachers asked/complained to me "your Wikipedia have wrong information about our college/school?" "Why don't you write an article on our "this" professor or teacher, he teaches very well?" Just on 9-10 January (2015) when I was attending Bengali Wikipedia 10th anniversary conference, a few guys were asking me about creating an article on their University's printing department.
Now, these two events were "eye-openers" for me. I witnessed that the moment you start explaining things to them (for example, "this" and "this" are Wikipedia notability criteria etc. Or "we need "these" references" to create an article on your professor), they also start co-operating with you. So, from these events, I learned— a) I must be patient and listen to other party's arguments without becoming annoyed or anxious b) I should try my best to explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines to them in simple words.
I'll try follow these things in future (but of course, I'll not encourage vandalism). Regards.
Followup Did anyone ask you about anything relating to copyright or copyvio? (that's a hint) DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: Thanks for following up and giving the hint. Sorry for delay in replying. For more than last 3 hours I am trying to concentrate on your this question and the hint. There are so many discussions both on-wiki and off-wiki, that I am facing some difficulties to follow your hint. Here are few recent on-wiki discussions/messages or copyright a) Wikimedia Commons related question, b) a message form Article for creation team. c) I have talked to my admin coach many times on copyright related topics, d) recently in a real-life Wikimedia event, one or two college students asked me copyright-related questions (eg. what will be copyright status of my image if I upload on Wikipedia?). Regards.
  • Add: and yes one more thing, I have started feeling that copyright problems are a common issue when dealing with students. I have seen it on Wikipedia where school or college students want to create/expand their school/college website and copies content from their school website or somewhere else. In real-life, I haven't dealt with any such student. Regards.
5. Could you comment on your AfD keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INSZoom (2nd nomination). Do you consider all the sources you mentioned there suitable to support notability?
A: Frankly speaking, that was one of my worst votes in AFD ever. In 2013, when I participated in this discussion, I was not aware of the difference between "independent news articles" and "press release". At the same time, I was working on an Indian English newspaper search tool and WP:INDAFD etc. No, press-release or self-promotions should not be considered as reliable refs. (Most probably) I was over-enthusiastic at that time. I did my studies (later) and I promise I'll be careful in future. Regards.
Additional question from Iaritmioawp
6. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?
A: (Firstly, although you have not mentioned, let's consider those 4 votes are not sock/SPA votes), now in such situation a) if I find only one editor is making policy-based arguments, and all others are just talking unnecessarily, (following what I was doing so far), I'll try to get involved in that discussion and support that editor's policy-based arguments with more points (of course as an involved editor, I'll not be able to close it then, there are many more admins who can close the discussion), b) now, suppose I am not permitted to to get involved in the discussion, I'll definitely not close the discussion immediately, and will encourage those four editors to try to reply to "editor 1"'s comments/arguments. I'll also inform related noticeboards about this discussion so that experienced editors from the project come and check the discussion (on WikiProject India noticeboard, we get such requests). I may also ask other experienced admins or go to WP:AN to get suggestions c) now, suppose (for some reason), there is not a single active admin on En WP, and there is not a single active noticeboard or WP:3O too (I really can not think about it, and hopefully this will never happen), and I am the only admin and I must close the discussion immediately, after carefully studying all points (I need an example here) I'll either close the discussion as "no consensus" or I'll close it in favour of editor 1, the only editor who was making policy based arguments. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Of course, I'll try my best to write a detailed and clear statement while closing the discussion. Regards.
Additional question from Samwalton9
7. Could you discuss a time when you have been swayed from your original opinion to another during a discussion or dispute?
A: Yes, the most important one I can remember now is this (Feroze Gandhi section). They provided some good references, and I conceded. (later I filed an application to the Central Government of India under Right to Information Act. They have informed me that this needs detailed study, and I am invited to their National Archive of India, Delhi. I have not attended it still). If someone convinces me that my points are wrong or my knowledge on some topic are incomplete, I'll gladly change my opinion.
Additional question from HJ Mitchell
8. You and two of your nominators are all at pains to stress your "civility", perhaps just because it's flavour of the month at RfA, but I'm wondering if you've ever encountered a situation in which it was impossible to get your point across and be nice? Can you provide an example of dealing with a particularly intransigent or tendentious editor? And where do you draw the line between being nice and feeding trolls?
A: Hello, the worst one is surely the IAC dispute. On one hand some of them were continuously harassing (including real-life harassments) us and making legal threats against us every now and then, on the other hand some of them were expecting that I would help them to rewrite the article (there is no consensus to do so). Please see Sitush's comment after Support #24. I do not know about those WMF activities or legal activities.
About drawing a line between being nice and feeding trolls — if someone follows guidelines and policies — they'll find me as one of they best friends they can have on Wiki. If they try to vandalize Wiki, they'll find me reverting their edits, giving them warnings, reporting against them. (I try not to personally attack anyone). We should not feed trolls.
Additional question from Dirtlawyer1
9. Hey, Titodutta. You have a strong track record of work and accomplishment, and barring any unforeseen issues, I intend to support your candidacy. That having been said, I would like to gain some additional insight into your thinking. You wrote above that one of the areas in which you would like to work as an administrator is AfD. Your overall AfD record is solid, and has improved over time. Could you provide some insight into how your understanding of the concept of notability has evolved over the last three years? Can you briefly discuss the relationship between specific notability guidelines and the general notability guidelines? And, finally, in addition to the notability of a list subject, can you briefly discuss some of the factors that you would use to evaluate the suitability of a list topic for inclusion. Thanks and good luck.
A: Hello Dirtlawyer1, a) I think, I'll not start my works with AFD closures. In answer #1, I mentioned AFD-works at the end. I'll follow the same order that I have mentioned. I have read "Cautious support" suggestion of Glrx (support #32). Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to gain more experience before closing AfDs.
b) in the last 3-4 years, I have become more familiar with various Wikipedia notability guidelines and other policies. In 2011, I had little or no idea about any Wikipedia notability guidelines, in 2012–2013 I read about WP:BKCRIT, WP:NACTOR, WP:BLPFAMILY etc. In April 2013, I did not have enough knowledge on press release or promotional newspaper coverages, then after an AFD discussion I learned about it. By participating in discussions, talking to others or reading something, I am getting more and more experienced. Things are mainly changing in that way.
c) the general notability guidelines WP:GNG page attempts to explain the concept of "notability" in brief and in general (however that is the central page to assess any subject's notability). Now it is not possible to explain everything in a paragraph (or a page), that's why we have special notability guidelines (WP:SNG). SNG do not contradict WP:GNG, but try to explain the same points (or additional but similar points) with much more details and examples and in a subject-specific way. For example, notability criteria of numbers, that is a specific notability guideline, but explains things much more clearly and specifically.
d) "list-topic": a name or entry may be included in a list if it is important to the subject, its relationship with the subject is well-established and well-sourced, and (preferable, but not mandatory) the entry itself follows general notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Red-links may also be included in a list with support of reliable sources (I have seen school/college alumni lists or notable people form any city-related lists often require clean-up and attention).
If a new list article is created, that must follow Wikipedia's content policies such as WP:GNG, WP:Verifiability, WP:NOT (specially WP:NOTDIR). I just can not go ahead and create an article List of people who voted in User:Titodutta's Wikipedia RFA
Thank you for your good wishes. Regards.
Additional question from Ritchie333
10. I'm concerned that your talk page has {{user health inactive}} and {{Off and On WikiBreak}} at the top. As you say yourself, you have become involved in difficult debates on ANI with long-term POV pushers. Are you worried that becoming an admin will put a target on your back and lead to burnout and stress? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A:Thanks for you concerns and kindness. I have removed this banner now. Yes, this may happen, but a) I do not have any fixed target or goal here. I'll try my best to improve this project, that's all b) (thankfully) now I know the importance of Wikibreaks, if I just can not handle Wikistress anymore, I'll go for a short Wikibreak. Wikipedia will not stop if I take a Wikibreak, but it'll help me a lot and c) most importantly, right at this moment this RFA discussion is giving me a lot of strength. I do hope that the "admin" status and the responsibilities and respect associated with it, will make me more powerful to face such difficult situations and encourage me to do continue doing (good?) works. Hope for the best.
Additional question from Shirt58
11. An article is listed for speedy deletion. Its content is "the Yellowknife Journal-Gazette is comunty nwspapper in Canda my mom writes 4 it LOL". How would you deal with this?
A: I have been a member of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. If I find an article that can kept on Wikipedia by doing copyedits or adding references, I'll try to do so. For example Adhisaya Ulagam was nominated for deletion twice, MichaelQSchmidt and I worked and that became a DYK article. That was a joy for us. I can give you more examples if you want.
CSD criteria? Anyway, the last part of it my mom writes 4 it LOL needs to be removed immediately. That has no encyclopedic value. Now— Yellowknife is the capital city of Northwest Territories, Cananda. The newspaper must be related to it. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Here I can not find too many web or news sources discussing "Yellowknife Journal-Gazette". I have found that there is a newspaper called Yellowknifer — it is a community newspaper, published from Yellowknife, NWT, Canada. I feel this might be the same newspaper, but I have not found anything that clearly mentions "Yellowknife Journal-Gazette" is an alternative name of "Yellowknifer". There is another paper "Yellowknife Journal", published from Canada. But I can find only one mention about it (and can not access the content). So probably I should ask someone who knows about Canadian newspapers or magazines. Reading those two lines and after doing some studies, I feel currently the article has some content to identify the subject but lacks sufficient context and there is no indication of importance too. And if I am unsure I feel it is a good alternative to send the article AfD for further opinions.
If I find similar articles, I'll follow the same procedure. (However I was not planning to work in CSD area in near future). Regards
I'm a little confused by your answer here. By saying "lacks sufficient context" and "no indication of importance", does that mean you would consider speedy deleting the article (or nominating it as such)? If so, which criteria would you use? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: No, I'll not speedily delete this article. a), currently I am not planning to work in CSD area, and then b) if I have to nominate the article for deletion, I'll make basic copyedit (typo fix, formatting fix, wording) and will send the article to AFD for discussion. Regards.
Additional question from Biblioworm
12. Will you have an admin recall process? If so, do you have any idea what your criteria would be? (I feel that admin accountability is very important, and I plan to ask every candidate this question.)
A: Hello, yes, I like the process. I was checking User:Lar/Accountability and User:TParis/Recall. I need to think before I can tell you exact criteria and process. But, most probably initially I'll allow anyone (anyone with a registered account) to initiate a request or start an RFC. If majority of people participating in that RFC feel that my adminship eligibility needs to be re-assessed, I'll follow their decision (sock and SPA votes will not be counted). Regards.
Additional question from Jim Carter
13. While I totally support you, but it looks like some people opposes candidates for baseless reasons. So I want to know your opinion on "Is RfA a broken process?"
A: Hello, I feel, a more important question is— do we have any better alternative? I personally do not know any. RFA may not be a perfect procedure, but it is not a broken one either. Regards.
Additional question from Stfg
14. Hi Titodutta. I need to press you a bit on your answer to Q11. I know you've said you don't plan to handle CSD for the time being, but you're requesting tools that allow you to eventually. So:
  1. I nominate the article for CSD under criterion A1, pointing out that there is no Yellowknife Journal-Gazette, but there exist the following "Yellowknife Journal"s: (a) a book by Jean Steinbruck; (b) a blog' (c) a column in the New York Times (example). Therefore I claim that the article doesn't give enough information to identify the topic. How do you handle this nomination?
  2. Instead, I nominate it under criterion A7. How do you handle this one?
  3. Why AfD rather than PROD?
  4. I couldn't find the "Yellowknife Journal" newspaper you said exists but couldn't access the content. Could you provide the link, please?
A: Hello, a) it has some context to identify the subject. I don't think it clearly qualifies for WP:A1. So I would not delete under it.
b) It is about a company, and companies may come under A7. Is being a community newspaper a credible claim of importance? — there I was trying to concentrate. c) AFD and not PROD because — in the PROD process, I can not say that someone or the article writer will surely contest it and will provide sources within 1 week. My aim here was to get second/community opinion.
d) The first article of this search page mentions it. I could open the page properly. Regards.
Additional question from MelanieN
15. Tito, I have already supported you and I think you will be a great administrator. I would like to ask you a question that was asked on my RfA: "If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?" Feel free to ignore this question. It's just a chance for you to "soapbox" a little, if you wish.
A: For the last few days I have been (thinking about/missing) someone, so I'll talk on it here (too). WikHead (talk · contribs) has been (I'll not say "was") a very good Wiki-friend and Wiki-mentor of mine. He made more than 100,000 edits on this English Wikipedia. In late 2012 he told me— "Thank you for your kind words and thoughtfulness Tito. It comes as encouragement at a time when my wiki-energy seems to be running a bit low." He was thinking to take an extended Wikibreak at that time. For more than 2 years, he has not made a single edit. I have tried to contact him several times (see A, B) and count emails too. I have not got any response. I am feeling seriously uncomfortable now as his last edit was on my talk page. I wanted to see this guy as my RFA nominator. And today I am here, and I have just no idea that where my brother is.
Wikipedians are going missing everyday. Or they are just retiring. User:Qwyrxian could not tolerate off-wiki harassment and retired. He was desysoped on this 12 Jan due to inactivity. Sitush sir was considering retirement too. This desysoping was alright. I am not talking about Sitush sir's edits or contributions either, but, sometimes these things are really painful.
There is a project called editor retention. They "address existing difficulties, the ever-changing needs of the general community". If you want to me to change or improve one thing about Wikipedia, my answer will definitely be— (please do not consider it an advertisement), I want to see people giving more importance and care to such projects and initiatives. To me, this "Editor retention" is one of the most important part of the entire Wikipedia, and we all must be much more alert, careful and supportive. Let's encourage more and more editors to participate and work here.
WMF is doing good works. I expect to see more activities and initiatives like WP:GIVEAWAY.
I know that this RFA is not the right place to propose something new. It is also not the best place to suggest new activities related to "Editor retention". But, I have experienced "off-wiki harassment", "on-wiki harassment" "disappearance of my own closest Wiki-friends" and all these things. I know where the shoe pinches. Regards.
Additional question from Ottawahitech
16. (sorry for asking so late in the game) Are AfDs with little or no discussion a problem in your opinion? If yes, what can be done to improve the situation? If not, how should those AFDs be closed?
A: In my opinion, yes, AfDs with little or no discussion may be problematic (specially if you don't know about the subject). If there is no/unclear consensus, the discussion may be relisted for further discussion. Currently we generally do not relist a debate more than twice. In between, related WikiProject noticeboards may be informed about the discussion. And even after relisting the debate twice, there is little or no discussion and there is no clear consensus either, the debate may be closed as "no consensus".
In a deletion debate, if I find that I strongly support/oppose the nominator's rationale, but there is no discussion at all, I'll try to participate in the debate and cast a vote, so that determining consensus becomes easier. What can be done to improve the situation? — three suggestions— a) continue appreciating the editors who are regularly participating in AFD debates, b) encourage more editors to participate in AFD debates, c) highlight Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting more on WikiProjects' main pages and noticeboards (for example there is a deletion sorting (India), but when you go to WikiProject India noticeboard, you find no link or mention there). Regards.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support As co-nominator. Surely deserves the mop. Pretty sure would be one of the most civil and friendly admins around. ƬheStrikeΣagle 19:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 20:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Absolutely yes.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per Mr. Strad's nomination -- no reason to think they will misuse the tools. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support — Long overdue. Kurtis (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to add that I don't see anything wrong with his answer to Q11. If anything, it shows that he'll be very cautious about deleting articles that may or may not be salvageable in some form or another, and will seek outside opinions before acting in cases that aren't so obvious. My inclination would probably be to make the same revisions as he has suggested so that the article sounds more encyclopedic in tone, then I'd search for possible citations, and in this particular case I'd replace the CSD tag with a PROD tag. But there's nothing inherently wrong with what Tito would do, and no harm will come of him not acting decisively. Kurtis (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support of course! :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support diligent and helpful; strong knowledge of policy. Ijon (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support—Sensible, level-headed editor. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No evidence they abuse the tools or position. Caution in use of either on India related articles to avoid COI.--MONGO 20:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. support as a co-nominator. a friendly and well-mannered user. I believe he can help with cleaning up ;) --アンタナナ 20:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I have complete confidence in Tito's dedication, competence, knowledge, and demeanor. He'll make a great admin. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I have interacted with Tito a lot over the last few years, mostly but not entirely with regard to India-related matters. I wholeheartedly endorse the statements in Mr. Strad's nomination. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Because Titodutta is so all-round and prolific and checks all my boxes, I had to look a lot more to see if there were any reasons I might wish to be more cautious about !voting 'support'. Naturally I didn't find any. What I did find however, is that it is almost essential for Titodutta with his knowledge of the Indian sub continent and its culture, to be an admin on en.Wiki. There's a lot of work waiting for him. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support kind and friendly user, my interactions with the user were splendid! ///EuroCarGT 21:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - I see no obvious problems. Arfæst! 21:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support (edit conflict × 2) This editor greatly exceeds most of my RFA standards. Mkdwtalk 21:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support obviously. --Stfg (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Moved to oppose. --Stfg (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support Polite, but persevering, Tito is well respected in the world of India articles (no mean task that!) and is, as Kudpung says, almost an essential addition to the admin corps because of his level headedness and his knowledge of the Indian subcontinent. --regentspark (comment) 21:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support — sparklism hey! 21:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support, helpful, useful, highly competent editor. I'd support Tito in any case, but specifically we need more admins who are knowledgeable wrt Indian topics, per Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  20. Support Probably doesn't know much about gaming or synchronised swimming, but if he knows about Indian films that'll do nicely. A lot more polite than I am, but gets his message over well. And it's the right message... Peridon (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I've known Tito since he first started. I've had the pleasure of working with him in various activities off Wikipedia. The thing that most stands out about his work on and off Wikipedia is also what will make him a good admin, his temperament. He has a great demeanor, is polite, mellow, level-headed and is always calm. Bgwhite (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Tito's dedication to wikipedia, vast experience, and civil conduct will assuredly make him a good admin, as the nominators and supporters point out. In addition, I'd like to highlight two other qualities of Tito's that I have observed over the years: (1) his coordination and cajoling abilities (which both User:Antanana and I can attest to) that have for example helped in building the Swami Vivekananda project; and (2) his being pro-actively helpful in guiding users even in relation to articles Tito doesn't have a prior interest in, as can be seen for example in his participation at India noticeboard. These qualities will make him an even more effective admin, and I look forward to him gaining the bit. Abecedare (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - I'm interested in (but not concerned about) the nominee's decline in activity over the last 18 months from a high this time two years ago. I have no doubt he will be a good admin, regardless of the amount of time he has to commit to administrative activities, just curious. St★lwart111 22:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of the decline, which is pretty irrelevant to RfA given the general activity, probably relates to WP:LTA/IAC. If you want more information then you may well have to turn to email, I think. There is an ongoing situation and it is not one of Titodutta's making. He is one of the good guys and it falls under the "defender of the wiki" banner, although for legal reasons much of it should not be discussed here. I'm happy to fill in some of the gaps via email but I can't reveal all and I doubt that WMF would reveal as much as I might. That he, like me, pretty much put his real life on the line should be a positive, not a negative. My apologies for sounding so mysterious but much of this has gone on through entirely acceptable and necessary backchannels and I think that WMF will at least acknowledge that point even if their hands are otherwise tied. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More than sufficient. I was aware of some of the issues, but I wasn't aware of the broader impact. Certainly not to the extent that it impacted on editing capacity like that. I also don't think its relevant, except to say that anyone who still seeks to volunteer is worthy of our support. St★lwart111 05:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Tito was very helpful when I was a new user, and I am confident that he will use the admin tools responsibly. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Stephen 23:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support He is exactly the kind of admin we need. He is an all-around contributor with strong experience in articles, files, and projects - very much here to build an encyclopedia. He has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to work collaboratively with others. He works in an area where admins are scarce. And I totally trust him with the tools. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Overdue for the mop. Miniapolis 23:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I'll echo Sitush: Titodutta is indeed one of the good guys. I have found them willing to listen and to learn, and to be pretty even-keeled. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - NQ (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support have overall positive impressions of them from their work on India related articles. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 01:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Cautious support. Saying AfD in Q1 makes me look at AfDs, but there were only 7 in 2014; not a good sign. Looking at the conflicts gave me further pause because args were weak or non-existent on policy; there were some appropriate sounding withdrawls. I saw the INSZoom with its prweb sources and stopped looking; to me, it's close to a fatal mistake but can be saved with a Q. DGG framed Q5 appropriately, the answer hits, so I'll support -- but get more experience before closing AfDs. The as yet unanswered Q6 is also appropriate, but it's a softball. Glrx (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Good luck. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support; whenever our paths have crossed, I've seen Titodutta working tirelessly on tough problems; I think the mop would be in safe hands. bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support fine editor. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Big support Very good member. He is very encouraging and even when he is discussing the article disputes he knows how to respond and how much is relevant. He can suggest a solution that won't put your work at risk. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, excellent work on India articles, a tricky topic field where tensions sometimes run hot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Welcoming nature and polite even in offline events and activities AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support No issues. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. support no problems. Jianhui67 T★C 07:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Has come along way in the last 3-6 months, definitely ready for the mop. Wield it well :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I was waiting for this RfA.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Yep. Someone with Tito's knowledge of India related topics able to wield a mop will be a great asset to the project.  Philg88 ♦talk 11:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Thanks for volunteering. Ben Moore (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Going by his contributions, seems to be an excellent candidate. EthicallyYours! 11:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Jim Carter 12:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Very good editor, possess good knowledge of policies. Dedicated person. -sarvajna (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - I see decent contributions and conversations. Long term good editor. - Taketa (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Candidate has a strong record of cautious incremental learning, asking questions, seeking advice, and listening to others. What he doesn't know, he will learn before launching into new areas. He's not going to break the wiki, and his calm personality and demeanor is exactly what we need in some of the more volatile subject areas of the project in which he works. I feel as warm and fuzzy about Titodutta as I have ever have about any given RfA candidate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - I have looked through Titodutta's contributions but I can't find anything that suggests he's not a level headed editor with a track record for staying calm in disputes, willing to help others and contributing to both content and administrative areas, particularly for India-related topics which we badly need. There are a number of highlights, but for me this one sums up the attitude I like. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. No issues at all. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support was Weak Support was Support - I trust the judgment of the nominators and several of the supporters. Answers to questions look really good. Spot checks of contributions look good. Seems like a definate positive to have as an admin. PaleAqua (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not fully satisfied with the answers to Q11 and Q14 to be honest. Hence weakening my support slightly mostly as a suggestion to go very slow in the area of speedy deletions. PaleAqua (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I really like the answer to 15 and I think that many of the concerns about two few RfAs are actually because of that issue.. And while I do have a small amount of concerns related to a part of the answer to 11 and 14. I do appreciate the research for example, just don't think that the mom works there lol sentence is a good start point and doesn't clarify which possible subject it would be so better to start from scratch. But I think that Titodutta won't misuse the tools so my weakening really doesn't make sense, and their are enough opposes that in effect urge caution anyways. PaleAqua (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - good record at AfD, CSD (well, except A10 nominations that should've just been redirected ... but why do we even have an A10 criterion??? Not entirely their fault.) Writes articles. Spot check of edit history reveals no concerns. WilyD 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because a lot of them are just a capitalisation difference or a greatly extended version of the title, neither of which will help in searching. Peridon (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're an admin, check out this A10 - should I have done anything different? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are a very, very small number of valid A10s, but 95+% are invalid (for instance, see Peridon's comment, neither of which is suitable for A10, and are often kept at RfD), and the remaining few could probably qualify as G2/G6 (such as your example, which must've been created in error). In any event, Titodutta made multiple bad A10 nominations - but life goes on. WilyD 22:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - I have every expectation this well-rounded, level-headed editor will be a well-rounded, level headed admin. No concerns, thank you for running. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. You dealt with those loonies? And you want to do more thankless tasks? Support. I wish I could tell you that loonies lie that were rare. It's unusual that you get them that persistent, that prolific, and that nasty, but sadly trolls who are two of the three pop up every day and those who tick all three boxes are not as rare as you might hope. Just remember that AGF if not a suicide pact and I'm sure you'll be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support No concerns, I'm sure the candidate will make a great admin. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 17:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I've often come across posts from Titodutta at e.g. WP:VPT - if it's a request for assistance, it's always a sensible one, and I help where I can. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support A doughty fighter for Wikipedia, an all-rounder, and an initiator who has started 141 new topics on pages in WP namespace: Noyster (talk), 19:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support 67,735 edits 99% with summary, no wonder I keep seeing your name everywhere.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 19:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Looks like a solid candidate with no red flags that I can discern. Regards the sole Oppose !vote I will make two brief observations. The bulk of the oppose comment is directed at the article Swami Vivekananda and appears to be a content dispute. I note however that the article has been around since at least the early 2000s and has been edited thousands of times by numerous editors. It has passed review to obtain GA status. This seems to suggest that the concerns expressed are inconsistent with consensus. The other issue raised was the use of the Indian flag as a significant part of the candidate's signature. The apparent inference being that any display of affection for one's country makes one a nationalist and is a disqualifier from adminship. I find the arguments presented thus far in opposition to be unconvincing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :), (BTW quick note - unlike the opposer below I actually like your signature – It's different & well unique .) –Davey2010Talk 21:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I have seen the candidate's work and have been impressed not only by its quality but by the range of contributions. Wikipedia certainly needs administrators with his background and with the ability to review Indian articles with some familiarity with the topics. I agree with Ad Orientem's analysis of the oppose vote. While such concerns might arise in some cases, I believe the examples do not support them as to this candidate. I am not concerned that the candidate is a POV pusher. Also, the candidate appears to have a good demeanor, which is an important trait for an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support —Frosty ☃ 22:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Gaff (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Great Wikipedian, fantastic all-rounder. And, no, the signature is of no concern to me. Orphan Wiki 23:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Will clearly be a welcome addition to the admin team. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. For me, this is one of those "though-they-were-already" situations. Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support – In the days of editors forgetting about the actual content of articles and more on processes, and some editors forgetting to be civil, your article work is impressive, and you have managed to stay civil in the most heated disputes. Support. HelloThereMinions t 00:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Impressed by the candidate's work at DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support No obvious concerns. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. No concerns at all, and very glad to see you running. - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support with enthusiasm! Wikipedia needs more editors like you! Intelligent, civil-minded content editors with knowledge of South Asian-related topics. Happy to have you aboard. -- Ϫ 02:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Rschen7754 03:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I thought a Mop was already in their hands LorTalk 03:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support No concerns. Another excellent candidate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Fully qualified and highly sensible. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support I have seen Tito work on India-related articles. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support While I don't believe I've ever met Tito personally, my research shows a top-notch Wikipedia who deserves the buttons. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - I don't see any issues. Give it a go. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 07:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support a strong candidate with knowlege and experience in dealing with a topic area that presents many problems, give this guy a mop asap! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support JimRenge (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support a well qualified candidate, no concerns. Bellerophon talk to me 10:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support: the longer comments above sum up my reasons. I'm a self-described speedy deletion grump, and your answer to my question neatly sums up the thorough research I would expect of someone who has access to deletion. (If I may be so vain, it also neatly sums up my own thought processes when I assess a speedy deletion request.) As Kabuki aficionados shout from the audience, "待っていました!" ("I've been waiting for this!") Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Well-rounded editor; lone oppose is unconvincing. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support.--Vyom25 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Good Dedicated Contributor.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support An excellent candidate nominated by very well respected members of the community. Candidates attitude looks good, with more than adequate experience in a variety of areas. As has been noted, Experts on the Indian Sub-Continent would be a great asset to the En. Wikipedia admin corps. Good luck! Irondome (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - I've noticed Titodutta around quite a few places recently; and I'm impressed by his work. After doing a quick examine of Tito's contributions and tone with other users, there's no concerns that I found - I think that Tito would be a great admin in many ways. Keep up all of the good work! :) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 18:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - no real concerns, have encountered them a few times and never seen anything to concern me. GiantSnowman 18:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - Sufficient editorial tenure and strong content editors' pie chart. Several of the names endorsing the candidate above calm any slight misgivings. Carrite (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support -Nothing left to write in-here after 90 +1s. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Looks okay to me. Connormah (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Capable editor. Suitable for admin. AshLin (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support I think this candidate will be fine after getting some real admin experience. HalfGig talk 03:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support I have read the opposes and the neutrals carefully, as I am sure the nominee has, and I also expect that he will take away some useful lessons from some of the comments. But I find those comments as a whole unpersuasive regarding the matter at hand: this candidacy. I have absolutely no problem with the colors of the Indian flag appearing in his signature. We have an obvious need for level-headed, diplomatic editors knowledgeable about India. This editor shows every sign of learning, developing, and collaborating more and more effectively as time goes by. I support his candidacy for administrator without reservation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Though this candidate and myself have not previously interacted, I'm impressed with what I see during a reasonable examination. Seems to have a good temperament for using the toolbox, based on my reading. BusterD (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support WP:100 — MusikAnimal talk 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support – The candidate sounds cautious, courteous, and well-informed. I particularly liked the answers regarding AfD closing. The experience with Indian topics is a big plus. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Fine editor epitomizing the best of what Wikipedia seeks and needs in an admin. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support I see TitoDutta often in many parts of the English Wikipedia and other WMF projects. After what I considered my due diligence before participating in an RfA discussion, I prepared to support. After reading the opposes, I went back to review Tito's activity more thoroughlly to be sure I didn't miss something. My support became stronger the more I looked. I agree with opposers that he isn't perfect; he will make mistakes. But I am certain that he will learn from and not repeat them. Since it appears that this RfA will succeed without my adding more detailed comments and dif's, I won't add any for now. He has my trust. He will serve well with a mop'n'bucket. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support per the rationale at my WP:WER nomination for Titodutta as an Editor of the Week back in July 2013 (Nomination, Award). NORTH AMERICA1000 18:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support The opposes don't cut it for me. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support with pleasure. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support After examine this user's history and given consideration the reasoning of the opposition I see no reason not to support this user. Chillum 22:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Per positive interactions in the past. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - helpful, dedicated and competent. A deserving candidate. --Zayeem (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support It would be good to have additional admins who have knowledge of Indian topics. In my interactions with him I perceive he has common sense. EdJohnston (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Andrew D is wrong. It was he who first promoted patriotism in Wikipedia. His signatures and edits reveal it. For us Indians, we love nothing more than our country and we are more patriotic than any other country in the planet (IMHO). It may be due to our freedom struggle or so-related issues. Not getting more political, Tiro is one of the most patriotic Wikipedian I have ever met and hence I feel no shy to give this nom a big Support. -- - The Herald (here I am) 12:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Good content work and a willingness to learn new skills - that's a valuable starting point for any admin candidate. Titodutta has declared a willingness to perform admin work in India-related articles, which is an area desperately in need of experienced contributors. I wish him luck, --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  114. I've had a look at the opposes, and I understand the concerns. However, I've also taken a look at Tito's editing history, talk page archives going back to mid-2014, some of the articles he's worked on, among some of the other work he's done here. That history fully backs up the above comments and nomination statements. I'm confident Tito will be a net positive as a wielder of the mop. I also like that he has reached out to some of our newer members and has worked with editor retention. Tito has a good, level-headed temperament which leads me to believe that he learns well from mistakes and strives to be a productive editor. That, combined with his experience and track record (I've seen him helping out a number of times), is more than enough for me to offer my support. Good luck, Tito. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - Yes, great contributions, Good Luck! Faizan 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support, qualified candidate. Opposition comments are not compelling. --Laser brain (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. I looked over the candidate's histories at Talk:Swami Vivekananda and Talk:Bhagavad Gita, and what I saw there is consistent with what the nominations say. My decision here reflects a balance between the supports of Sitush and Abecedare, and the opposes by Stfg and Mkativerata, all four of which I take seriously. I think I can attribute some of the issues about the deletion-related answers to differences in English usage, and I recognize the value of having an additional administrator in the India content area. I'm satisfied that this is someone who does not want to overreach. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Yes. Seems to be a reasonable, thoughtful and reflective person. I'm not picking up any concerns, other than the signature, which is a bit garish and distracting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - This user deserves to be an admin. I wish him the best of fortunate. --115ash→(☏) 11:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support I like the answers to most of the questions, and know enough about Titodutta to know that he won't break Wikipedia if given admin tools. While I am not fussy on the response to Q11, I also think the question should have been taken more theoretically than literally. Further, the response: So probably I should ask someone who knows about Canadian newspapers or magazines is exactly the sort of thing I like to see. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Tempered support -- The answer to the RfA question gives me some pause; while the thesis may be true, the lack of elaboration or analysis of the situation is not ideal. Other than that, I have seen Titodutta around for many years, and have never seen anything that would inhibit my supporting an RfA. Go Phightins! 15:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Strong Support I have no doubt that he'll be a very good admin. --Pratyya (Hello!) 15:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. Nothing here suggests that the editor would abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. Good attributes, lots of good work, a good candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. I don't vote on many of these anymore, but was brought to the page because of some socking (addressed), so I figured this was a good opportunity to participate. The user's responses to questions are entirely reasonable (I really liked the answer to Q.11, myself, because I've often run into salvageable articles or ones that need more discussion when going through CSD), and I've seen this user's work in various areas and been satisfied that they "get it". Risker (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support- No concerns here. Reyk YO! 08:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Strong support -impressed with work. Good knowledge of India-related topics. Kaayay (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - I remember vetting him when he was nominated for Editor of the Week. What I found was a fair-minded concerned editor, an all-round plus to the project. His interest and knowledge of the Indian culture and his positive way of being will bridge some of the gaps in editors seeing each other as cohorts and collaborators rather than adversaries. I'm more concerned in how a prospective Administrator will behave when dealing with his/her fellow editors rather than whether or not he knows all the rules and regulations. I doubt that Tito will ever become gruff or dis-respectful (as some admins have chosen to be). A recent desop is a case in point. Buster Seven Talk 15:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support WE definitely need more specialists in Indian culture.--TMD Talk Page. 17:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. I was thinking about going neutral, but Titodutta's behavior in this rfa has been exemplary. His response to a critical neutral vote – which insinuated that he might be unable to admin/edit fairly in Pakistani areas – was so calm and polite that it won me over. As DGG says about Q11, it's really not so bad that he wants to start a deletion discussion about a topic that he finds questionable. That's the whole point of AfD, and it would be wrong to speedily delete an article about which you had any doubts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Happy to support here Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 11:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support A helpful, patient and enthusiastic editor.···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 14:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - I recall being impressed by the way this user dealt with another editor who was having trouble. They seem like a reasonable editor who would benefit the project if given the mop. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support highly experienced and dedicated wikipedian. I don't see why they would do anything stupid with the tools. Snowolf How can I help? 17:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support—have interacted with him in few articles, appreciate his professionalism and hard-work. --TheMandarin (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - No concerns. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support after a modest review of contributions. I understand why Q11 has caused concern, but what I read was an editor who is willing to not exercise his powers to delete an article when he thinks that it might be, with his efforts, salvageable. If that's the worst we can find on this editor, and in view of all the excellent work this editor has done, I'm happy to support. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I have concerns about the candidate's neutrality. His signature is literally flag-waving as it is styled to resemble the Indian flag. The GA which he claims — Swami Vivekananda — is literally a hagiography as its lead tells us that the subject is regarded as a "patriotic saint". The title of the article includes the honorific, Swami, and the candidate was among those arguing that this should be retained, contrary to our general practice. Among the sources listed, there's a revisionist work, Swami Vivekananda: A Reassessment. This seems to be a scholarly work, being published by a university press. It contains controversial material which might diminish the subject's reputation. For example, in his photo, the subject seems quite well fed. The book tells us that he was indeed fond of food and, as a child, organised a "Greedy Club" of gluttons (p.53). It goes on to say that the subject was not a vegetarian, as is common in the Brahmin priesthood, but even ate beef! There's plenty more in the book which might raise eyebrows but none of this material seems to appear in the article. The article was evaluated for FA status but failed on the ground that there were copyright concerns. Now, I understand that a lot of editors have had a finger in this pie, and maybe the candidate has just been going with the flow. But I expect high standards from an admin and, as nationalism and religion are common sources of dispute, it seems best to play it safe. Andrew D. (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Flag waving? Would you like to 'play safe' and have me desysoped if I put the red, white, and blue colours of the UK and Thai flags around my signature? Would you suggest that I am biased because I write articles about Thailand or bring articles about UK towns and schools to GA? I appreciate the extraordinary efforts you have taken to suggest Titodutta is not worthy of adminship due to his work bringing an article to GA standard, but I neither like the tone of it nor your rejection of Wikipedia's system of consensus. This article was created in 2002, Titodutta didn't come into it until June 2011 when it had already reached this envergure and then took it to GA. 3,885 revisions by 1,550 editors - did you examine every one of Titodutta's 600 edits on that page? ASFAICS, if there is anything wrong with the article then I suggest instead that you remonstrate with the GA reviewer - one of our most experienced GA reviewers and content providers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But Kudpung doesn't have a national flag in his signature. When I look at all the other signatures in this RFA above, I don't notice any of them waving flags or otherwise declaring an allegiance. Our username policy forbids names which are overtly promotional by declaring themself to be representing a group. Putting a flag or other group logo in your signature seems to be violating the spirit of this policy. It is blatantly partisan and so seems quite improper for an admin who plans to police articles in this area. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just have to but in and say the policy on promotional names would pertain to say a company or group of people, with vested interest in promoting a product, recruiting others, or otherwise implying shared use. I don't see how this could apply to an entire nation. Furthermore, if the candidate is promoting their nation, I believe it would be interpreted as promoting editing in such areas. Barring blatant canvassing, encouraging others to contribute to the project in any given area is most certainly not frowned upon. — MusikAnimal talk 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have any actual evidence that Tito has shown nationalist POV of the disruptive type that is quite common among new contributors then please present it; otherwise, I think you should probably apologise for the slur. For example, he gets on well with me and is very fair, whereas many nationalist Indians attack me simply because I am a Brit and therefore, in their eyes, a de facto remnant of the Raj.
    As for the subject was not a vegetarian, as is common in the Brahmin priesthood, but even ate beef, well, plenty of people who have claimed to be Brahmin have eaten beef but, in any event, Vivekananda was born to a Bengali Kayastha family, not a Brahmin one. Your source even acknowledges those Kayastha origins and points out that his claim was to be Kshatriya, not Brahmin. (You really should perhaps learn about sanskritisation if you're going to comment on Indian caste identities in the 19th and 20th centuries, but this apparent misunderstanding does explain why we need more admins with knowledge of matters relating to the Indian subcontinent generally.)
    Generally, and as pointed out by Kudpung above and Ad Orientem in the Support section, your "oppose" is flimsily based in fact, is primarily in the straight "content dispute" category, and seems almost contrarian by design. If I were you, I'd probably avoid Indian topics until I'd done some background reading and stick to the WP:ARS work that you do at present: that area seems likely to be a more natural home. - Sitush (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have more evidence but this was obtained by googling and so I am not sure of the propriety of presenting it — see this current Rfc. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew, we cannot insert much disputed/irrelevant thought on main pages, read Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view, the third point. Swami Vivekananda is his common name, you will give up counting if someone would start naming those people whose common name include honorific title, in many cases it is also unsure if title is actually honorific. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My forename is Andrew. This is a common Christian name, being a reference to Saint Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland, as my father is Scottish. Now Saint Andrew, or the abbreviation St. Andrew, is the common name of this saint but notice that our article title does not contain the honorific - it's called Andrew the Apostle. The ruler of Scotland is now Queen Elizabeth but notice that her article does not contain the honorific, it's just plain Elizabeth II. That's what NPOV means — taking great pains to avoid flattering our subjects or presenting them in a promotional way. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    <Admin hat on> Please do not Wikipedia:BADGER the opposer. Andrew D. is entitled to put forward his opinions, and to my knowledge, they do not violate any general or RfA specific policies or guidelines. This oppose will be taken into account by the closing WP:Bureaucrat. Commentators on this oppose, please consider not adding any further comments, or in the alternative add only conservative and moderate comments. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The example of Gandhi seems a good one as it is so similar. My view is that plain Gandhi, like the movie, is the best title as this is the primary topic for that title. There have been numerous motions to change the title of that page and so there is not a settled consensus for the current title. Having a lobby of Indian nationalists is probably a factor in this. When one looks at a more historical English case such as the Venerable Bede, one finds again that we have plain Bede. We should not be playing favourites in this way. Andrew D. (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose with great regret, because Titodutta is a very helpful and patient editor with a lot of article work to his credit. But the answers to Q11 and Q14 are hopeless. That any of the things identified in those Google searches are this "journal-gazette" is pure speculation, as bad as wp:or. The answer to 14(a) coyly fails to address the question of which of these non-newspapers the article might have been about. It's a good WP:A1, imho. 14(b) A newspaper may be a company, but it's also about that company's creative work, so it's ineligible for WP:A7 by virtue of the "not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works" clause. And no, being a community newspaper isn't by itself a credible claim of significance: any handwritten and photocopied street newsletter could call itself that, and we've no evidence that it's any more than that, if it exists at all. 14(c) AFD is good for when community discussion is worth the energy spent. CSD and PROD save us wasting that energy unnecessarily and exist by community consensus. An article like that, which doesn't plausibly identify its subject, is surely a waste of such energy. 14(d) This page does misbehave, but did you notice that it's the quarterly newsletter of Signature Editions, the publisher of the book, on the web site of Canadian Manda Group, a "commission sales agency"? I did manage to read it. All it contains is a listing of the book, with genre ("history"), price, physical dimensions, ISBN. No summary, description, review or any detail at all. I'm sad to have to do this, but based on this, I don't think Tito should get the undelete button. --Stfg (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how you draw the line from not deleting articles that could be improved to undeleting articles that aren't appropriate for the encyclopedia. Seems like a pretty big leap in the middle. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for raising this, SarekOfVulcan. We aren't talking about not deleting articles that could be improved, but about not deleting articles even when there's no chance to improve them, because the topic isn't identified. If any of the various "Yellowknife Journal"s were suitable subject for an article, there'd be no problem creating such an article, but the hypothetical example in Q11 would hardly be a useful starting point for it, imo. This is a rather easy case of WP:TNT, it seems to me. My step is from not deleting articles that are not appropriate for the encyclopedia to undeleting such articles. --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose; I hate to oppose such a good contributor in many areas, but I too have a major issue with the answer to Q11. Simply thinking that the Yellowknifer may be the same as the Yellowknife Journal-Gazette may be a reasonable belief, but if there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they are the same, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article that is based on the original research that they may be the same. In addition, one mention of a paper does in no way constitute significant coverage of a subject (although being behind a paywall has no effect whatsoever). If it lacks sufficient context and does not credibly indicate importance, then it is a clear candidate for speedy deletion per A7 as an organization. Therefore, I unfortunately cannot trust the candidate with the delete and undelete buttons, and it is most unfortunate that the tools are not unbundled so that Titodutta could get the block and protect buttons, which I have no reservations about. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to neutral. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sorry. I don't think the proficiency in content policy and practice is there yet. Stfg's oppose illustrates shortcomings in deletion. The candidate just hasn't progressed far enough on the deletion learning curve yet, as illustrated by the relatively recent gaining of an understanding of the unacceptability of pr sources. And there is more to Andrew D's content concerns than, with respect, his would-be refuters recognise. I sampled 5 of the candidate's DYKs and am not comfortable with his ability to distinguish good sources from bad, use self published and pr sources appropriately, and write in an encyclopaedic manner. An example: Influence and legacy of Swami Vivekananda, which is more a hagiographic collection of accolades than a soberly written tertiary source. I don't mean to say the candidate is not a valuable editor, but proficiency in these matters needs to be higher in an admin. Common themes among supporters are politeness, helpfulness and dedication to the project in underrepresented areas. These are very beneficial. But for me, in this forum, they all need to take a back seat to the fundamental question of whether the candidate displays a strong track record of applying core policies. It is on this question that the evidence in support of the candidature is quite thin and that the evidence against is sufficient to cause me to oppose. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking just as someone who does a great many speedy deletes, I think the ans. to Q11 shows admirable caution. When working with unfamiliar subjects it's a good idea to take into account that the the contributor may have gotten the name slightly wrong, and it is very rarely in my opinion a serious mistake to take a non-abusive non-copyvio article for a community decision. Most criteria involve judgment, and nobody should be too sure of their own. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgaris and are unenforceable. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A bizarre reason for opposition. Irondome (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. People who pledge to be open to recall are doing it to win over the masses, and pledging to do so is an inherently untrustworthy act. Because the last step in any recall action is "convince the person holding the tools to give up the tools," the ONLY step in recall is "convince the person holding the tools to give up the tools," and thus every admin is "open to recall." Until such time as recall pledges can be made binding, they define a promise made in either reasoned bad faith or inexcusable ignorance. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite bizarre. Irondome (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So would you're vote be support if T had said they would not be open to recall? very bizaree reasoning. MarnetteD|Talk 16:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have considered supporting, yes. There's an even better answer, which is "I would support a binding recall process, and would agree be bound by one if it existed. However, because there is not currently binding recall and I will not make meaningless promises to collect a mop, I will not promise to be open to recall during this RFA." Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rationales like this one haven't been an issue in RfAs lately (though they were a few years ago) ... so I have no objection. It might happen some day that we get a series of RfAs failing for odd reasons, which of course would be a problem since we're not promoting at anywhere near the replacement rate ... and if that happens, I think that's the time to make appeals to people to hold off on arguments along the lines of "I demand an answer of X, otherwise I'll oppose". I think people will be more likely to see the wisdom in that at that future time. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'd prefer the question wasn't asked at all, and prefer even more that the question was unanswered if asked, so I think you are aiming the wrong way. Hipocrite (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My main concern with this line of reasoning is that appears to tarnish any candidate who makes such a declaration or answers any question posed to them in the affirmative with some kind of cynical political motivation. I find this line of reasoning problematic, not least because the community itself has strong feelings about admin self-responsibility, and it ignores the genuine feelings of admins or potential admins regarding the matter. I cannot agree. In any event I suggest a better forum for this would be the RfA noticeboard, after the current RfA's have run their course. Regards Irondome (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very obvious that the oppose has nothing to do with the candidate so I wouldn't worry about any "tarnishing". Let it go. --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose with regret. Overall a great editor, but I'm uncomfortable with how he'd perform in the area of deletion, given his answers to questions above as well as his overall track record in that area. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Q11. Townlake (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. The guy does not look bad, but someone adminning around their main area of editing does not sound too good. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't usually "badger" even RfA opposers, much less neutrals, but I think this comment warrants clarification or discussion. You are concerned that the candidate would focus his adminship around his "main area of editing." You haven't identified that area, but I assume you mean articles relating to India. However, "articles relating to India" is an extremely broad area of "focus," given that India has a billion people. It could hardly be the case that a candidate, even if he or she is Indian and focuses on topics with a connection to India, thereby has a conflict of interest or failure of neutrality regarding all articles with a focus on something or someone from India. I think that no one would raise concerns about an American (U.S.) candidate who focuses principally on American topics, or a U.K.-based admin who focuses on U.K.-related topics. As such, I'd urge ORY to reconsider this comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nyb. Thanks for taking interest. I respect your opinion and am trying to reconsider. Yes, I was talking about the "India" article sphere. In the support sections, I see some users encouraging the candidate to admin around India related articles, and I was worried that the candidate may get too emboldened and venture too much in "involved" territory. So, I feel a general note to be circumspect might be good. I had meant my comment to be taken in that spirit. Besides that, "India" is a broad area, and it can be taken to mean "Indian subcontinent", which is an even broader area. There is not much wrong adminning that whole area, but the "Indian subcontinent" also includes Pakistan. Indo-Pak relations are quite similar to Israel-Palestine situation. For example, in theory, an Indian admin can admin around Pakistan too, and vice versa, but is not a good idea IMO. I think I have seen something like that, and the results seem not-good to me,. So, I feel, some degree of circumspection / discretion may be good. From a sitewide perspective, I think the need for new admins is dire and I had no intention to oppose. I might even have supported if there were not so many supports already. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, User:OrangesRyellow, I do not have any problem with Pakistani articles or editors (I have very good relationship with many of them). A year ago, a guy from Pakistan (according to his userbox) wanted to co-nom my RFA (last comment). I have good relationship with Bangladeshi editors too. In early 2013, I made an attempt of WikiProject Bangladesh and WikiProject India (in alphabetical order) dispute resolution. See the attempt here. The attempt failed but editors from both Bangladesh and India (in alphabetical order) appreciated the attempt and that was the first such large-scale attempt where we invited editors from both countries to participate and talk. And (to User:Andrew_Davidson too), no one has told me that I do (Indian) "flag-waving ", but yes, a persn told me that I was/am an anti-Indian and had/ve "unnecessary love" towards foreign people. That edit (edit 16 Oct 2014) was deleted from my talk page. They did not understand that I was not showing love to anyone, I was just trying to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Regards. --Tito☸Dutta 10:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC) 10:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all the best then. I also hope I have addressed NYB's request sufficiently. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I still can't support due to the answer to Q11, but the answer to Q15 was so heartfelt and honest that I cannot oppose anymore either. As this RfA is obviously going to pass, I wish you good luck in admin work, Tito! StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The candidate's answer to question six is passable. The candidate understands that providing an adequate closing statement is important and that the power of arguments as viewed through the lens of policy ought to be the sole determinant of the outcome of any debate, which puts him/her ahead of most of the Wikipedia administrators I've had the pleasure of interacting with to date. That said, I'm unsure if the candidate truly understands why "polling isn't a substitute for discussion." Another thing that worries me about the candidate's answer to question six is its overcautiousness. Making well-informed decisions, and being ready to either exhaustively explain or change them when challenged, is all that's required from an administrator; overthinking one's decisions is not a desirable trait for a person whose position requires making multiple tough calls daily. As some of the opposers, I too find the answer to question eleven problematic. The candidate was presented with a clear-cut case of a test page created by a new editor, but instead of providing a simple answer such as "I delete the page as per G2 (test), A1 (no context), A3 (chat-like comment), etc. and leave the user a welcoming message," s/he decided to produce an elaborate proof that s/he tends to overthink simple matters to the point where the ultimate effect is likely to be inaction. On another note, the candidate's pre-RfA canvassing,[3][4][5][6][7] presumably with a view to garnering an influx of early support votes, doesn't inspire confidence. The lack of a clearly visible "talk" button in the candidate's signature also poses a problem; administrators often interact with new users, and it's pivotal that these users be presented with a clear way of contacting the administrator who left them a message. The lack of such, though easily fixed, is indicative of the candidate's unwillingness to receive messages from outside his/her social circle. Andrew Davidson's (oppose #1) concerns are also valid, not only for the reasons stated in his comment, but also because the candidate's openly declared bias is likely to render him/her effectively incapable of acting administratively in the area of India-related articles. I'm afraid I cannot support Titodutta's candidacy at this time. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Titodutta&oldid=1146614540"