Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi 2

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

[edit] Khoikhoi

Final (136/17/7) Ended 01:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi (talk • contribs) – I've known Khoikhoi on Wikipedia for a fairly long time, a year or more. In that time he has shown himself to be an impartial, reasonable and kind user. He had a request for adminship earlier (see here), but withdrew when it was going badly. The man edits contentious and controversial articles (well, someone has to!), and even in fairly fierce ethnic disputes manages to keep his cool. He has been blocked a few times for the 3RR, but not within the last seven monthsand has a heap load of edits (interested users can check for themselves). In conclusion there is really not much case to not promote him. Oh, and I know I should comment on some of his work that qualifies him for admin tools, he reverts a lot of vandalism, particularly by serial vandals, and while one doesn't need admin tools to do this it helps to be able to block these guys once in a while. Furthermore special protection can be a godsend when facing down what seems like unlimited amounts of IP reusing sockpuppets. In conclusion, VOTE SUPPORT, I AM! :) - Francis Tyers · 08:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. —Khoikhoi 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I'd be more than happy to do things such as WP:AIV, checking on the 3RR reports page, and WP:RPP. As I've been doing, I'll look for vandalism to revert, usually from pages on my watchlist, although I've also done some RC Patrol work as well. I've been involved in tracking down the banned users Bonaparte and -Inanna-, which has resulted in the blocking of their sockpuppets all the time. Tasks such as these usually require admin capabilities.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I guess I'm the most happy with my first featured article, which I contributed to along with Tombseye. Incidentally, it also happened to be Wikipedia's 1000th (see press release and article). In addition to this, I've worked hard to improve other articles: History of Azerbaijan, Western New Guinea to name a few. Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I will continue my work here.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes, I've normally had conflicts over controversial articles. During the dispute, I've kept cool, not made any personal attacks (even when I was attacked), and tried to work things out and explain things to the user or users. Sometimes a dispute will be resolved immediately, sometimes they drag on much longer. However, I try to remain reasonable and attempt compromise (or agree to compromises put forth). In the future, I will continue to do this.

To add-on: I was placed on probation for edit warring at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. It was lifted early, on September 10, 2006 due to good behavior. What I've learned from this is that edit wars get nothing accomplished. Editing isn't meant to be a game of football—when things are discussed, disputes are always solved faster. I admit that since then I haven't strictly abided to the one-revert rule all the time, but I hardly ever revert three times, and when I make a revert, I'll leave an edit summary like "see talk page"—so I can direct things where they're supposed to be. That's how I think it's made me a better editor. —Khoikhoi 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

100% Optional Questions from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

I believe that answers to these questions will help the participants judge you better. In case you think that a question cannot be answered without ambiguity, please ignore the question(s) and proceed.

4. What is the difference between guidelines and policies on Wikipedia? How important is it that guidelines be followed by admins as well as non-admin users? Do Wikipedia administrators, as the representatives of the community and (possibly) role-models to the other users need to strictly adhere to guidelines as well as policies?

To me, I try to follow both most of the time. Both policies and guidelines give us good points on how to follow things. Also, both admins and non-admins should follow them. I believe that just because someone is an admin, they don't get a free pass to out of WP:NPA or WP:3RR. We must remember that we're all Wikipedians, and admins especially have greater responsbility. —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

5. What are your views with respect to WP:WONK? Can users be cleanly segregated into either category? Do you fit into any particular category?

Hmmm, it appears to be a red link...am I missing something? —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Malber (talk • contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: I think WP:IAR has it's merits, but should be viewed at with extreme care. I also think it can be followed for small issues, but not large ones. For example, there was an issue on a certain article about whether we should wikify a word or not. One user argued that it violated WP:MOS to do so. I remembered seeing similar instances in other articles—where certain words were wikifed incorrectly. I thought that the issue at this certain article wasn't that big of a deal anyways, so this was when I applied WP:IAR. I don't normally follow it, however.

Regarding WP:SNOW: I'll have to get back to you on this one! —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

6. (Editor added question) What is your opinion and view of the websites wikipediareview.com and wikitruth.info that are critical of Wikipedia? Anomo 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(Will try to answer later) —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Centrx

7. What do you mean, in your answer to question 3, "I hardly ever revert three times"?

I meant that when when I make a revert—if the user reverts again, I'll just say "see talk page", and that will be the end of it until we've come to a compromise. I was just comparing to how I was months ago, when I discussed less. —Khoikhoi 01:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Khoikhoi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Khoikhoi's editcount summary stats as of 00:11, October 14 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 00:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Khoikhoi was found to have edit warred and was placed on probation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. The probation was lifted early, on September 10, 2006, in response to several months of good behavior. Thatcher131 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've had good experiences with this user. Contribs seem fine, and past issues seem to have been learned from.Voice-of-All 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

1. Support I've seen Khokhoi around and (s)he is a very useful contributor indeed and would benefit from admin tools. Has obviously learned from past mistakes of edit warring.--Konst.able 23:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
2. I offered to nominate him last week, so that's a definite yes. >Radiant< 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support just came across this user today. Looks great- good luck! --Alex (Talk) 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support I am very pleased to see you nominated here. You do a very nice job. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support A name that I have seen so often around WP spaces that I thought they were already an admin. (aeropagitica) 00:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Merovingian ※ Talk 00:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Crazy 40,000 edits Support. Although this user has a questionable past, I have no worries or doubts about the user at this very moment. In fact, I have seen this user everywhere and I am impressed. Best of luck with the RfA. Nishkid64 01:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. A worthy user, and gets a definite yes from me for his sock-hunting alone. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong support. We need more admins on controversial topics, not less. I've never seen anything to make me doubt this user and I was surprised when I looked at the previous RfA (I found it while digging around months ago.) I still think the project would greatly benefit from giving Khoikhoi admin tools. YES I KNOW ABOUT THE ARBCOM/PROBATION THING. His handling of it is all the more reason to support in my book. Grandmasterka 01:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
10. 2x edit conflict Unbelievably strong support. Give the man the mop, he can only do good things with it. I cannot believe the last one didn't work out. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Shoulda mentioned the arbitration case, but I'm still supporting you. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 05:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support I voted oppose in his last RfA, and with good reason. I'm proud to say that my concerns are now dealt with. Over the past year, he has made a strong effort not only to be more concious of policies, but to find different ways to contribute, even when unable to edit in his primary area of interest. Khoikhoi would, and WILL, be a great admin. --InShaneee 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Support without hesitation -- Samir धर्म 01:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Support  Doctor Bruno  01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Support The added tools given to him would only benefit this project. A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Support He always doing more valuable work, and being civil in every situation. Daniel5127 (Talk) 02:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Goddamn absolutely. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 03:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Support I've seen this user's (good) work countless times. Will make an outstanding admin.--Húsönd 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Support I've seen khoikhoi in action in intense eastern-european-nationalism-conflicts, and he has always looked very poised, calm, and rational. We need firm but civil admins like him to defuse disputes. Borisblue 04:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Khoikhoi made some very good edits to a page on a former Russian Prime Minister. I've seen nothing but hard work from him so far. KazakhPol 04:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Strong Support no hesitation - a prolific editor. Rama's arrow 06:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong Support - long overdue abakharev 07:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Khoikhoi is a prolific, productive, and thoughtful editor. He's a fine writer (having do-authored the 1000th featured article, too [1]), pitches in with combating vandalism, and has been invluable in fighting problem banned users like Bonaparte and -Innana-. He's sensible and cool, and I think adminship is well deserved. I would have been pleased to nominate. Dmcdevit·t 09:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Khoikhoi is, thus far, the only editor to have been put on probation, to have continued to edit prolificly, not to have left Wikipedia, and to have had the probation removed after no restrictions had been applied. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
24. Support; needs block button asap. Please keep up the rc patrol of course!--Andeh 10:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, have seen you involved in process for a long time, and well deserves the mop. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, I have come across Khoikhoi a few times in my travels in wikipedia and I've only seen good reports although I am not sure he is a Khoikhoi. --Jcw69 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, not one yet? With the experience and the time span here, he will make a good admin. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 12:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong Support so he can stop flooding WP:RFPP and protect those disputed articles himself! ;-) --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 12:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong Support I was under the impression that Khoikhoi was already an admin, and apparently he isn't, so I'm certainly in favour of giving him the buttons so he can become one hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
30. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
31. Support - Good user -- Lost^(talk) 14:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Has taken a drastic turn from a now gone Arbcom probation, and become a productive and friendly editor. I can trust Khoikhoi, and I believe a change for the best has occured. Loyality exists greatly here. Yanksox 14:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
33. Hell yes ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 16:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Trustworthy, friendly editor. Xoloz 16:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
35. Suport Respected and good user. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
36. Petition accepted late, but present. - Francis Tyers · 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Lot of respect for Khoikhoi's work whenever we've crossed paths. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. G.He 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. I've seen him around a lot and think that he would make good use of the tools. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. impressive attitude. ITAQALLAH 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. -Will Beback 19:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. For Khoikhoi, the tools would be well deserved and hard earned.-- danntm ^T _C 20:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
43. Weak Support per his probation. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Has redeemed himself and is now a valuable asset to Wikipedia in almost any way one can imagine. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
46. El_C 23:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. --Ligulem 00:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
48. Support; what I've seen has been excellent indeed. Antandrus (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
49. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
50. Yay!  Jorcoga  02:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Has made a considerable effort to change his behaviour, and I have no problem trusting him with the tools.--§hanel 03:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
52. Support - per this edit --T-rex 04:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. I remember and was briefly involved in the controversy that caused his probation. Even then, he struck me as one of the more civil and reasonable editors (though that wasn't saying much) within a vicious nationalist battle, and as has been noted he has only improved since. I've no doubts at all about supporting him. Chick Bowen 05:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
54. MaxSem 11:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. Wikipedia needs hard workers. --Odysses (☜) 12:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
56. Support without any hesitation. We need more admins like Khoikhoi. - Darwinek 13:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
57. Weak Support convinced that he's grown and is a hard worker, but have to say he could contribute a bit more to AfD discussions he participates in. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Khoikhoi was one of the first people I encountered on Wikipedia, and I've seen many good things from him since. Khoikhoi will make a fine admin. DVD+ R/W 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
59. Support - I thought this user was an admin already.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
60. Support -- He's ready now. Saravask 23:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
61. Strong support - always calm, rationale and plays it straight, and one of the few who are willing to go into nasty areas and stop POV pushing on nationalism related battles. Very few people have the courage to go in there to a mess and clean up. Khoikhoi is not one for parading about. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
62. Support - definitely. - Richardcavell 00:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Should have been promoted years ago. I hope this RfA will not be hijacked by trolls as the previous one was. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
64. Strong support, no hesitations whatsoever. Khoikoi is a diligent and dedicated contributor, and one whom it is always a pleasure to deal with. I second Ghirla's sentiments about the previous RfA above, and note that Khoikhoi's willingness to combat and forestall the more egrarious examples of nationalistic POV-pushing (of all hues) is an asset to the project. It may give rise to the occasional conflict or yelp of complaint, but in my experience it's those with one-sided pro- or anti- views pushing their barrows oblivious to any other, not Khoikhoi. The vast range and scope of Khoikhoi's contributions provide many more reasons to support, and I've no doubt Khoikhoi will prove an able and responsible admin.--cjllw | TALK 08:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
65. Support I've found Khoikhoi to be a good user, and have no problems with supporting. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. Wha', he ain't one? Duja 12:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
67. Support in recognition of his diplomatic skills.--Kober 17:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
68. Support as per his hard work, dedication to NPOV and friendly attitude. Ldingley 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
69. Support. Ah, the inspirational tale of a revert warrior-turned-admin material. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
70. Support' For a while I actually assumed he's already an admin. He is extremely neutral when it comes to controversial issues, maybe even too neutral :)--Eupator 13:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
71. Strong Support - I believe Khoikhoi not to be simply a good editor, but one of the very best of wikipedia. His dedication in opposing pov-pushing and in countering nationalistic bias has been truly heroic, and has earned him an endless number of personal attacks. Without an editor like him, nationalistic bias and neglect of policy would be much major in controversial articles.--Aldux 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
72. Support - I thought he was an admin already as well. I've seen his edit history and it's something alright Fedayee 18:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
73. Support - Of course. Errabee 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
74. Support In hope that Onisilos bees will guide you as an admin Aristovoul0s 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
75. Support—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
76. Support Dedicated to the project, obviously able to learn from mistakes, respectful of community procedures, per Fys. I suspect that, in reality, the oppose voters would have a very hard time finding recent diffs showing Khoikhoi's contributions being part of the problem instead of part of the solution. No reason this user shouldn't have admin tools. Jkelly 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
77. Support I came to know about this nomination after an edit in Allah article saying go and vote against this JEW named PUTNAM from California USA. I do NOT know him personally or his religion. I have gone through some of his awards and edits. For me having his Jew is not a problem and I will love to support him. --- ابراهيم 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
78. Support Jews named Putnam from California are Cool. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
79. Support, good user despite the earlier probation, and he definitely seems to have learned from his mistakes. <cliche>I thought he was already an admin.</cliche> --Coredesat 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
80. Support, seen around and with seems good... Another drawn here by the vandalism... Thanks/wangi 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
81. Support -- I'm a fan since long. --Pjacobi 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
82. Support. Failure to mention the arbitration case is not a big issue, as he is no longer subject to any restrictions stemming from said case. —freak(talk) 20:29, Oct. 18, 2006 (UTC)
83. Support-- Because of his *kind* correspondance with me way back over my little involvement in the Persian people dispute. --Aminz 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
84. Support-- I see him around WP:ANI very often, and he's almost always filling out 3RR reports. Admin tools given to him would be in good, trustful, and useful hands.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
85. Support -- I think user will not abuse tools and will contribute well as an sysop. Learning from past mistakes is always a plus by me. -- Avi 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
86. Support. Notwithstanding Borat's [stirling argument skills. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
87. Support --- keep running into the guy. Agathoclea 21:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
88. Support --- A good administrator does not shy away from controversial topics. Level-headed and civil. Past is past, Khokhoi will make a great admin. Regards, Asterion^talk 22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
89. Support Not the best, but better than the rest. Miskin 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
90. Support. An Excellent wikipedian. Hectorian 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
91. Support. Judging from my not so numerous encounters in articles and talks, I noticed that he is a reasonable person. I came to vote here after noticing an ugly edit summary in my watch list. I suggest the account who made this edit investigated and blocked permanently: [2] Mukadderat 23:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
92. Support The user has helped settle many disputes in wikipedia in an amicable manner. --alidoostzadeh 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
93. Support no concerns here, good editor. Anger22 01:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
94. Support Judging from the above and his contributions, I have to support. Periklis* 03:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
95. Big Support - he deserves it, and will certainly be good at it (believe me: Khoikhoi and I go way back).--Tekleni 08:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
96. Support No reasons to vote otherwise. Beit Or 08:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
97. Support if only on the basis of the quality of the oppose votes: I might be suffering from a bout of contrariness, but the impression is of someone who has managed to do good works and is receiving a bucket-load of slurry in payment. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
98. Support. May the wisdom of Socrates, the patience of Nasreddin Hodja, and the humour of Karagiozis be with you and all those you administer. Politis 09:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
99. Support. Based on his contributions. And encouraged by the silly "posse" accusation of the opposers.--Pan Gerwazy 10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
100. WP:100 support for the protect buttons. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 10:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
101. Pile-on Support. I second Coredesat's cliché: I thought you already were an admin. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
102. Support. A devoted Wikipedian who has shown his commitment to neutrality and who has produced some truly impressive articles. Will certainly make a great admin! Todor→Bozhinov 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
103. Support. A fantastic candidate. He should be an admin.--GrWikiMan 13:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
104. Support. I'm dizzy counting stars!--Yannismarou 13:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
105. Strong support. A true NPOV-champion. With so many gangs of editors engaged in petty nationalistic turf-wars, it's always nice to see someone who knows the difference between a tourist brochure and an encyclopaedia. This user has had so much mud thrown at him from just about every ethnic group out there (just have a look at some of the "oppose" comments...), it's amazing he's still going strong. We need more admins like this, who are prepared to get their hands dirty in order to save articles, not bland RC-patrol daleks. My hats off to you, sir. yandman 14:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
106. Support I have nothing but respect for this user. Englishrose 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
107. Support Someone keeps vandalizing pages encouraging us to vote against 'this JEW from California' so I have to vote for him. I judge a man by his enemies. Czolgolz 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
108. Strong Support In all my dealings with this user he has been nothing but professional, courteous, level-headed, and very knowledgeable. As mentioned in the nomination, he edits a lot of controversial articles, especially those dealing with ethnic and nationalist topics. A big part of editing those articles is removing POV. Consequently, there are those who strongly dislike him and have waged a very unfair and undeserved smear and vote-spamming campaign against him and he still continues to rescue various articles from propoganda. He will make a great admin.--WilliamThweatt 14:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
109. Support a review of this user's contribution shows he will make a good admin. The opposition below is in large part shameful and biased and the racist spamming from anonymous IPs will not be tolerated. Gwernol 15:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
110. Support: I believe this editor will put his past experiences to good use for the benefit of the articles. I have been impressed with his recent contributions. Aquilina 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
111. Support: anti-Californian bigotry must not be rewarded. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
112. Support: he should be admin--Kalogeropoulos 16:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
113. Support: One of the all-present Wikipedia names. --   Avg    17:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
114. Support. Per nomination.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
115. Support as per Konstable. Olessi 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
116. Support A good candidate for adminship. --A.Garnet 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
117. Strong Support When I first came to Wiki I thought that he was an admin for a long time actually :)) I know that many people said this already, but it's true.. As for the edit wars that have been mentioned et al. Frankly, I think that he is doing a good job trying to keep the concensus (whether we agree or not with "the concensus" is a different matter :)), he does great maintenance even in articles in the farthest corners of Wiki, which I find extremely impressive. Even if people think he has deficiencies, as far as humans go, I would say he is pretty high up at the top :)) Nobody is perfect u know! Good luck Khoi :)Baristarim 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC) - Just for the record.. Unfortunately I had been away from Wiki for a week coz of heavy real life stuff, so it is the first time I am running into this "Jew from Cali" BullS... What the hell on earth is going on?? Gees.. Anti-semitism & et al is a disease, but worse, it is just a lame excuse brought up when people don't like u 4 something else.. 'oh, him? he is a Jew, that's why..' - real low, that is. u got a POV, argue it scientifically, that's all I gotta to say.. don't give up Khoi :) Baristarim 23:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
118. Support I beleive will be a value to the wiki as an admin. HighInBC 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
119. Support meets the currently unpublished WatchingYouLikeAHawk's standards. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 05:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
120. Support Khoikhoi would make a perfect admin. Grandmaster 06:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
121. Support Great User SOADLuver 06:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
122. Support xvvx 07:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
123. WP:200 is still far, so I Support now that "JEW named PUTNAM from California". •NikoSilver• 09:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
124. Support A huge amount of (balanced) edits. The fact that he is editing controversial topics should not stop the adminship --Splette ^Talk 10:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
125. Support per the fact that so many people changed from opposing since the block and last RfA. (I also tried to dig through his contributions to see if I could find incidents of recent POV warring, but couldn't, among the huge quantity of good work. The man is an editing machine.) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
126. Support every time I've seen him, I've liked what he's said or done. I'm sure he'll make a great admin. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
127. Support Good editor, good contributions, good evidence that (s)he has learned from past mistakes. No reason to think Khoikhoi cannot be trusted to use the tools well. --Guinnog 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
128. Support, prolific editor and I have no reason to oppose. —Xezbeth 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
129. Support. Fair and open-minded, good use of discussion pages in disputes. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
130. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
131. Support! ran (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
132. Support. Absolutely. Mackensen (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
133. Support. A good and prolific editor. --ManiF 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
134. gogogogogogo - ¡Kribbeh!^Speak!\_Contribs 22:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
135. Strong Support. Have come acros the editor on several occasions, and am impressed by their patience, balanced views and insight in various fields. Bertilvidet 00:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
136. Strong Support. Committed and level-headed willing to be an admin would make an excellent one. --Irpen 00:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose User:Khoikhoi has an organized group to purvey the NPOV on wiki and is discriminating the users on national basis. Sosomk 15:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   Care to produce some evidence to back up your accusations? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   No, I don't care, because you belong to his posse. [[3]] Sosomk 18:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   You don't get to make incivil accusations here either. Watch your tone. --InShaneee 21:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   Ok, since wiki is not a democracy. Sosomk 16:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   Actually I am going to ask for a diff in this case. It's a pretty strong claim and yet you have provided no proof -- Tawker 20:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah, seeing as I had to delete a personal attack by Sosomk against Khoikhoi on his own userpage, which he reinstated here [4], I don' think there's much to say. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   Can you explain why is that a personal attack? Don't you watch news? North Korea is celebrating its Communism by Kim Jong-il bolstering his authority with nuclear weapons. Communism is just a political ideology and if you think that it is a peronal attack that's your political POV. As far as dictatorship, I think it is fair to call someboby a dictator, who chooses authority over legitimacy. Talk:Sukhumi, Yours truly Sosomk 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

   Another personal attack. Keep it up. --InShaneee 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

   Note: 01:08, October 19, 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sosomk (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks, non-response to warnings, and generally disruptive behavior) (block log). •NikoSilver• 16:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose for far too much nationalistic POV warring: see the RfAr case Thatcher cites. I don't see enough change since then. Jonathunder 19:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   I would just like to point out that the remedy (probation) set by ArbCom was lifted unanimously several months after. I think it shows his will to reform more than enough... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   Furthermore, one of the arbitrators wished it was he who nominated Khoikhoi for adminship. See his vote above. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Sorry, after reading your initial response to Q3 and the facts that came to light since then I can't support you for now. I also don't believe you that you "forgot" your arbitration case, which ended last month. I recommend you withdraw and reapply later with full disclosure. ~ trialsanderrors 02:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   I hope I'm not badgering you, but I think you misunderstood what I meant, which was that I didn't forget about the arbitration case I was involved in (which ended in May), I forgot to add the fact that I was on probation for #3. To be totally honest, probation played no factor in my daily life on Wikipedia. The arbitration especially–with Aucaman's disappearance–I hardly thought of it at all. So when it came to answer question 3, it just slipped my mind. That's the truth and there really isn't much more I have to say. —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

   Well, your answer to Q3 raises none of the issues that came out here (and to a certain extent in your piror RFA), so it is already evasive to begin with. I'm inclined to believe the various testimonies that you haven't engaged in those activities in the recent past, and the probation lift speaks to that, but given the fact that you had a past of rather extensive edit warring one would expect of you to be more forthcoming about the facts and then make the case for yourself rather than just gloss it over and pretend nothing happened. That's why I recommend that you withdraw this candidacy and start over, since this RFA is essentially tainted by the fact that 60 editors voted for you before you came clean on that part of your past. I don't even see much need for a lengthy delay until your next candidacy, just start out with a frank answer to Q3 so that editors can assess you based on full information. ~ trialsanderrors 07:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

   Thatcher131 brought it up on 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   Khoikhoi's timestamp in declaring the ArbCom incident: 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   Last unaware vote was #47 by Ligulem on 00:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   Of these 47 users:

   1. User:Riana dzasta re-accepted

   2. User:Grafikm fr re-edited defending Khoikhoi

   3. User:Alex Bakharev re-edited defending Khoikhoi

   4. User:Francis Tyers obviously monitors, since he is the nominator

   5. User:Radiant! obviously knows since he "would nominate him last week"

   6. User:Dmcdevit re-edited defending Khoikhoi

   7. User:Physicq210 knows ("redeemed himself")

   8. User:Konstable knows ("learnt from past mistakes")

   9. User:Nishkid64 knows ("has a questionable past")

   10.User:InShaneee knows ("Over the past year, he has made a strong effort...")

   11.User:Fys knows ("...to have had the probation removed...")

   12.User:Yanksox knows ("...drastic turn from a now gone Arbcom probation...")

   13.User:Slgrandson knows ("Weak Support per his probation")

   14.User:Grandmasterka ("YES I KNOW ... His handling of it is all the more reason to support in my book")

   Personal attack (inserted by Sosomk) removed

   So we're stuck with the rest 33. I suggest they re-edit their votes to signify acceptance, and then we notify the rest through talk. That's another 14 users who knew and obviously noted he didn't say so in Q3 before you, but were not as nit-picky to request repetition of poll! --Biased proKhoikhoian false-anon! 21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you. I think I was off by a day with my count, so your 47 might be more accurate. My point about the evasive answer to Q3 remains. I also propose you read WP:CIVIL. ~ trialsanderrors 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

   Err, that's 33, and I am sorry you find "nit-picky" incivil. --Tendentious proKhoikhoian 09:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose as per concerns raised by Trialsanderrors, Thatcher131, Williamborg, history of editwarring, 3RR violations and lack of candour about history means I can't trust with tools just now. Pete.Hurd 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   I was monitoring many of these battles and I would dare say that in all cases I am aware of Khoikhoi's influence was strongly positive. He has a natural talent for moderating conflicts between nationalists POVs. Arabic-Iranians, Turkish-Iranians, Turkish-Greek, Turkish-Kurdish, Kurdish-Iranian, Iranian-Azeri, Georgian-Abkhazian-Russian, Greek-Macedonian, Romanian-Hungarian are not all of the hot editorial wars where he managed to steer conflicts over multitudes of articles into some neutral and even cooperative state. You know if we have a conflict between editors from country X and from country Y and nobody else care it is often degenerated to the state then all editors from a country supports their "patriotic" POV, trolls and socks from both sides indulge into awful nationalist attacks and no dispute resolutions appear to be feasible (only arbcom with banning virtually all editors from both sides). In many of such cases you have to act very fast - if there is a nationalist attack from a troll it should be reverted immediately, before the moderates from the other side responded in kind, destroying all the fragile peace. Admin then can protect the article, semiprotect it, block the troll, merge the histories of copypasted articles, speedy the attack pages, etc. A moderator that is not an admin under attacks from both sides can only revert inflammatory edits and wait for help from admins (that is quite often very late) and the 3 reverts at this situation are used very fast. I believe it was the reason for all these 3RR blocks on Khoikhoi's block list. Recently, I was trying to help Khoikhoi using my administrative tools and I am really impressed by the wisdom of his advice. It looks like I got an undeserved credits for Khoikhoi's good work, but you know, I sleep sometimes or do some other off-wiki activities. In short I do not think that Khoi's 3RR violations should be interpreted as him been a nationalist edit warrior, it is quite opposite he is a battered peacekeeper and moderator badly in need for the tools Alex Bakharev 08:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose per above.  Grue  08:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose POV warrior - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   I urge Bcrats to examine carefully votes of those opposers who fail to provide specific diffs. This comment, as well as Grue's change of vote, made me pause. I see that my energetic support of Crzrussian's RfA may have been premature. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   I'm a bit disappointed with Crzrussian as well... :( Crz run a RFA after a recall for reasons that were what they were, yet a lot of people (including me) gave him his support, because they were confident he learned from the incident that led to his recall. Yet now, he refuses to give his to a most excellent contributor who reformed a lot. Sad... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I withdraw my oppose in light of the time period that elapsed. However, Graf, RfA is certainly not a quid pro quo endeavor. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   I never said it was one, Crzrussian, however it would seem to me these two situations are quite similar. Consequently, refusing your support to someone in a similar situation while you personally benefited from the community's support, who believes you won't commit the same things again, is not an ideal situation. Please believe it for Khoikhoi as well :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Irksome bullying of oppose voters by supporters. -Lapinmies 22:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   And was it your intention to combat such "bullying" by coming up with the least reasonable oppose here? Khoikhoi made one rational comment to an opposer, so I have to assume you are talking about the other people responding to opposers? The reason you have given has absolutely no bearing on Khoikhoi's potential as an admin. Not to mention that none of those questioning opposers seem to be doing anything more than engaging in mild-mannered disagreement and discussion. Dmcdevit·t 08:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

   "mild-mannered disagreement and discussion"? Your response to an opposer, "Interesting holocaust denial userbox you've got on your user page" (i couldn't see no such thing btw, which makes that statement libellous), is in the same ball park as "Jew from Cali", both r ad hominim, and in the same way I agree that the reason cited above has no bearing on Khoi's potential for adminship, I find it ironic that u have used a similar tactic to discredit the vote of an opposer. It is true that some opposers have used vote spamming and one of them used a disgusting method to do so, certain 'oppose opposers' have not been setting the best of examples either. Baristarim 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

7. Never. Ever. Vandal, POV edit warrior, sock-puppeteer - as recent as Contributions/Blurb sock & Special:Contributions/Blurb-sock, it seems. Promote him, and I predict he'll eventually be in front of the WP:RFAr getting desysopped. -- Netoholic @ 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

   Do you have any evidence at all for these personal attacks and wild accusations? Well, actually, you can't. But thanks for leading me off into a checkuser investigation that led to the discovery of several Bonaparte socks and open proxies. Dmcdevit·t 20:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

   Not to mention a pedophile, racist and serial killer. Miskin 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

   My first instinct was that the above comment was an attack, but judging from the earlier support vote it apears to be an attempt at sarcasm. Agathoclea 07:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Strong Oppose User:Khoikhoi has an organized group to purvey the NPOV on wiki and is discriminating the users on national basis (see above). --Islamic 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Do you have any evidence at all for these personal attacks and accusations? If not, the vote is void... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   You have no authority to declare a vote void. please refrain from such behaviour TruthCrusader 15:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

9. Strong Oppose. This user is a POV-pusher. Bomac 06:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Do you have any evidence at all for these personal attacks and accusations? If not, the vote is void... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Note: User contacted by RfA vote spamming prior to his vote (diff). As such he may not be eligible to vote, but only to comment, according to the template above. •NikoSilver• 16:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

10. Strong Oppose User:Khoikhoi is leading a group of user, menaging and communicating among group genarally by e-mails not in talk pages directly.This group acting in a systematic way to revert articles, when one of member make 3rv reverts than one another continue with 4rv(against punishment for violating 3rv rule). All member of group are very radical nationalist. They are working generally Turk/Turkey and Religion related articles to put anti-Turk POV and anti-Islam POV. Some of the member are suspected as Suck poppet, one is clear; User:Tekleni and User:Tzkeai, till to 03 Oct.2006 there were two users , at that date User:Tzkeai redirected to User:Tekleni.No need like an Administrator in WIKIPEDIA Mustafa Akalp^TC 11:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    Ummm, User:Tzekai's (not Tzkeai) contributions were also moved to User:Tekleni as evident here and here, and Tekleni himself redirected the former to the new (here). This is a clear user rename that doesn't violate WP:SOCK in any way. No comment about the cabal. •NikoSilver• 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    User, •NikoSilver•, states same thing as I said. User:Tzekai was redirected to User:Tekleni at 03.10.2006.One man made many reverts with two User name before that date. Before tis date there was a popetry. Mustafa Akalp^TC 12:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    User contributions cannot be moved to another user if the new user isn't a virgin account. There is no such possibility from the system, therefore your accusations are invalid. Also, check this diff from his talk, to see that it was done instantly, without simultaneous operation: (PS.) Please refrain from false unsubstantiated accusations, and vote spamming, as a WP:ANI incident has been openned against you. •NikoSilver• 13:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    Mustafa, You've been warned for campaigning against this user, and I've changed the colour of your text. If we start colouring edits, these pages will become illegible. yandman 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    Note: 18:16, October 19, 2006 Jossi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Mustafa Akalp (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Disruption / cavassing/RfA vote spamming)(block log). Also, WP:ANI#RfA vote spamming practically leads to indef-block. •NikoSilver• 15:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

11. OpposeRight User:Khoikhoihas made a considerable effort to change his behaviour, but I still do not trust him with the tools and I'm not sure if he can be neutral or not.--Hattusili 12:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    Not sure if he can be neutral? Interesting holocaust-denial userbox you've got on your user page. Dmcdevit·t 02:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    Yes I have and I don't have any intentions to become an admin. (and also as you said it is on my user page; I have the right to oppose an allegation)--Hattusili 07:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    ? I would have thought that an admin would have been less likely to engage in such ad hominim attacks, maybe we should nominate Khoi to become directly a bureaucrat instead to clean up the mess:)).. There is no difference between trying to discredit people's opinions by calling them "that Jew from Cali" or 'Holocaust denialist" (btw I couldn't see the Holocaust denial userbox that was mentioned, am I missing something here?) I voted support for Khoi and think he will be a great admin, but I don't think that it is cool to engage in ad hominim attacks with all guns blazing on people who think and feel differently. Pls keep your cool Dmc.. Baristarim 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    I think that he was referring to the userbox on the Armenian Genocide. NauticaShades 22:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose this time. One more time and it will be a great idea. (p.s. Please do not remove messages from my talk page. If someone sent me a message, I want to read it, whatever the content. I am mature enough to be surprised to see a hundred odd users just spontaneously gathering to express their support. Do not erase stuff from the talk pages of others.) Cretanforever 18:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    Banned users are forbidden to edit anywhere, and any contributions they try to make will be removed, period. --InShaneee 20:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    Who is banned? I am not, the user who sent me the -later erased- message is not. Strange to read a reference to "banned users". Although I appreciate his hard-work and daring, in this instance Khoikhoi was nominated by non-admin material at the very start, and that was my meaning. It will become a liability for Khoikhoi later. I can demonstrate my meaning better but please do not use misplaced references to "banned users". Cretanforever 07:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    The user who incorrectly campainged to get you here to oppose this RfA was a banned user editing through an open proxy. --InShaneee 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    Note: User contacted by RfA vote spamming prior to his vote (diff). As such he may not be eligible to vote, but only to comment, according to the template above. •NikoSilver• 16:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    This is also something that I don't get.. I mean, do we all have IQs of 50 or what? I also received the same RfA vote spam telling me to vote oppose, but I voted support (which I planned to do so before the spam). I am sure that a third of the people who voted support got the same spam msgs, but they still voted support.. I am just saying that people can make up their own mind u know :) In any case it is not a vote, it is just a discussion. It is clear by now what the concensus is.. Baristarim 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    Read the template above: "While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of all Wikipedia". His messages were not directed to all WP, but to specific groups of users, thereby increasing the weight of their participation in this discussion. It is not a matter of IQ, it is a matter of POV, and there are smart people with POVs you know... •NikoSilver• 22:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose, --Shamir1 19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose this time. At the same time I appreciate Khoikhoi's impressive volume of edits. --Lysy^talk 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose this time, not ready yetPalestine48 23:49 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    Note: User contacted by RfA vote spamming prior to his vote (diff). As such he may not be eligible to vote, but only to comment, according to the template above. •NikoSilver• 16:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

16. Oppose. I never thought I'd say it, but I'm with Neto on this one. I dislike the badgering above, and I very much dislike the use of adminship to "fight vandals". When you want the mop to clean up (such as difficult moves and the like), I'll happily support. See also WP:ANOT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avriette (talk • contribs) .

    Admins are specifically tasked with blocking vandals. That's why we have Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism which is expliticly linked from WP:ADMIN [5]. WP:ANOT says nothing that backs up your position. Gwernol 15:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    Apologies for not signing my opposition, but this badgering is one of the things I specifically cited as reason for opposition. One doesn't need admin privileges to "fight" vandals. Furthermore, we hand people mops, not rapiers. I find it distasteful in the extreme that people take on the mantle of authority so they can punish evildoers, rather than add more content to the project. Or did you forget why we are here to begin with? We're not a gallows for flogging vandals and disposing of undesirables, we are editors, editing an encyclopedia. ... aa:talk 17:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    Perhaps those who badger you and the other oppose voters find all the campaigning against Khoikhoi very distasteful. Dozens of articles were vandalized by a call to vote against the JEW named PUTNAM from CALIFORNIA. Mustafa Akalp contacted several users here and on the Turkish Wikipedia to go vote, and gave his reasons for his strong oppose in the process. Now how's that for badgering? Errabee 19:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    I am not badgering you. RfA is not a vote, its a discussion. If you quote policy that doesn't support your position, its not unreasonable for me to point this out. The person using the term "fight vandals" is you, not me and not the candidate. If you object to admins using tools to block vandals, then take it up with the community. Opposing this candidate (and just this candidate) on the grounds that you don't like admins fighting vandals is just disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Gwernol 19:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    I deeply resent your calling my dissenting vote "disruptive." I am entitled to "vote" in this discussion in any way I see fit. Kindly recognize that fact. ... aa:talk 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    I agree. We're entitled to disagree with avriette and his or her reason for "voting" but to state that his or her "vote" is disruptive merely because you happen to disagree with it is wrong. Such accusations have a chilling effect in what should be a free and frank discussion of viewpoints and opinions. Twisting avriette's position and then attacking him or her is much closer to what I would label as disruptive. --ElKevbo 20:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    I definitely agree, two wrongs don't make a right.. People have a right to put their input, and calling their opinions disruptive just coz they r different is also disruptive. This is really getting weird, let's calm down and pls argue POVs and reasons scientifically just like we should do in normal articles. Baristarim 20:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

17. Oppose TruthCrusader 15:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. My first instinct is to support, but I am disappointed Khoikhoi didn't mention the arbitration case he was involved in in answer to question 3. (Khoikhoi was placed on probation for a year for edit warring, which was lifted 6 months early for good behavior.) Thatcher131 00:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral—Khoikhoi was found to have engaged in persistent edit warring with regard to Persia- or Iran-, Turkish-, and Kurdish-related articles [6], [7], [8]. He was blocked for edit warring at Iranian peoples and for 3RR violation on four other occasions [9]. His probation was lifted early; a good sign. But honesty & diplomatic candor are virtues in administrators. I agree with Thatcher131] that this should have been acknowledged & addressed more directly in the answer to question 3. Williamborg (Bill) 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral to oppose I don't like the fact that Khoikhoi did not mention the arbitration case. Yes Khoikhoi got the probation lifted early, but is there any reason for why Khoikhoi could not have mentioned it here on this page? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, I really just forgot (honestly). I've now added it (see above). —Khoikhoi 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   Ok, I can go with that, though I am going to wait for a bit to see what happens —— Eagle (ask me for help) 12:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Neutral Good editor I suppose, but the ultra-Iranianness points toward irrationality. AdamBiswanger1 03:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral I just want to note that an anonymous user has been busy trying to influence editors to "go and vote against this JEW named PUTNAM from California USA." He or she has been blocked and his or her edits reverted but this attempt to win (negative) votes should be noted. --ElKevbo 19:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
   • I just had to block anon User:209.10.202.53 for spamming articles with the same nasty stuff. NawlinWiki 14:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
   • And another one User:80.227.0.153 Gwernol 14:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
     • Left a note about the IPs at ANI. – Chacor 14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
   • I blocked User:222.149.155.76 for the same racist hate-mongering yesterday Gwernol 14:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral I confronted Khoikhoi, for the first time, during a dispute of the dispute related with Altaic controversy. During the dispute, I had found his manner quite agressive and impolite. After all, he said that he had also been stressed out because of real life as well [[10]]. Then, we managed to improve our relations, although we could not solve the dispute yet. Actually, we gave up the issue for a while. For the adminship, i decided to support Khoikhoi at the beginning but i just learned that "Khoikhoi is placed on Probation for one year" on 7 May 2006 because of edit/revert wars. For this reason, i find his application is an earlier one. If Khoikhoi's arbitration case is explained in detail also here, i may change my decision to conditional support. E104421 10:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Yet you fail to mention the obvious follow up: the judgement has been "rescinded" unanimously?   /FunkyFly.talk_  06:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

   I think you failed either reading or understanding the point above: "If Khoikhoi's arbitration case is explained in detail also here,..." By the way, Khoikhoi already sent me an e-mail about the case. Regards, E104421 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

7. This is an interesting one which I'm inclined to both support and opoose. I remember dealing with him back when I was an admin over edit-warring on a pagee (the exact page is beyond my memory at this point). However, I have seen this editor improve, and agree that his positive handling of sanctions imposed on him is commendable. I also agree with some of the oppose camp regarding his past, and therefore will choose not to make a decision - at this point it looks like it won't matter anyway. Good luck. – Chacor 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.