Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TLSuda

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

TLSuda

Final: (79/2/1) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 20:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

TLSuda (talk · contribs) – I began a search for a particular user to nominate for RfA after reading this silly thread where two respected Wikipedians were upset. The particular issue was that discussions at WP:NFCR were not being closed within any reasonable time period and there was disagreement about whether those threads could be included on WP:ANRFC. Now, both sides had legitimate reasons to include them there, but I think there was a third options. We need more admins who patrol WP:NFCC since Fastily departed. I scoured the NFCR board and I saw one admin, User:Masem already participates there and I've asked him to take on a more admin-type role by closing threads. But Masem cannot do it all alone.

And so I present to you all, T-something or other. Kidding. Actually, ТимофейЛееСуда. With over 570 edits to WP:NFCR, this editor has shown competence and dedication to this area of Wikipedia. It's really important that not just any admin patrol WP:NFCR boards but an admin that is highly competent in our WP:NFCC policy because of the legal concerns. I think we have that admin right here. Over 20k edits, 8 years of experience, this editor is dedicated to the file namespace which many of our sysops are lacking. Let's fill a sorely needed vacancy in Wikipedia. v/r - TP 23:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the above statements made by TP to support ТимофейЛееСуда's nomination. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination of two admins who I have extreme respect for. I will say, however, that the RfA process terrifies me. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As a note to anyone reading this RfA, when I started this RfA, my username was ТимофейЛееСуда. The last 15000+ edits of my current 20000+ edit were made with that username. Due to a consensus of editors requesting (with very good reason), I've decided to be as transparent as possible with my new usernames TLSuda and TLSuda public. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Most of my time editing on Wikipedia is in the file space as well as most of experience is in that area. Therefore, I would intent to work mostly in WP:NFCR, WP:FFD, and WP:PUF all of which have fairly major backlogs with only a handful of active admins. I've closed a good many discussions on WP:NFCR and a few random ones listed at WP:AN/RFC, all as non-admin closures. I would also plan to work in the WP:CSD realm, but only in relation to files. I have no desire at this time to work in other XfD or CSD realms. I also have no desire to make blocks, except in obvious cases of pure vandalism accounts. I should note, in relation to my non-admin closures, I've had a few closures that faced opposition, but I have always offered to remove my closure if any uninvolved admin requests so.

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

A: In my opinion, my best contributions are my work in WP:NFCR, assisting at WP:FFU, and my general image edits (from adding descriptions to thousands of images, to correcting copyright tags, to renaming files, etc). I've transferred somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 files to WP:Commons. I've recently become a participant of the WP:GAN process by achieving my first Good Article, and by going through the recruitment course for reviewing articles.

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: I have been in more conflicts than I would like to admit. Some have been distant, and some have been recent. To be completely honest, I have, in the past, had issues with WP:AGF in discussions. I would get stressed in real life, but would not take a step back like I should have. Recently, this fault was pointed out to me in a way that I would understand, by someone uninvolved with the situation. I'm not perfect, and this is obviously something that I am working on, but simply knowing what I've done wrong, and how I've wronged other editors in the past gives me the motivation to consistently step back in discussions.

Additional question from ТимофейЛееСуда

4. I don't know if I'm allowed to ask myself a question, but I'm going to be bold and do it anyways: So, "T," I know you are afraid of this RfA, but good luck. I know that your edits will come under scrutiny through this process, so why don't you please start this RfA out by giving us some background. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A: Thanks for your question. Like I've mentioned in above answers, most of my editing has been in the file space. I believe that most of my editing is good work, but there are a few things in my past that I would like to address now:

1. My first few registered edits in 2006 were pure vandalism. Yucky stuff from an immature teenager. I didn't edit again until 2007, and since then all of my edits have been appropriate. I would obviously like to take back those bouts of vandalism, but that's the past.
2. The bulk of my edits are in the file namespace, and I'm a major stickler for the rules (especially with non-free files) and therefore others perceive me to be a deletionist. I personally don't know where I stand on the inclusionist/deletionist scale, but this often sheds a negative light on me.
3. My CSD/PROD/AFD success rate is absolutely horrible, abysmal, etc. I've basically stopped nominating anything other than files for deletion because I'm just not meant to be in that area. Then again, if I ever did have the mop, I would still avoid that area as I would mostly still work in the file namespace.
4. I have lost account creator rights previously for not following the ACC process correctly. I had done ACC previously successfully, then took a sabbatical, then went back and the rules had changed. I had not read up on the new rules and processes, so I was rushing through the process. Thankfully I did not actually cause any issues, but its not something that I am proud of.

I am sure that there is more things that I am missing, and I look forward to answering any questions about my edits or about myself. In light of recent COI type discussions across en.wp, meta, etc, I work for a small school system as a technology specialist, part time at a local college in the maintenance department, and I contract technical support services for a few local private schools, churches and individuals. I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of these, and all of my edits have been sourced. My username is my real name, and with the information given it would be very easy to track me down in real life. I trust that no one would do so in a malicious way, but if you want to reach out to me in real life (in a good way) I'd be more than happy to meet some fellow Wikipedians. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from TheOriginalSoni

5. Hello and good luck for your RFA. You primarily edit in the File namespace. If elected, would you be doing other sysop tasks outside Files? (For example, in an editing dispute unrelated to files)

A: Thank you for your questions, and I'm going to give you a two part answer, and I hope that is okay. In the foreseeable future, I have no plans of doing sysop type work outside of the File space, assisting with closing discussions listed at WP:AN/RFC (which I already do), and eventually blocking only obvious vandals. These are the tasks I've listed above. In the long run, I cannot say with 100% confidence what I will or will not work in. I can promise, though, right here, in front of everyone, in a place that will be preserved until the internet no longer exists, if I ever decide to work in a different area, including, but not limited to editing disputes, I will first reach out to admins who work in that area, as well as work as an editor in that area, before I make any edits that I have not discussed above. If I am ever elected and I do a sysop task that I am not familiar with, I hope any editor comes to me, so I can revert myself until such at time where I have familiarity with that area. -- Тимофей (THMOPENREECYRA) (Talk) 21:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

6. A lot of our editors (including myself) will find your username and signature unreadable. This could pose problems when someone tries to ping you or when someone is trying to find your username, among others. Would you be willing to change your username and/or signature to avoid such issues?

A: I never thought that there would be this many editors who were more interested in my username than I am. There seems to be a consensus that I would be better off changing it, so let's do it! I've put in two requests at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, one for this account and one for my public account. I've requested User:TLSuda and User:TLSuda public. I will update my signatures accordingly when the change is made. -- Тимофей (THMOPENREECYRA) (Talk) 22:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Tucoxn

7. Best of luck with your RfA. Could you please give your opinion on the recently proposed m:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment and particularly this comment about it? Since you have such a strong background in the use of non-free files, it would be useful to know what you think about this.

A:Thank you for your question, and I will try to answer it as well as possible. This is a tough question for me. I had recently saw that proposed amendment and read bits and pieces of the discussion. My college degree is in communications, and by trade I'm a technology specialist, so I can honestly say that I do not understand an legalities, or exactly how this proposal will work, or how it would be enforced. My hope is that if/when it happens, the community is given more guidance in respect to the proposal. That said, I truly do not have much to say about it anyways. I believe the goal is for more transparency, and I can completely understand why some editors want more transparency, especially with paid advocacy editing (using Mr. Wales' words). I'm on board with as much transparency as possible. I don't have any opinion or thoughts on the linked comment, because I don't fully understand what the "master plan" or the specifics of word choice in the discussion. I cannot comment on whether this proposal will achieve what it is set out for, because frankly, I don't know what will happen.

I do not know what this has to do in relation to non-free files, so if I am missing something I am sorry. Please let me know, and I would be more than happy to give you a better answer. -- TLSuda (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Diannaa

8. Please give us your opinion on the following images:

1. File:"The Silent Enemy", 1928.jpg
2. File:16 inch rifle Panama 1939.jpg
3. File:Evan Weiss, 2011.jpg
4. File:JoeyMercury2007.png

A:Thank you for your question; I hope I get the answer correct, since this is the area I work so much in. I'm going to address the files individually, I hope that is good with you.

Image #1: I cannot find evidence of a movie with this title that was released in 1928, only one in 1930 where the actor is the same as in the description the uploader used in an edit in his sandbox. So that means the date is wrong. Second, the source is horrible (its a Google image source). I checked through the renewals from the copyright office, and found none. (The film would've been copyright for 28 years, so I checked 1966-1970 to be sure). The film under the name The Silent Enemy nor the production company Burden-Chanler Productions were listed in the documents, so it is plausible that the copyright was not renewed. (I also could've missed something, as these are scans of documents). Minimally the date and source needs to be updated, and I believe we could WP:AGF that there is no evidence that the film was renewed. I've cleaned up the image a bit.

Image #2: The source of the image is a forum. According to the forum post, the images are scans from a US Army document. If this were true, the image license would be correct, although I would add what document the image came from to the source. But, we do not know if the image did come from said document because the forum is not a reliable source. One could reach out to the The UCR Library for information as they list a copy of the document in their archives. This would give 100% verification.

Image #3: This is an obvious copyvio and I've tagged it as such. The source that is listed is not the original source, as there is a different crop of the same photo posted months before to the AV Club website.

Image #4: The license was wrong, as Flickr lists it as CC-by-SA-2.0 so I've updated that. It should be moved to Commons.

As I've stated before, I'm not perfect, I might have missed something. If I do, I am always happy to correct my mistake. Let me know if you need more information, or if I need to correct something. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts about these images are identical to mine, except I missed that the film in example #1 was likely not released in 1928. Nicely done -- Diannaa (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Optional question from Adjwilley

9. This is a completely optional question, so if you don't want to respond or decide to wait a few days, that's perfectly fine.

Consider the following scenario: You are an administrator. Shortly after you take a certain administrative action that you believe is appropriate, you are approached by several users, including some administrators, who question your judgement and suggest that you reverse your action. Other users, though not as many, argue that your action was correct. You still believe that your action was correct. What do you do?

A: Thank you for your question, and its a great one. It is an extremely relevant question that I think any administrator should be willing to answer at any time. This is something I've thought much about, especially in making non-admin closures. As an editor, like I am currently, if I make an edit that any uninvolved administrator says is incorrect, I am happy to revert my edit. Once reverted, I attempt to join an appropriate discussion on the edit in question. Then we would go from there. If I ever become an admin, I would live by the same mantra. If I made an administrative action that an uninvolved admin thought was incorrect, I would happily revert, or would be completely cool if they reverted it for me. Once again I would then join the discussion and we could sort it out. I will be honest now and say: I will make mistakes; I am a human. When I make mistakes, I am happy to revert my mistakes and right any wrongs then discuss. The WP:BRD model is a good mantra to follow, even if simply making a non-bold edit. This is not to say that I will allow others to bully me to changing my mind, but I believe this is a healthy way to work on Wikipedia. -- TLSuda (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Epicgenius

10. This isn't particularly related to this RfA, and is fully optional, but can you please opt-in to your edit counter so that we can analyze your edit counts? Thanks in advance.

A: Absolutely. I opted in on meta, but apparently after my username change I broke my SUL, so I will opt in locally. Thanks for pointing that out. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Buffbills7701

11. What do you think is the main role of an administrator?

A:Thank you for your question, and I’m sorry I haven’t answered it sooner. When I read your question, I first thought I could just give you a paraphrase of my understanding of WP:MOP, but that would not be what you should hear from me. Instead, I’m going to give you my opinion on what I believe to be the main role of an administrator, I hope thats okay. I often have a bad habit of attempting to use metaphors to explain things, so I will do the same in this situation.

When I was a wee young lad, I was taught in school and by my parents that there are certain safe people I could go to anytime there was an issue. My issues could have ranged from being lost to getting into a fight or argument. If I ever thought I was being treated wrong, or someone else wasn’t following the rules, there was always certain adults that would hear me out and help me with my situation. These were police officers, firefighters, clergy members, teachers, etc. Basically there was a safe person to go to whenever something just wasn’t right.

It is my opinion that the main role of each and every administrator to be one of these persons. Administrators are elected by editors, to serve editors. If an editor ever has any sort of issue, they should feel safe approaching any administrator. In return, the administrator should listen with an open mind, and assist in whatever way they possibly can.

So, the TL;DR of my point is: my opinion is that the main role of administrator is to be a good listener and to do their best to use their skills to help in any way possible. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Chris troutman

12. You've run into irate editors as you've closed discussions. Do you foresee using a mop and bucket to deal with these ne'er-do-wells? If your use of said mop and bucket runs afoul of the community, under what conditions would you consent to recall?

A:Thank you for your good question; this is important. Like I’ve stated previously, I have no plans to block or anything of the sort with anything short of outright vandalism only accounts, so I would not do that. It would be inappropriate of me to use the tools (if I ever have them) in a way to further my own opinion, or to handle irate editors, so I would not do that. Wikipedia is great in that it has processes for how to deal with situations. If I encountered an editor that I had discussions with in the past that may have become irate, I would purposely not use any tools that I have. (There is a chance I might forget who I’ve interacted with, but I would try my best.) I would treat them with respect, WP:AGF, and have an honest discussion. I would encourage uninvolved editors and/or administrators to join to help find a good resolution.

If I ever have a situation where I were to do something that others deemed inappropriate, I request that an uninvolved administrator ask me to revert myself, and I would. I would then open the lines of discussion.

For the second part of the question, I must say that I haven’t yet thought much about recall. After doing a bit of research, I would probably set up a recall like my nominator has: User:TParis/Recall. It is a well thought out plan that I think is extremely fair. TParis is a smart fellow (he nominated me for the bit, haha). I cannot yet comment who might be on that list, but I can promise both of my co-nominators (TParis and Masem) would be at the top, if they don’t mind. And @TParis:, I hope it is okay that I shamelessly steal your recall. Remember that copying is the best compliment. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

13. What is your view of Process is important?

A: Thank you for your questions and I hope you’ll understand, I’ve taken some additional time to answer them fully. I think this is a good essay for new editors and even as a refresher for long-time editors. Wikipedia is structured in a way that our processes through policies, guidelines and even standard editing practice keep high quality. These processes keep the project from falling into complete chaos. In my personal life, following process is important. I believe oftentimes how you got to a point is more important than what the point is. Sometimes process gets you to the wrong place, but that doesn’t mean that the process is necessarily wrong. There are very few times when process should be subverted, but it should never be done without good reason and heaps of transparency as to why.

I can say from experience that following process can be scary, like this RfA, or frustrating. When working with editors who may be unfamiliar with the process in a particular area, it is proper to explain the process and WP:AGF with that editor. I will say plainly that I do not know or understand all of the policies here, but I will continue to work toward the point where I do. -- TLSuda (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

14. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A: I believe you are asking about the how strictly the literal wording of the individual criteria should be applied. If not, I apologize, and I would be more than happy to try my answer again. First off, no CSD should be performed except in obvious cases. It is my opinion that if there is one iota of doubt in the mind of an administrator, the CSD should not be performed. Instead it should go through a discussion process. I believe more in the spirit rather than the letter of something. In other words, we should pay attention to the reason that criteria was created and apply that thought more than what the exact words say. Words can be twisted. Some of the individual criteria are more general and I feel in those cases, sufficient thought should be given to whether that request meets what the criteria was intended to meet.

I usually only have experience with those relating to files. To speak specifically about those is fairly easy. Most of those are written in a way that there can only be one interpretation. Often, though, items in the file space are not so cut and dry. Many of the criteria are better served, in my opinion, to be taken through WP:FFD, WP:NFCR, WP:PUF or simply fixed instead of being deleted. -- TLSuda (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

15. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A: I can honestly say that before reading this question, I had never thought about this. Even after reading the question, I am not sure what the place is. I cannot recall ever having used WP:IAR in my edits. I have seen many times when WP:IAR is thrown around in discussions as an argument for a particular outcome, and I do not believe that is the intended use. The best answer I can give at this time, is that the basis of WP:IAR is using common sense is more important that following rules. Like I said in a previous question, that the role of an administrator is to be a safe person for editors to come to. So, when it comes to administrative actions, I currently (having never been a mop-wielder) believe that administrators should use common sense when trying to help editors. WP:IAR would be important when assisting an editor who would benefit more for additional attention rather than being railroaded through process. I will continue to try to understand this policy more, and may have more to say on this at a later time. -- TLSuda (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

16. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A:Good question. I’ve said above many times that I only have good experience in a few areas. What I haven’t yet specifically said is that there are many more editors who aren’t admins who have even more experience than I do. I never hesitate to reach out to other editors when I’m unsure of specific things, and this wouldn’t change if I were given a mop. That foundation being laid, I hope that any editor, even now, feels that they could come to me. I see myself doing my best to help out in these situations when they arise. (See question 11, above). I am more than happy to directly help out in situations that I have knowledge, and I’m learning more patience to have WP:AGF in all situations. If I am approached in a situation that I am unfamiliar or that I cannot provide the best answer, I will reach out to current admins, and long time editors. I will always try to do my best in these situations. -- TLSuda (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Ottawahitech

17. In light of your earlier indiscretions and since you are an active participant in the other ongoing RFA can you please tell us how you would deal with someone claiming that they are being cyber-bullied/harassed on Wikipedia?

A: Thank you for your question. This is very good question, and to be honest, I would be completely unfamiliar with handling as situation such as you have described. I don’t know what the right way to handle this. I would take the situation seriously, as there can be unfortunate on-wiki and real-life consequences to cyber-bullying and harassment. As I’ve said in above questions, an admin’s main role is to be a safe person to go to, where no judgement should be passed. My first step would be to listen, intently, to the editors account of the situation. I would try my best to handle this information with an appropriate level of discretion and would try to see the situation from both points of view. As I have no experience in this area, and it can be a delicate situation, I would work with admins who are more familiar with these processes to find the best resolution. Bullying or harassment in any form is not appropriate and should be handled swiftly but diligently as to minimize any negative impact. This all being said, I am aware of the possibility that false information or accusations are possible, and this is another reason why I would want a more experienced administrator involved. I like to think that I am not easily manipulated, but I believe at some level that everyone has the ability to be tricked. I know this isn’t the best answer to your question, but it is my honest answer. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/TLSuda

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

---

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

Discussion

• Note User has been renamed from ТимофейЛееСуда to User:TLSuda during this RfA.--v/r - TP 00:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--v/r - TP 20:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Really don't see why not. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 20:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. When I was an admin here, I was one of only a handful of admins dealing with images at FFD, PUF, etc, so I know having another admin focusing on files is badly needed. INeverCry 20:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Support – I noticed a little skirmish on his talk page about 10 days ago, but I really didn't dig up the full story and it doesn't look like a reason for me not to give him my full support. United States Man (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per nomination. The first three edits are a bit embarrassing. In hindsight, it probably would have been best to abandon this account and start a new one in 2007 when you decided to edit constructively. I like the fact that the editor recognizes issues, addresses them upfront, and works on getting better. I am One of Many (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

   I personally disagree with the suggestion that abandoning the account would have been a better idea. Being accountable for a couple of early, ill-considered (and somewhat sexist) edits is a highly commendable decision, exemplifying behaviour which should be encouraged. Yes, the edits may be cited as a reason for opposition, but when seen in the wider context of elapsed time and expressed regret, they really don't hold any significant weight on their own. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

6. Support - looks like a good candidate, and will fill an area of need. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Trusted, experienced, well-working and solid editor. --///EuroCarGT 21:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
8. Support because the user seems like a good choice; we desperately need more admins who will deal with files. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

   Support file renaming and uploading looks to be fine. Other logs also shows experience with feedback. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC) changing to oppose due to username change

9. Support Seems a sensible guy and the nom states an area the candidate is experienced in needs more admins. Hopefully the process doesn't turn out to be as scary as you think! benmoore 21:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
10. Seems to have a clue what he's doing, and is working in areas that need help. TCN7JM 21:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
11. Support Not the perfect candidate but I don't think you should have to be perfect to be approved as an admin. I think it's a great approach to take note of which WP areas need more admins and then look for good candidates already working in these areas. He has the two things I'm looking for, experience in the areas where he intends to work and self-awareness about his limitations and past mistakes. I do agree that for an English language wiki, it's important to have a username using the standard Western alphabet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
12. Support. I can't hold a 2006 immature comment against the candidate (bad as it would be if it were within the past few years). He seems to have a good record since then. I am glad he will change his user name but I would not have based an oppose on that. He has made many helpful contributions to the project for over eight years. Also, he is both qualified and willing to work in a complicated area with a large backlog and little participation by administrators. Donner60 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
13. Support – This user seems qualified. A vandalistic edit from 8 years ago is far outweighed by the candidate's contributions in more recent years. Epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
14. No red flags I can see. Very helpful user in the PUF/FFD and additional admin help there would be most appreciated! And FWIW, the first of my edits were none that I'm proud of either, so there's that... Connormah (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
15. Support thanks for volunteering. Legoktm (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
16. Support Sure. Though I preferred the old name ;) — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 02:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
17. Support - Holding a comment against someone that was made in 2006 is utterly pathetic & to be honest some of us do fuck up when we first start editing here but like TLSuda we all grow up & begin to edit constructively, Anyway Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
18. Support - Good record. No qualms. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
19. Support - Knowledgeable about his chosen field, happy to support this candidate. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
20. Support - I like that he was chosen to fill a specific and important need. I also appreciate the collaborative aspect to his User name change. Seems like a bright spirit. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
21. Support - (edit conflict) This editor's work with non-free files puts him in a position to deal with many articles edited by users with potential conflicts of interest and paid advocacy editing issues. It looks like he has a cool head and is very knowledgeable about the areas where he is requesting to work. I commend this editor on putting his old issues under the light for scrutiny — best of luck dealing with this trying process. I'm happy to provide my support. - tucoxn\^talk 04:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
22. Support - Seems good to me. It looks like their help is needed, and I am pleased by their answers to questions. I think their temperament and personality will be an asset in admin service. I was also impressed with an apology I found while perusing their talk page (regarding an unrelated dispute a couple weeks ago I think). ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
23. Support - I first interacted with this user during a GA review of National Press Monument a couple months ago, and even then TLSuda struck me as highly competent and not afraid of making (possibly unpopular) opinions clear if s/he believed they were right. My look through the recent contributions only confirms my initial impression, and makes me happy I added TLSuda's talk page to my watchlist. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
24. Support - TLSuda seems level headed and has solid answers, and also seems to be willing to learn their way around. Given their experience in an area where admins are needed, and their willingness to not mess with areas they do not yet have experience with, I would gladly support them. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
25. Support - This is a good example of an admin who has learned from his past mistakes. First, he knew that vandalism is never tolerated here, and he had changed to helping out in admin-related tasks. Second, a name change is, and should be, necessary since it will be hard for barely 99.99% of Wikipedians to type non-Latin characters, as in the case of Σ which partially made him lose his RfA. I have to commend the candidate for this and his work in the admin field he's into. admins should be knowledgeable of what they're doing and the policies they should keep in mind. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
26. Support Seems like a good contributor with a clean record, ready to fill a needed niche. I am particularly impressed that TP took the trouble to seek him out and urge him to run. And I appreciate his responsiveness with regard to his username. --MelanieN (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. Another reason to support: The sense of humor evident at question #4. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
27. Support - I've been on the opposite side of a debate with Timofei that was very similar to the scenario in Q9, and he handled it in the calm manner he describes in that answer. (And the admin I asked to review it found in his favour.) We need calm, competent admins such as I think he will be. I cannot see how a teenage goof 8 years ago can be remotely relevant. His immediate name change, resolving the difficulty in finding him via the search box, was very generous. I have no hesitation in supporting. --Stfg (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
28. Support - seems solid enough. GiantSnowman 12:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
29. Support. I was uncomfortable with the original username, and I think changing it (even during the RfA) was a wise choice - the new one is much better. I trust TP's nomination, and think TLSuda has many of the qualities desired in an admin. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 13:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
30. Support: candidate is a net positive. Matty.007 14:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
31. Support No reason not to. Opposes unconvincing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
32. Support Positives easily overcome the negatives here. Widr (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
33. Support Trusted user, willing to pitch in with a backlog in real need of help. Will make a fine admin. Miniapolis 16:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
34. Support - and enthusiastically. I recently mentored T (I like the old name, too) in the GA Recruitment Centre. [1] Even though he's been around for several years and has loads of experience here, he submitted himself to a process designed for newbie editors because he recognized that he could benefit from it. He wanted assistance in reviewing articles and he wanted to improve his editing skills, and that impresses the heck out me. We need more editors and admins like him: those who actively want to increase his skills and who are dedicated to improving articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
35. Support - We could use more qualified admins, and I have no reason to doubt the would do the job fantastically. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
36. Edit conflicted support Secret ^account 19:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
37. Support. Rzuwig^► 20:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
38. Strongest possible supportHave never interacted with him and probably never will (mostly because I have no interest whatsoever in trying to figure out the complexities of image use policy), but we desperately need admins willing to work in that area. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
39. Support Wikipedia has 800,000 files being handled by 8 people. We need good admins working in the area. I don't always agree with TLSuda, but he knows the namespace, and he an be of help as an admin there. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 20:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
40. {{s}} --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
41. Support - We need more admins involved in files on this Wikipedia without a doubt. Also, the comment below appears to be not only eight years ago but a one-time comment. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
42. Support - contributes to an area where I don't do much work but I can certainly see the value. The answer to question 5 demonstrates the right attitude toward adminship. Stalwart111 22:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
43. Support. First of all, anyone who is honest and straightforward enough to write and answer Q4 in that way is someone with a lot of "clue". And, I can support based on direct observation. I got a chuckle out of the nomination statement, because I've been a witness to a lot of discussions like the "silly" one cited there (luckily for me, I missed that particular one). It's true that file licensing and deletion is an area with a constant administrative backlog, so more hands there will definitely fill a need. (And I'll put in a shameless plug for WP:AAFFD while I'm at it!) I've been in some other recent discussions resembling the "silly" one, where the candidate was also participating, and his own contributions have been anything but silly. He and I actually disagree quite a bit on matters of personal opinion, but I've never seen any red flags with respect to settled policy. And he has been unfailingly polite, helpful, and good at lowering the temperature. I'm happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

    I agree, that Q4 was very impressive. Carrite (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

44. Support - I hate our photo use rules at WP — it is frankly idiotic having a non-commercial site based in the USA which does not take advantage of our well-established "fair use" exemption to copyright laws. Let me emphasize that: idiotic. Therefore, it's really a rough one to support more tools for an "enforcer" of this ongoing stupidity. Still: for better or worse, that's the way it is and that's the way it's gonna be and it's better to have competent people (such as this candidate seems to be) than a couple of the incompetent "enforcers" that have been shown the door. Take your time, don't work too fast — that's what gets people in trouble, an itchy finger on the delete button. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
45. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
46. Support - No concerns. AlexiusHoratius 15:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
47. Support, although I liked the original username better. We certainly need more admins in areas as horrible as non-free content review (as a supporter of the "free encyclopedia" idea, I oppose the inclusion of non-free content, so I don't work in that area, and am grateful that others do). Also, I like that you ask your own question. —Kusma (t·c) 15:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
48. Support - fulfills demonstrated, pressing, immediate need. Tons of clue regarding Wikipedia, and himself. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
49. Support - I suppose eight years is long enough for a change of direction. Deb (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
50. Support - Note: The username wasn't an issue for me either way, nor do I think it should have been. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
51. Support I haven't come across him much, but I like what I see here. The user name issue is a Catch 22 one, and doesn't worry me change or not. I can't see him starting to vandalise again, so that's a non-issue too. Posting his own question was good. Shows initiative. Peridon (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
52. Support Good answers to questions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
53. Support Wonderful metaphor to answer my question. buffbills7701 21:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
54. Support Q8 did it for me. Good candidate. --John (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
55. Support likely to be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
56. Support - Looks like a very competent candidate, whom for most of their history has been a clear positive (the fact I've never come across them is probably a good sign). The username change shows they're willing to listen to any issues regarding themselves, no matter how minor, which is very good. We really need more non-free file cleanupers, and particularly ones that are as self-aware as this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
57. Support - Per nom. Wise decision to change username and possibly unprecedented during an RfA. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
58. Support. Lacking content creation, but strong image handling work. Thank you for your honesty in question 4, and thank you for changing your username. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
59. Support - belatedly, following sensible, uncontested name change. Leaky Caldron 13:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
60. Support - I'm an admin, and I've vandalized Wikipedia before. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 19:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
61. Support No concerns here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
62. Support OK. --►Cekli829 13:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
63. Support No issues. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 14:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
64. Support with the aside: the whole non-latin characters thing is pointless. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
65. Support The answers to the questions, including mine, were excellent. I give no weight to the early vandalism from many years ago. The name change, in response to a request on this page, was promptly and graciously handled. I am a little concerned by the lack of experience in several areas of admin activity. and by the very limited edits in project space, but we do need people who will do the kind of things that TLSuda indicates that he plans to do, and i am not really worried about wild misjudgement on his part. DES ^(talk) 02:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
66. Support. The candidate's assurances that he will tread carefully in unfamiliar admin areas make me happy to support. Also, I think the username change was a good move, although I would have supported anyway. And kudos to TParis for finding such a well-qualified candidate for such an understaffed area. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
67. Support - I don't consider the first 2 edits by this user a problem when you consider the 40 000 good ones since. James086^Talk 17:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
68. Support Backlogs are becoming more and more a problem and I have no concerns that this editor would abuse the tools. Net positive support from me. Mkdw^talk 02:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
69. Support After going through his answers, I've nothing left unanswered. I guess, he would to be a good admin. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
70. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
71. Support on several grounds, including my respect for the nominator, the judgement shown in the quick namechange, the ability in an area which needs workers and holds no interest for many editors, and the willingness to accept responsibility for the early edits. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
72. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
73. Support Will be nice to have another administrator working in the file area - I fully support this candidate. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 17:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
74. Support A custom signature would have satisfied my concern about the username. Answers to questions, especially Q4, show lots of clue. Nothing negative in recent history. Going to be a valuable member of the mop and bucket crew. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
75. Support Trustworthy, experienced, and qualified. No concerns here. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
76. Support I see no problem here. Another admin working in files will be very useful.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
77. Support, if the worst thing we can find about this editor is a single instance of vandalism from eight years ago, then I'm happy to give them a mop. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC).
78. Support. The candidate is clearly knowledgeable about the areas in which they intend to work, has a healthy edit count in the Wikipedia: namespace, and displays even temperament and thoughtfulness. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 16:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
79. Great work on Wikipedia. I'm not at all concerned about eight year-old vandalism and the candidate further displays a willingness to learn from mistakes, an important quality in an administrator. I like his work with NFCC/NFCR; he'll be an asset to the project with the toolset in an area where more admins are certainly needed. I'm happy to support. Good luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Striking in view of Q6. Your signature impedes accessibility, makes it impossible to look you up or search for your contributions on a lengthy talk page. Admins. must have completely transparent means of communication, especially to new users. Being able to click on your name is only part of it. Not everyone uses a keyboard that has immediate access to non-Latin characters, and names that cannot be pronounced cannot be retained in memory - WP:NLS Leaky Caldron 20:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I kinda wondered why it wasn't just User:TimothyLeeSuda too. INeverCry 20:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a more than fair request. I've updated it accordingly. Note: I have a public account that uses non-latin characters that links to my main account. Generally on computers in public situations, I do not have easy access to my Cyrillic alphabet. Therefore if I have issues with my own username, others do too. I should have taken this into consideration sooner. As for INeverCry's statement, I chose the non-latin characters as this is my heritage, and if I could, I would legally change my name as such. My real-life check-signing signature is Cyrillic. -- Тимофей (THMOPENREECYRA) (Talk) 20:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It was the Lee that threw me off - I would've expected a patronymic instead. INeverCry 20:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the user should have an English name that redirect to his/her current username. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

By hard coding the colour in the signature it does not change when talk or user page is visited. Since the colour is close to default blue, you may was well let it default to allow that convenience to the reader so that they know they have visited your talk page before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:THMOPENREECYRA It is only an improvement in that you now have a jumble of Latin characters as opposed to a jumble of Cyrillic characters. It does not go far enough for me. Leaky Caldron 21:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's easily searchable if you remember the first three letters. I'm not so sure what your deal is. TCN7JM 21:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Why support a user who wrote "Some girls like it when you shove your throbbing dick into their wet pussies and then alternate into their tight assholes while they are sucking on your brother's cock." Beerest 2 Talk page 21:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

   I think it's a bit unfair to hold a 2006 comment (that the user says he regrets making) against him. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

   Agreed. That was eight years ago. He was a kid. He isn't a kid any more. It's been said that Wikipedia never forgets and never forgives, but come on! --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

   Could you give some context? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

   Here you go diff. It was his second edit on Wikipedia in April 2006 so, 8 years ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

   Why is a single diff from 8 years ago, which was the user's second-ever-contribution to Wikipedia, being offered as a reason to oppose? (By the way, the candidate's first 3 contributions were all vandalism.) Give him a break. Epicgenius (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

   I would agree with the others here. I don't see why one vandalistic contrib from 8 years ago should annul all the constructive and helpful edits that have been made thus far. Connormah (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

   As another editor whose first edits were vandalism, I can say with personal experience that a vandalism edit or two at the beginning of a user's Wikipedia career shouldn't disallow them from ever becoming an administrator. Now, mine was two years before my RfA last year, so people still counted it against me. But come on, this is from almost a decade ago. TCN7JM 01:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

   Vandalism from 8 years ago is a sign that this user matured and became sensible. If anything, that's a good sign, not a bad one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose from support due to changing username int he middle of RFA causing confusion. Could have waited till this RFA was over. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

   The name "TL Suda" is better than one he/she started with. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 12:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

   You just can't win with some people. INeverCry 15:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

   Where's the rule about changing usernames within the middle of an RfA, and why exactly does this disconcert you? TCN7JM 16:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

   @Graeme Bartlett: I don't see how a username change would affect his ability to become an administrator; there's no point in opposing for a reason like that. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

   Well, hang on guys. Not that I agree, I don't, but Graeme's complaint may not be about ability but rather judgement. If he believes it was a bad judgement call to rename during an RfA, that's a legitimate complaint. Graeme is a long time contributor and administrator, we may disagree with his opinion but he doesn't make a habit of controversial !votes and we should respect his opinion.--v/r - TP 23:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

   Not that I disagree with you on that, but I'd hardly call asking for a username change when multiple users were requesting he did so a lapse in judgement. Didn't cause confusion for me, but...*shrug*. TCN7JM 23:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

   I'd say I'm certainly glad he was willing to change from Cyrillic to Latin. Better late than never. Had he not changed, I would have voted as Opposed, but now I will merely comment as officially quite Relieved. Scott P. (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   It would have been best to change before going for the RFA. I think that changing so soon after complaint shows being too easily swayed by others opinions. It should have taken a bit more consideration. Perhaps preceded by a promise to change user name. Apart from this sudden change everything else looked fine with our candidate that I looked at, and it will be good to have more image enthusiasts around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   As the editor who first raised the concern about his signature I agree that it would have been preferable if this easily foreseen issue had been sorted out in advance and I am surprised that neither the candidate or proposer where aware of the potential problem prior to submitting. It is not the first time that a problematic signature that impairs user accessibility has contributed to the demise of an RfA and this candidate's Cyrillic signature with no Latin extension was at the extreme end of difficulty. That said, I personally admire the candidate's ultimate response which demonstrated a willingness to listen and learn. My experience of dealing with some long-term Admins. is that listening and learning are commodities which are exceedingly scarce. Leaky Caldron 10:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   He changed after seeing opposes and neutral votes, including one from an admin. The rename was obviously needed, so he did it quickly. What was the alternative? Waiting for more opposes to be tacked on? As for this vote, opposes in an RFA should have a bit more weight than this, especially coming from an admin. Do you think he'll do a good job as an admin with the delete/block/protect buttons, etc? If yes, vote support. That's what RFAs are about, not some minor username issue that's been fixed. INeverCry 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   It's a bit of an odd time to change a username, but I think it was sensible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now. I would change to Support if the he were to change his username to one which uses the English alphabet. Seems like a good contributor with a clean record, ready to fill a needed niche, and I am particularly impressed that TP took the trouble to seek him out and urge him to run. I can also relate to his "fear" of RfA and would like to assure him that the username is the only reason I am withholding my support. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We had an RFA like this on Commons a while back, where the candidate changed his username and became an admin [2]. INeverCry 21:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It looks as if the user name has been changed to User:TLSuda. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Main account, Public account. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

1. I'm uncomfortable with this, but since it's more about the system, not the individual I'll leave it in neutral, not oppose. You have an area of strength, and other areas of weaknesses. You promise to take certain steps before advancing into those areas, and that's great. However the day after this RFA you're free to ignore those promises and we have no recourse. This is not theoretical, it's happened many times. With some way to enforce your promisses I'd be a lot more likely to support.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty, and frankly I agree with you. There is always the danger of someone you voting for not keeping their word, (politics, right?). I hope you will see my answer to question 12. I would be voluntarily open to recall, and I would be more than happy to specify in my recall what areas that I plan to work in, much like I have here on this RfA. Also, like I've said above, if any uninvolved administrator tells me that I should revert myself I will, and then discuss. So if any administrator sees that I'm working out of my proposed areas, I welcome them to ask me to revert myself. I believe in transparency so, if I become an administrator, I will recreate my userpage with all of this information in plain view. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2014 (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.