Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Saravask

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Plastikspork (talk | contribs) at 18:22, 15 August 2009 (subst un-substituted template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Saravask

Final (62/3/3) ended 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Saravask (talk · contribs) – has been a prolific contributor and highly-respected editor here on Wikipedia since September, 2005. He has since contributed more than 9,000 edits at more than 40 edits per day. Saravask is the author of featured artices like Kerala, Saffron, History of Saffron, Trade and usage of saffron, Hugo Chávez, Military career of Hugo Chávez and most recently Rabindranath Tagore. He has received 6 barnstars from his peers, including 2 barnstars of national merit and 1 featured article medal.[1] He has been solicited twice before for adminship[2] [3], but declined with modesty. By his own admission, Saravask has up till recently not been very active on janitorial tasks. However, throughout my interactions and observation of him, Saravask has gone out of his way to help others, sharing advice, serious criticism and encouragement. Even though his user talk edits are comparatively low, Saravask has great experience in interactions through peer reviews and talk page comments. IMO, he exhibits patience, passion, meticulousness, an ability to take criticism and build consensus and a razor-sharp power of analysis. He is always helpful and cheerful towards all. For a long time I have strongly felt that he is actually the ideal candidate for the responsibility of protecting quality content on Wikipedia, helping young users, resolving conflicts and other administrative tasks. For all his time on Wikipedia, Saravask has been a role-model for editors. He has now shown a desire to serve Wikipedia in administrative responsibilities. It is with full confidence that I respectfully ask you to give him the tools to protect and defend Wikipedia and its community. Rama's Arrow 06:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, my morbid embarrassment (at reading the above) aside. Sorry for being late. :-) Saravask 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Powerful Support Rama's Arrow 19:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support with pleasure. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I had some concerns but I think he'll be good with tools.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Looks good to me -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - meets my standards -- Tawker 20:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Extreme Support --Dwaipayanc 20:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support - the nom pretty much summed it all up. :) —Khoikhoi 07:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, per above. - Mailer Diablo 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, Wow, quite a few featured articles! Definitely yes. Cheesehead Fan 21:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support an outstanding contributor who I hope indeed will not spend very much of his editing time on janitorial tasks. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  11. Support Too many featured articles... must reset brain... _-M o P-_ 23:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nom. DarthVader 23:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, great ed and great future mopper Deizio 00:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Speedy best FA writer who is not a admin period Jaranda wat's sup 00:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per all above. LOL Jaranda. I wish I could speedy support this nomination. :-) Royboycrashfan 01:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Looks fine. Good job on this articles.--MONGO 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Joe I 02:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - very good allrounder (bats, bowls and fields) Green Giant 03:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - looks good. Kimchi.sg | talk 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. He's linked to my user page in Q4, what choice do I have? But seriously, Saravask is an asset who I'm sure will make a fine admin. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support - One of the best editors I've seen on wikipedia. Definitely administrator material. -- thunderboltz(TALK) 03:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support--Raghu 03:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support - a pleasure. Ganeshk (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --Terence Ong 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, if only for Rabindranath Tagore, which is an incredibly good article. But for other reasons as well, definitely trustworthy with the mop --Deville (Talk) 04:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, though I wish he won't spend his time on admin tasks. Tintin (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Great editor and has experience, mainly supporting because I like his answers to No Guru's questions in the oppose section. - Patman2648 06:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support. Why not? Wonderful editor who takes a mature approach as shown while editing Kerala. Sorry that I couldn't be the first one to vote. See my reverted vote before he accepted the nomination.-- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, as per everyone above. Very unlikely to abuse admin tools. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Support, too many featured articles. :-) --Andy123(talk) 10:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - It would have been oppose if Saravask hadn't explained his edits from late October 2005 as the product of inexperience. - Richardcavell 13:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support--Jusjih 14:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support' reaches my standards. Computerjoe's talk 14:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose per Andy123 :). (that would be a support) AndyZ t 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Good editor. Will be good admin. FloNight talk 17:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per FloNight Mets501talk 18:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Extraordinary editor. Deserves the mop. (^'-')^ Covington 22:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. --Jay(Reply) 22:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per nom. --Elkman - (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support: I have seen his work and he works with zeal. I know that he shall be a real administrator. --Bhadani 12:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Looks like a good editor. Davewild 16:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per nominator. OSU80 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong support 172 | Talk 21:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, per nom. Candid acknowledgement of previous misdemeanors shows responsibility.--cjllw | TALK 01:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Excellent editor. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. SupportßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. --Irpen 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support -- Good editor. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support this nomination. Yamaguchi先生 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, yesss. JIP | Talk 07:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support sounds good, gets my support. Gryffindor 12:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support This guy should break into WP:100, he's a great editor. Staxringold 15:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per nom and edit count. Primate#101 11:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh! Editcountitis (see below). — May. 3, '06 [12:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    See my comment below. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Slight concerns about spread of mainspace edits outweighed by other contrbutions. Has made mistakes in the past (we all have), but I am sure he has learned from them. Will make a good admin. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Will support till he call me a buffoon... ;) --hydkat 13:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per nom. Patience is an excellent admin quality. Good to have the extra tools for dispute resolution.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support if ever I did! One of my Wikipedia heroes. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Viva Chavez! Viva Tagore, a personal favourite of mine! Viva Saravask! Grace Note 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support 9,000 edits?!?!?!?!?! the_ed17(talk)Use these! 17:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. Oppose after having read through examples provided by Knucmo2, and additionally concerned about POV throughout the Hugo Chavez articles. Sandy 10:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Strong oppose. I voiced my concern on 29 April. Saravask has not responded as of 1 May. My concern is that, with an admin as a possible gatekeeper, vested in the Venezuela/Chavez articles current POV (which is decidedly not NPOV), it could become hard for future editors to improve the articles, or work on removing the POV. I am changing to strong opposition, because Saravask has not responded to these concerns. Sandy 13:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Comment Section below. Sandy 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. I can't possibly support a user who averages 10+ edits per page, no matter how good those edits are. Furthermore, this list gives me a heart attack. 5,615 article-space edits per Interiot's tool looks good on the surface, but 4,273 of them (76.1%) are to his ten favorite articles, and it looks quite possible that half, if not more, of his edits are related to Hugo Chávez in some way. Please find something else to edit, I have no nicer way of saying this. — May. 1, '06 [11:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    A comparison: When I was promoted as admin, most of my mainspace edits had to do with India and Cricket, which I had elevated to featured status. So, as far as your logic goes, am I a rotten admin? :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears you don't average 10.326 edits per page either, sir. — May. 2, '06 [07:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    Sigh! Editcountitis =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    freakofnurture, I hope that at the very least you realise how counterproductive your comments are to the whole cause of Wikipedia. I could quip but I'm actually utterly serious here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I don't mind editors who do one area of articles (India and Cricket), but I'm a bit wary of a one-trick pony, so to speak. Admins should have broad experience, and editing four articles just doesn't give broad experience in the variegated types of conflict resolution and policy implrementation issues that a proper admin is going to have to deal with.—thames 23:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Is a valuable editor but tends to look for argument a little too much. --Knucmo2 00:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide any diffs to illustrate your point? Kimchi.sg | talk 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life of Hugo Chávez/archive1, Talk:Kerala/Archive01#Matrilineality, [4] (last link being over a revert war). --Knucmo2 08:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Seems like a good editor but I like to see admins spread their efforts beyond WP:RPP and WP:AIAV and the 2 other areas mentioned below. And the response to question 4 leaves me wondering why he has not bothered to establish the notability of Rathindranath Tagore and Samindranath Tagore for almost a month after he created them. -- No Guru 03:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Yes, both of these are good points. I'm of course willing to do other janitorial work (handling copyvio listings and articles and deleting old untagged images as I come across it/them. But, as I said below, for now I don't anticipate spending all my wikitime on a broad spectrum of such work — I tend to be much more effective when I mainly focus on one or two (in this case, janitorial) tasks at a time, making a few such edits daily. The latter point — it's a bit complicated, analogous to the notability of biographies on Jenna Bush and Barbara Pierce Bush (1981). I'd argue that none among the four (either Bush's children or Tagore's) meets the criterion at WP:BIO that mandates that they must have made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". Yet (probably irrelevant to this discussion) all are related to those who do meet this requirement, and Wikipedia already has scores of such articles (relations of notable people) like those on the Bush twins. So this leaves me a bit puzzled, to say the least. In the other hand, the info in such articles can be independently verified via reputable sources; this is listed as an alternative criterion for notability. Saravask 04:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NeutralA little to quick to shoot first, etc. See Talk:Kerala#The_largest_city_in_Kerala. Need more time to mellow. On the other hand, remained reasonably cvil throughout. Dlohcierekim 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Total edits	9190
Distinct pages edited	890
Average edits/page	10.326
First edit	04:11, 24 September 2005
	
(main)	5721
Talk	746
User	919
User talk	358
Image	193
Image talk	3
Template	527
Template talk	1
Category	7
Category talk	1
Wikipedia	664
Wikipedia talk	50
  • Saravask's edit count with Interiot's tool
  • Comment: I don't know if you'll thank me, Saravask, but I'll take your word for it that you would have liked to have posted links to your flaming of 172, and supply these:[5] [6], from rather many more, on the principle that people should perhaps have a chance to see them, and with full acknowledgement that frustrated newbies will post very, uh, spontaneously, sometimes. Your eloquence, here deployed on the Dark Side, makes this quite an example of that principle. I don't mean to throw a spanner in the RFA works, but rather to illustrate the distance between then and now, and I've supported above; I think now you'll make a great admin. (The history is at the talkpage, not the archive.) Bishonen | talk 21:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Absolutely. Thanks — I've included the diffs in my response below. Saravask 02:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for an encyclopedia based on the fundamental principle of NPOV, that the Venezuela/Hugo Chavez articles would be offered as articles in support of Saravask's RfA gives rise to concern. It is troubling that several days have passed and Saravask has not addressed this concern. Is he responsible for the POV in them, is he unaware of the POV, or was he unable to get other editors to remove the POV? I attempted to study the history of the articles in depth to answer these questions myself, and found that the articles were so biased that it was hard to find a starting place, and would rather that Saravask answer the questions himself, to provide an idea of where he stands on the POV in the articles, and how/why they became featured. It is not unusual for POV to work its way into articles in spite of the best intent of other editors. What is alarming is that some of these incomplete, poorly sourced, one-sided and POV Venezuela/Chavez articles were featured articles on Wikipedia. This does not speak well for Wikipedia's fundamental principles. My concern about this RfA grows, considering that Saravask has chosen not to address this issue, along with the comments about Saravask being overly argumentative, and the number of times he has apologized for his editing style. I wonder if it is not too soon for him to apply for adminship? I hope that he will address the concerns about the POV in his featured articles, and I would additonally hope that other editors would be concerned that POV articles became FA on Wiki. Was this POV able to work its way into the articles because too few editors were aware of the POV, and those who tried to remove it may have had difficulty expressing their arguments well in English? The lack of response from Saravask, along with the argumentative style acknowledged in some of his responses, could indicate qualities that are not desirable in an admin. His focus on a few favorite topics could indicate he is not fully immersed (yet) in the Wiki culture. Sandy 12:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your vote/comment; I'm sorry that I do not meet with your approval. If I am demoted to sysop status, then (like the other admins) I plan on being everyone's admin — not just that of South Asian or chavista wikipedians. This means trying to edit a much broader variety of articles than I've been working on. But like anyone else, I have my own cultural/political biases that I need to struggle against. So for POV (lack of due weight in presentation of competing POVs) in the Chavez articles, I haven't been following what has been going on with them lately — the last time I made any substantive edits was back in February. If you see unbalanced POV there, feel free to fix it or raise the issues on talk so others may address your concerns. Thank you. Saravask 17:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the (belated) response, Saravask. I was hoping you could comment on some of those articles, as they seem to be work upon which some of your support for sysop (demotion :-) is based. Can you give your thoughts on a series of articles and entries which are based upon, and use the word "coup" in the article titles, which in and of itself, even according to the statements in the articles (acknowledging the issue of a resignation vs. a coup), is POV? Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 Whether or not there was even a "coup" (as opposed to a popular uprising, followed by a resignation) is debatable. Do you believe that the entry title's use of the word "coup" is not POV? This is only one very small (but hard to fix) example of the chavista POV prevalent throughout the series of articles, which I was hoping you would address. Being a chavista would not preclude one from editing without POV, would it? I would hope that, aspiring to be an admin, you would strive to put aside your political biases and work to further NPOV in Wikipedia. Further, how does a new and lowly editor like myself go about proposing changes to the article titles, which I'm sure is more complicated than just editing content? Thanks for responding. Sandy 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for your honest assessment/views/vote. Like you said, my goal as a user or sysop should never be that of a propagandist for Chavez or Castro or anyone else. By all means, if you do think that a notable and well-sourced POV is being systematically neglected/excluded in the Chavez articles, then go for it and rectify this immediately — I don't WP:OWN them. But understand that much has changed since when I stopped maintaining those articles. Indeed, I've tended to notice that whenever I stop editing those articles, they steadily become more and more pro-Chavez (e.g., large swathes of text from the Hugo_Chavez#Criticism section will be deleted, etc.). If your changes are well-sourced and you remain tranquil, then it'll go smoothly, and consensus may well soon back you. My current opinion on the naming (I had honestly thought that all sources alike, pro- and anti-Chavez, used the term "coup") doesn't matter as long as you can convince people by establishing a well-referenced case that the term "coup" is hotly disputed (on the level of the "strike/lockout" naming dispute) — in all likelihood, consensus would soon back you. In short: go for it. :-) Saravask 15:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, Saravask. "(I had honestly thought that all sources alike, pro- and anti-Chavez, used the term 'coup')." I'm surprised that someone familiar with Chavez would not be aware that NPOV would hold against labeling the events of April 11 a "coup". I'm somewhat shocked that you aren't aware of the extent of the popular uprising that led to the events of April 11, 2002, which is the most NPOV term to describe whatever occurred that day. I don't share your assessment that overcoming the POV throughout the articles will be easily doable, even with well-referenced sources. Getting the POV titles changed is not something I expect to be easy, given that (as you acknowledge above) most of the editing history involves stridently pro-Chavez editors and POV. I repeat: these series of articles are an alarming condemnation of the NPOV principle upon which Wikipedia is based. I do sincerely hope that, if you become a sysop, you will become more aware of and work against this sort of POV. I remain concerned that your RfA is based on editing of a few favorite topics, and wonder if you are ready to be an admin. You have enough support from other editors, that I would hope that you would withdraw your RfA, make some gesture of working towards correcting the issues present in these articles, and come back in a few months, when you could possibly attain admin status without opposition. Certainly, I would be willing to support your RfA if I saw an indication that you thought it important to work towards the core principle of POV in a series of articles presented in support of your RfA, rather than telling other editors to go for it. Sandy 16:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: WP:RPP and WP:AIAV. But to be honest, I'm not expecting to spend all or most of my time doing admin-related tasks. But since I'm on nearly every day, I can commit to regularly answering requests on these two pages. I've had particularly bad experiences with WP:RPP, where one of my unprotection requests went unacknowledged for four days. I'm also willing to handle admin-related requests (merging page histories or handle requests at WP:PER) posted at WP:INWNB or other places. Saravask 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I mainly helped edit Kerala, Saffron, Rabindranath Tagore, and all of their subarticles. Months ago, I also worked on Hugo Chávez and all of its subpages before my move away from hot-button politics-related articles. I've also been the main contributor to less important articles. But I also enjoy helping out others with their articles at WP:FAC and WP:PR, clarifying policies for them (or getting my understanding of policy clarified), and learning from them. Saravask 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Here are my three main content disputes (with only myself to blame for most or all of the stress):
I've also been involved in many minor disagreements and have occasionally made very snarky and immature comments when irritated, but I've overall taken all this (especially my misbehavior detailed in the three cases above) as learning experiences. Over time, I've learned to stay increasingly cool, to make strategic use of short wikibreaks to avoid exacerbating existing conflicts, and to always take a second look at the viewpoints expressed by the other side, since it most always seems to turn out that they were correct while I was wrong. :-( Saravask 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Saravask. When was the most recent of your "learning experiences"? Thanks, Dlohcierekim 16:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the dispute at Talk:Kerala#The_largest_city_in_Kerala and Talk:Thiruvananthapuram#Trivandrum is the largest city in Kerala, where I and others ate humble pie for refusing to believe a claim argued by User:Sathyalal, User:Raj345, User:Wikialtruist, and User:Jaleelmalik that Thiruvananthapuram (Trivandrum) is the largest city in Kerala (we all thought, after consulting many sources, that it was Kochi). After User:Nichalp set straight the definition of "largest city" (that it included only the population residing within city limits, not the whole urban agglomeration) and someone else provided a ref, we allowed the four new users to correct the Kerala-related articles. Saravask 18:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. What do you understand the abbreviation "nn-bio" to mean, in full? Stifle (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: "Non-notable biography", as in the one at User:Bunchofgrapes#nn-bio? But then again, I should be familiar with this, seeing that two small articles of mine (Rathindranath Tagore and Samindranath Tagore) got slapped with {{bio-notability}} just seconds after I created them last month. Of course I'll need to establish their notability as subjects of Wikipedia articles ... someday. Hope that'll work. Saravask 01:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. But I'm supporting you anyway. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Saravask&oldid=308160890"