RfA/RfB voting history: Titodutta
Titodutta has cast 27 support, 1 oppose and 3 neutral votes. The tool was unable to find votes in 1 RfAs/RfBs they've edited.
Supported
-
Whpq (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: Excellent contribution. Trusted editor. All the best. --Titodutta (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
-
Hammersoft (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: Experienced, and trustworthy. ~36% mainspace edits is a bit low (my personaly expecation is ~50% or more), but over-all the nomination looks good, good wishes. --Titodutta (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
-
Johnuniq (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: helpful, hard-working editor. All the best, regards. --Titodutta (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
-
Justlettersandnumbers (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: Looks good over-all. Trusted. All the best. --Titodutta (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
-
Cyberpower678 2 (Successful,
edits to page)
- Of course: I know this editor for quite some time now. Whenever I have worked with him, I have found that he is quite helpful, and always eager to improve the project. I have not found anything to worry. I believe that he will be a great admin and he deserves the extra buttons and tools. My only suggestion would be (which has been told in the oppose votes also, please increase your mainspace edits/works. All the best. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
-
Rehman 4 (Successful,
edits to page)
- Looks positive, no red flag. All the best. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
-
Maile66 (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: No concern. All the best. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-
78.26 (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support - Looks great over-all. :) --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
-
Cyclonebiskit 2 (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: I always believe that the good content creators may become good admins too, but that's not the only reason I am supporting Cyclonebiskit. I have carefully checked his contribs and edit assessments, I believe he will be a good admin.
Please feel free to ask another admin (or someone) if you are not sure. My best wishes. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
-
Jakec (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: Net positive. Questions well answered. Good wishes. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
-
EuroCarGT (Unsuccessful,
edits to page)
- Definitely: Excellent candidate. No reason to think that they will misuse admin tools. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
-
Fenix down (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: DGG has made a good point, but I am over-all impressed, good understanding of policies. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
-
SarekOfVulcan 4 (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: I hope that they will learn from their mistakes. +1 to what Drmargi has said. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
-
MelanieN (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: Excellent editor. The candidate has been here for a long time now. I have checked their edito count, contribs too. Candidate's answer to question #6 shows they want to do more (thankless?) tasks. Go on. I believe that MelanieN is going to be a very active and helpful admin in future. Good wishes and regards. --Tito☸Dutta 23:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
-
Callanecc (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: Mark Arsten and specially Doc Tree have said everything. Excellent work at Wikipedia and ACC. --Tito☸Dutta 06:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
-
The Interior (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: For last few months, I have been working with this editor, and that's how I am aware of his works and behavior. He is a very friendly editor and understands his responsibilities very well. I see no issue. I am confident that he'll be a great admin. --Tito☸Dutta 21:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
-
Anna Frodesiak (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: Good and helpful editor. --Tito☸Dutta 09:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
-
Nthep (Successful,
edits to page)
- Swaha (read Support) Passed most of the criteria I generally check. except B1. Also, several times, I have seen the candidate's contributions and edits, which I felt where highly helpful/constructive, which makes me believe that he'll be a good admin as well. Good wishes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 12:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
-
Wizardman 2 (RfB, Successful,
edits to page)
- Swaha (read Support): I have seen Wizardman's works and edits many times in Wikipedia. He is an excellent contributor. I specially like his detailed and well-thought rationales. And in my opinion, his experience in RFA will be a plus point for him! Good wishes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 12:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
-
Tokyogirl79 (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support: Yes, sure! Excellent contributor! Good wishes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
-
Shirt58 (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support Looks good. Good wishes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Have read the message at his talk page where he has mentioned the reasons of delays in answering questions. Will wait to see answer, else this vote will be moved to !Neutral. --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
-
INeverCry (Successful,
edits to page)
- Strong support: Excellent candidate! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
-
Lord Roem 2 (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support Looks good! I hope he'll be a great admin. Good wishes! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
-
Ocaasi (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support Of course! Excellent editor. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
-
Bgwhite (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support - I dislike to support as nom. In another RFA too I mentioned this. Noms' and con-noms' votes should be automatically counted (unless otherwise indicated by them). My nomination comment clearly indicates that I am supporting the candidate. So, writing a support statement again is unnecessary. But, I need to keep doing this until the rule is changed.. and as those TParis etc counters count supports in this section only). --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Question @Tito Dutta, You wrote in your nomination: "He is a very friendly and helpful editor”. To me this is a contradiction in terms, when the subject is one promoted for his outstanding(?) wp:AFD work. How can one be friendly and helpful and yet spend most of the time deleteing others' work? Just wondering. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reply: Following Wikipedia policy and guidelines should be the primary object of an editor. You have said yet spend most of the time deleteing others' work, from my point of view he is following the Wikipedia guidelines to delete unencyclopedic entries, content etc. It might be incorrect to link these with his "friendliness" or "helpfulness". He had PRODed my article too. I have talked with him many times and found him very helpful and friendly. If I start giving details here, my post will be too long. You have said, he spends most of the time in deleting content, but, he is equally/more active in saving content. Multiple times he has asked in my talk page to check notability or find references or save articles.--Tito Dutta (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
-
Theopolisme (Unsuccessful,
edits to page)
- Support Sorry for late vote, I totally missed this nomination. I have talked and worked with this candidate. Very helpful and friendly and has been doing a great job. I like the way he assesses his own works. He is a good anti-vandal admin. I feel he will be a good job if he is selected as admin. --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
-
Ekabhishek (Successful,
edits to page)
- Support Per nom (finally) --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Opposed
-
XyphynX9 (Unsuccessful,
edits to page)
- Oppose I don't want to discourage you, but, sorry,not now, you can re-apply in next one/two year(s)! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
-
GoldenRing (Successful,
edits to page)
- Neutral: Don't want to oppose the candidate, but can not support either too. ~500 mainspace edits is not good, please create and expand content. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
-
Cadillac000 (Unsuccessful,
edits to page)
- Neutral: Needs more experience, can not support now. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
-
Oanabay04 (Unsuccessful,
edits to page)
- Neutral: I am reluctant to oppose a candidate who has 34 thousand plus and 92%+ of all edits in mainspace. But I can't support either. Tito☸Dutta 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Unknown
These are RfAs/RfBs that the user has edited, but the tool was unable to parse a vote for.
Read the documentation,
view the source code,
or report some bugs.