Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nima Baghaei 2

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

Nima Baghaei

[edit]

Voice your opinion (6/22/7); Scheduled to end 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nima Baghaei (talk · contribs) - YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Hey you guys, this is my second attempt for adminship. I have been a member of Wikipedia for quite some time now. I have uploaded many images, created a userbox, I have helped produce and even fix templates and infoboxes, and I have created and updated many articles. My main area of interest in Wikipedia has been in the exopolotics section (UFOs, extraterrestrials, etc...). I have followed guidelines, and I have tried my best to moderate as many pages as I can. (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I would no doubt be doing Wikipedia:Requested moves (there are UFO articles everywhere that can be merged into one main article... its just really messy). I would also be doing Wikipedia:Copyright problems especially with pictures and copy/paste descriptions of events, organizations, and people. Also Wikipedia:Untagged images, I always notice images that don't have tags here and there with no warnings on them to get tags on them. I would also work with Wikipedia:Abuse reports, this has been a big problem in Ufologist articles. Since I am a big fan of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal articles I do my best and will do my best to make sure they are uptopar with wiki standards.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Steven M. Greer - this is my favorite ... I basically rewrote this entire article, updated, added all the pictures, improved the links, etc... It initially was very poorly written and biased, so I aligned it towards a neutral tone. Template:UFOs - this is also another one of my favorites because I put so much time into it, and it really helps make the UFO section in Wikipedia much easier to browse and update.
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 had an issue with another user over Topics in ufology. We did our best to talk it out, I even asked for a third opinion, but now we are going through Mediation. You just have to be calm, thats all. Try to figure out what the problem is, and get other admin to help out to if needed, but there is no need to worsen a problem because it may lead to article vandalism in the future.
4. Please explain your recent 3RR blocks. Naconkantari 17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nima Baghaei before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Support: Looks good! No red flags and adminship is no big deal. :O .V. [Talk|Email] 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support This is just terrible, that people cannot trust you because you don't know the RfA procedure like the back of your hand! Edit summaries are nice, but they aren't policy. Good luck, I hope you pass, and don't take the opposes too personally :) Majorly (hot!) 16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but good communication is important in adminship. --kingboyk 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That why we have talk pages ;) Majorly (hot!) 17:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not writing this to get you to change your mind, but would just like to note that edit summaries can save a lot of time and headache. Would an administrator like to be asked to justify his or her every single deletion on his or her talk page? Would a regular editor like to see hundreds of pages deleted and dozens of editors blocked without the opportunity to know why without directly asking the deleting or blocking admin? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure now this concern has been brought up he'll change. Btw many of our well established users/admins/bureaucrats hardly ever use edit summaries. Majorly (hot!) 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have some evidence to back up that statement? Naconkantari 21:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd wager that most of them are old hands, who don't realise that Wikipedia has changed, and that they need to communicate their actions with us "plebs"? I'm not aware of any people promoted in the last year who don't use edit summaries... --kingboyk 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (e.c)[reply]
    I'd rather not name names, but you're free to check yourself. I believe edit summaries were brought up in Danny's RfA. Majorly (hot!) 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol! That's exactly the kind of person I'm talking about! He even said it himself, right there: "As for edit summaries--I have been around for a very long time, from a time, in fact, where edit summaries were not common practice. It takes some time for an old dog to learn new tricks". In 2007, admins have to communicate. We're not a little club any more, we're a massive site with several million (?) users, multiple edits every second, and 1.7 million articles. --kingboyk 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Support. Although the candidate has a very impressive editcount in mainspace, I'm slightly unconvinced that this user has enough projectspace experience to indicate a full understanding of policy. This would be a valid reason to oppose, but I think someone with such a good mainspace count deserves the benefit of the doubt. Other concerns (e.g. edit summaries) are trivial. Walton Need some help? 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support. Not the strongest candidate ever, but meets my criteria ^demon[omg plz] 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support - Whatever Majorly said..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 19:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support The fact that someone fails to follow those directions surely doesn't make someone unlikely to be a good administrator, I strongly think, and if nessesary, users should point out about their mistake in good faith, and not use it as a reason to oppose or bite.--U.S.A. cubed 01:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  2. Oppose Doesn't use edit summaries, was unable to get their own nomination right, and doesn't have much involvement in project space. Sorry. --kingboyk 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC) And 2 recent blocks. --kingboyk 20:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I fully agree with YechielMan, your edit summary usage is very bad, you have simply copy and pasted everything in your first RfA into this one, you still cant seem to get the progress right as the top is malformed, however good edit count but I dont trust you with the tools, Creating userboxes etc seems irrelevant to an RfA to me personally, you could be an administrator in the future just wait about 3-4 months and make improvements, Thanks - Tellyaddict 16:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you specify by what you mean "the top is malformed"? If it's the table of contents you're referring to, it's not unique to this RfA (see this one, for instance). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd guess that "malformed" means not having removed the words YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER. I (personally) expect a certain degree of care from an admin; not even proof-reading one's own nomination (or, worse, doing so, and not understanding that this text is supposed to be replaced by an actual description) seems clearly justified grounds (for me, at least) to oppose a nomination. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Malformed RFA and recent blocks. Naconkantari 16:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Naconkantari, may I ask how you cannot trust a user simply because they aren't familiar with the RfA procedure? Have you looked beyond this page? Kind regards, Majorly (hot!) 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor can not follow the directions to post an RFA, how can I expect them to follow directions when working with xFD? Naconkantari 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a one-time thing. The candidate hasn't even expressed an interest in that area, and if they decided to close XfDs, I'm sure they'd be able to follow the instructions. Majorly (hot!) 17:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, RfA isn't one-time thing if the candidate ever plans on nominating anyone else. Unfortunately, failing at "one-time thing" does not inspire confidence -- that's the nature of the beast. Xoloz 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Well-meaning candidate, but far too inexperienced in project-space at this time. Xoloz 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Candidate's heart may be in the right place but two week-old blocks for revert warring makes it hard to fully trust the user. The concerns about the malformed RfA and edit summaries are minor but they also indicate a certain lack of rigour. Pascal.Tesson 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Concerned about very recent blocks for WP:3RR violations and the low edit summary usage which doesn't help other editors. Adambro 17:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Two blocks for 3RR in the past week indicate that this user does not fully understand how to communicate with fellow users at this time. The very low edit summary use is also of concern. Recommend the candidate withdraw their nomination for now to prevent pile-on of opposes. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. The lack of edit summary usage gives me a little pause. The two very recent blocks for edit warring give me a great deal of pause. Take some time and come back; show through your contributions that you learned from your blocks, and have found other ways to work through conflicts rather than reverting. -- Pastordavid 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I care less about edit warring blocks than other types, because edit warring, while bad, is not as bad as other things. But that means that I'll overlook a 3RR block from two months ago if you have an otherwise good record. Nothing can convince me to overlook two blocks in a week. -Amarkov moo! 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose An admin candidate needs to show not only compliance with policy but a tendency to work through conflicts and prevent them from escalating. The job is to defuse conflict; an admin's tools if used well can help this but if misused can make things much worse. No doubt the candidate will be able to demonstrate improvement in this area in the future, but not now. --Shirahadasha 21:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose everything from the lack of edit summary usage to the nomination problems indicates the candidate need more familiarity with Wikipedia's norms.-- danntm T C 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Just seems a bit too aggressive towards fellow users at time (edit wars), and the lack of edit summaries just rubs me the wrong way. Jmlk17 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose-two recent blocks for ignorance of a WP policy twice in one week is unacceptable. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No per recent policy violations. Ignorance is one thing, but there's no way the second block can be anything other than wilful disregard for policy. Requesting admin tools so soon sets alarm bells ringing too, will the tools be used in accordance with policy or are they intended to help with this users recent edit warring tendency. The good news is that I don't see anything that a few months of editing can't fix. -- Nick t 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose There are too many problems. Low edit summaries, low Wikipedia edits, and breaking of policy are all serious things to not see in adminstrators. Captain panda 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Three days ago you were blocked for breaking WP:3RR for a second time. Your recent edit to this image of Barbara Walters show you don't understand our fair use policy. You were also editing your first RfA today, even though it is clearly marked as closed. Gwernol 00:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Concerns over the recent 3RR blocks, and the problems you had discussing with other users at Topics in ufology. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I am concerned about the number of nonfree images uploaded by this editor which have been subsequently deleted. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per recent blockings. — xaosflux Talk 04:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, low edit summary usage, per recent blockings with 3RR, low edit count. Terence 11:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - too many issues for me, sorry. The 3RR recent blocks really don't help - Alison ☺ 18:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose: User has been blocked recently for 3RR. Perhaps user needs more familiarity of the policies?  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral It bothers me that (1) the candidate botched the nomination format (thanks to User:Black Falcon for fixing it), and (2) the candidate's edit summary usage for major edits is only 11%. I will not formally oppose for reasons like this, but I do not trust the candidate with administrative tools. YechielMan 16:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now. The RfA formatting issue doesn't bother me, but the low edit summary usage does. I will remain neutral for now until I have a chance to review the candidate's contribution history. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've decided to remain neutral. Again, the formatting issue doesn't bother me and the low edit summary usage can potentially be corrected. However, with 2 3RR blocks in the past week, I can't support. Given that these are the only blocks, I'll probably be able to overlook those in about 2-3 months (assuming they're not repeated). Given the magnitude of the user's contributions, I also don't want to oppose. Like Lankybugger, I think the candidate ought to withdraw. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral 7000 Mainspace edits and 11000 total edits[1] but, two 3RR violations reported :-( [2] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Not wild about the 3RR blocks in such recent history. Everyone makes a mistake, but this is a bit too fresh. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral due to recent edit warring (and the blocks related to it). I also think edit summaries are important, and recommend that Nima Baghaei change his preferences so he receives a reminder to fill in the edit summary. It works like a charm. I would likely support in a few months if these issues were addressed by then. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral too many red flags for me to support. If these issues are addressed and you return in another RfA a few months later, I might support. —Anas talk? 09:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - and moral support. You'll make a great admin someday soon, and your peers here at RfA just want to see you demonstrate that first. Complete your edit summaries and engage in administrative duties (there are many administrative chores that non-admin editors can do) for a couple months or so, and then return here. Good luck.  ;) The Transhumanist 18:10, 27 April 2007 (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/Nima_Baghaei_2&oldid=1142574243"