Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rehman 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.

Rehman 2

[edit]
Final tally: 0/12/2. Originally scheduled to end 13:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC), closed per WP:NOTNOW by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? at 00:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Rehman (talk · contribs) – Hello. This is my second self-nomination. As I have mentioned in my previous RFA, I do strongly understand the responsibilities of an Administrator; I have gone through WP:GRFA and WP:NOTNOW and reviewed myself multiple times. Of course, between the previous RFA and this nomination, I did many mistakes; all of which I assure you, was only a single occurrence. At present, I have rollback and reviewer rights. My previous RFA was declined purely for the reason that I did not have enough experience in the field; which I believe I have now gained. Please do see my previous RFA here (or here and here for comments by editors after the failed RFA) for further information. Thank you. Rehman(+) 13:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: I intend to take part primarily in maintenance related areas such as speedy deletions; where I find large backlogs during the times I log in (UTC+05:30), deletion of files with same or different names on Commons, requested moves, etc. And also eventually into AFDs and related deletions. Although it is not a reason for this nomination, I also do intend to take up common admin tasks such as vandalism/spam control.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions, as mentioned in my previous RFA, would be the arrangements of lists; edits relating to interlinking articles and reducing orphans. I enjoy picking a remote article and changing it in a way that would not only attract readers, but also editors themselves. A random list of the type of work I do can be found here. Other than the arrangement of lists, I also do expansions in topics relating to Energy.
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: Thankfully, I have very rarely come in conflict with other editors. I always take a formal, and friendly stance when interacting with other editors. I will always do my best in respecting other editors' views with a friendly touch, irrespective of their real-life or web background, with the hope that the others will do the same; this will avoid the chances of conflicts.
Additional optional question from Mike Cline
4. Rehman, if Admin roles were compartmentalized, in other words a bureaucrat assigned Admins to various Mop and bucket tasks in WP based on the Admin’s experience and desires and you could only work in those areas, which one of the following compartments would you chose to work in and why? (chose only one):
a. The Deletion department, where your job was to close CSDs, PRODs, and AfDs.
b. The Vandalism department, where your job was to patrol for vandalism, revert it and block vandals.
c. The Article Improvement department, where your job was to find ways to help new and old editors improve WP articles and bring them in-line with WP policies and guidelines and prevent their deletion.
d. The Dispute Resolution department, where your job was to help resolve disputes between editors on WP.
A: I would choose a. I didn't choose B because: from what I see in Wikipedia today, a significant amount of articles are constantly monitored by its creators (and mostly other editors and bots too) for vandalism, thus needing little direct attention from administrators or more editors. I didn't choose C because: this is a the Wikipedia, the chances of article improvement is significantly increasing as external editors and more traffic hits the site. I didn't choose D because: dispute resolutions usually could be solved well enough with the help of neighbouring editors (requesting editors from related articles to join resolution). I chose A because: the deletion of sensitive information, copyrighted information, and other junk is quite important to safeguard the value of Wikipedia, and from what I see, is handled only by a few editors volunteering to do it; common editors who wants to delete a file/page cannot simply do so due to rights issues, thus this requires more attention when compared to the rest of the options. Well, thats my view. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 14:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Robofish
5. Could you explain, in your own words if possible, when the CSD criteria WP:A7 (importance) and WP:G12 (copyright) are appropriate? (I ask because I noticed this recent edit[1], where you cited them incorrectly; I would like to see that you understand why this was wrong.)
A: A7 generally qualifies for non-notable people, while G12 qualifies for copyrighted websites. The edit I did on that page contains two mistakes, first I thought "Legend of Korro" was a person, and second I didn't realize that website was CC-BY-SA. Rehman(+) 15:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question from —fetch·comms
6. You plan to work with CSD, but looking over your deleted edits, you seem to have tagged very few articles for speedy deletion over the past few months that were later deleted. Can you explain why this may be? I saw a few U1s and some nowcommons tagging, but not much mainspace tagging. Do you just plan to work with files more?
A: In simple terms, it could be that I did not come across much that falls under CSD. Although, I do very much intend to increase my concentration in these areas, particularly responding to tagged articles by other editors. Rehman(+) 16:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Rje
7. What action have you taken to address the specific concerns raised in your previous RfA?
A:

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]


Oppose
[edit]
  1. Sorry, but I don't feel you have nearly enough projectspace edits. Over several years, you have less than 300 edits to WP/WT pages. —fetch·comms 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doesn't meet my RfA criteria. BigDom 16:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Pretty vague answer to Q5. Minimac (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Too few edits in the admin-related area: no edits on AIV or on ANI or on AN or on SPI and only 16 on RFPP and 6 on RM. Frankly, I don't think you have enough experience. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Fetchcomms. Adminship requires more experience with project space. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Fetchcomms and Salvio. What I'd really like to see in a candidate is someone who really gets involved in admin-related tasks and areas to prove to the community that you need admin access in order to increase your quality of contributions to the encyclopedia overall. At this point, you can do that without admin status. As mentioned by Fetchcomms, participation in the project namespace is critical. Getting involved in that area helps one gain understanding of the policies and inner workings of WP. At this point, I do not feel that you have the experience necessary. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Fetchcomms. -- Jack?! 18:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, not enough experience in the project-space and admin-related areas. Get involved in some of these and come back in a few months. A8x (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - per above. Don't be discouraged, take the good advice offered. Focus hard on areas that will bolster your knowlege and experience, and then come back next year. One further concrete thing I can offer now for your consideration if you try again - look for a strong nominator, as many here see a self-nom as a red flag. Best wishes! (Note: suggest we close asap per WP:SNOW to avoid a pile-on, thanks.) Jusdafax 21:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per above comments, but don't think this is the end of the road. Many of our administrators failed more than once before finally passing. I agree with Jusdafax; this should be closed a.s.a.p. per WP:SNOW. The Raptor Let's talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 23:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I feel you don't have enough experience to get my support since you have very few project space edits. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 23:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Sorry - I can't support, due to lack of admin related experience. I strongly suggest you consider withdrawing this application, and following the good advice given by other editors commenting here before trying again, later.  Begoontalk 00:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral. I'll have to review this nomination more carefully later, but for now I'll have to park in the Neutral column. You seem like a very conscientious editor, dedicated to improving the project. But looking at your contribs for the last 3-4 months, I get a somewhat strange impression. You say in answering Q1 that one of your intended areas of admin work is CSD. Yet, looking back to March, I saw maybe one or two CSD taggings that you did yourself (well, to be more accurate: I am not an admin so I can't see your deleted contributions record. But I only saw one or two author notifications about CSD tags that you did during that time). Speedy deletion is a high precision area where pretty solid understanding of CSD criteria is needed by the admin reviewing a CSD tag, and I would really like to see some significant positive evidence that you understand them well. Regarding images and files. That is definitely an area where additional admins are very much needed. However, again looking at your contrib record for the last three months, I don't see a whole lot of activity on your part in files for deletion discussions, PUF discussions etc (most of what I have seen are "delete, per nom" brief !votes). In particular, I would have really like to see more instances where you yourself listed files for deletion or at PUF of CSD tagged them. I found very few such examples, the latest occurring in very early May. In fact, one of these examples worries me a bit. First you tagged an image as speedy with a pretty strange justification[2], which clearly did not correspond to any of the CSD criteria. Of course, the speedy was declined. You then listed the same file for deletion. That particular discussion was closed as "keep". I looked at the image, File:Wtc2.jpg, rather closely, and I still don't understand why you thought that the image was obtained by joining two images, "of which its copyright status is unknown". You certainly did not provide any justification for that in the discussion. I normally would not concentrate on an episode from that far back, but that was, it would appear, your second to last files for deletion nomination to date (the last one occurred on the same day, May 2). So there are things here that give me pause.... Nsk92 (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I admire the self-nom.. because it shows a willingness to take that extra step in maintaining Wikipedia.. when you've reached the point where you know that the tools and tasks available to you at your current status is just not enough, and you have an honest desire to do more.. and not because you feel you deserve a "promotion" and once you've "graduated" and earned your "trophy" you can sit back and relax, enjoy your reward for a bit, then quietly retire while your newly acquired tools just collect dust. So I assume good faith and respect your decision to become an admin and would never let a self-nom influence my !vote. HOWEVER... (I bet you were just waiting for that ;) although you feel you may have the necessary experience, your contribution history, or rather my own personal evaluation of it, shows that you don't. I think you need a bit more time and experience behind your belt. But don't be afraid to self-nom again in 3-6 months! -- œ™ 00:36, 18 July 2010 (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/Rehman_2&oldid=1075594610"