Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raza0007

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

Final (10/20/9); candidate withdrew, RFA closed at 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC). Nick (talk)[reply]

Raza0007 (talk · contribs) – 10:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contributing here at wikipedia officially as a registered member since 1 Feb 2007 and as a unregistered user occasionally since 2005. Although I am not a hardcore contributor/editor, but I am a responsible one. I contribute/edit articles that lie in my area of expertise. Over the period of 2 years, I do not recall being involved in any controversies. Apart from a couple of issue, and those issues were resolved amicably. I am therefore requesting an upgrade to Admin status, knowing full well the responsibility that comes with the job.

Sincerely,

Raza0007

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

I usually limit myself to contributing/adding to only those articles/subjects that I have a firm grasp of, but this limitation is only due to the limited time I have. As mentioned earlier I am not a hardcore contributor/editor. This is not because of lack of interest but because I believe in quality over quantity. As an administrator I can supervise the articles that lie in my area of expertise. Protect them from vandals. Notify and warn abusers. Help improve quality of wikipedia by sorting out badly done articles. Checking uploaded images to see whether they qualify the copyright policies of wikipedia, warn users who upload such images and remove the images if the warning goes unheeded as per wikipedia policy. Help other admins in their tasks and take load off of them. I believe there is no such thing as enough helping hands as long as the helping hands are responsible, know the rules and guidelines, prevent disorder and promote order.

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

I usually contribute to military related articles. It is difficult to single out any single contribution. I believe all my contributions/edits have been for the better. I have recently started into designing templates to help better organize articles and make them more informative and worthy of an encyclopedic entry.

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?

I do not believe I have ever got into a conflict here at wikipedia in over 2 years of contributing. My record will attest to this. There were a couple of issues related to copyright status of some images that I had uploaded but those issues were resolved amicably. As an administrator if I find someone abusing the system/policies you can expect me to start with soft general-purpose warnings but get forceful if the warnings go unheeded by the offenders.

More optional questions (from Nick (talk · contribs))

4. Pick the 6 of what you believe to be the most important policies, guidelines or essays that currently exist on Wikipedia, and write a few lines on each of them, describing why you think they are important.

Most important policies in my opinion in no particular order:

1- Verifiability: Since wikipedia is an encyclopedia so the articles need to be properly references, verifiable. If the articles can not be verified readers will lose confidence in the ability of wikipedia to provide reliable information.

2- Copyright: All text on wikipedia is published under GFDL compatible license so directly copying text violating the rights of original authors is not allowed. As an author who has published at least one article, I can fully appreciate and approve this. Similarly, images should not be published without the consent of their authors.

3-

I will finish the rest as soon as I have time {Raza0007 | Talk} 14:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Using the 6 policies you detailed above, provide some real or theoretical examples of where those policies, guidelines or essays have been violated, ignored or not followed, detail why you came to the conclusion that they have been violated, ignored or not followed, highlight the administrative action you would have taken, justifying why you thought such a course of action was necessary, discussing the damage or danger you believe would result to the project if you had not taken such a course of action.

This question requires detailed answer. I will post as soon as I have time to compile an answer.

6. If you had to add one more policy to Wikipedia, what would it be and why ?

The one policy I would like added is to disallow edits/contribution from unregistered users. This is not because I want to limit the knowledge resources, but I have observed that most vandalism is done by unregistered users. Unregistered users think that they can vandalize articles without being caught/penalized as there is no way to trace them and since most ISPs use dynamic IPs so they do have a point. Their IP changes and there is no way for anyone to know whether they were the same people who cause vandalism. If only registered users are allowed to edit/contribute then they will have a sense of responsibility, a thought at the back of their minds that they can be easily traced. This will result in a significant reduction in vandalism incidents here at wikipedia.

Optional question from — neuro^(talk)

7. Which is more important — verifiability, or consensus?

As wikipedia is an encyclopedia so it is of the utmost importance that articles/information presented are verifiable and referenced. If an article has references, but the references are not trustworthy, then the information can be allowed if there is consensus among trusted knowledgeable users until proper strong references can be found. The statements would need to have a "citation required" pinned to them.

Could you please answer with one word (either verifiability or consensus)? I'm not trying to force it, but I'd rather be sure of what you're saying in your answer. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 13:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability {Raza0007 | Talk} 13:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Hello! Question from Sallicio: I am usually a very liberal acceptor of RfA candidates, but 476 edits in over two years is a bit concerning (especially for article-building). What is your most accomplished article (i.e., of which article are you most proud)? I ask this because some folks write massive amounts in a single edit (thereby reducing their edit count) Thanks!--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 18:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A:

• Links for Raza0007: Raza0007 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Raza0007 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Raza0007 before commenting.

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js — neuro^(talk) 13:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support seems like a knowledgeable user who understands policy. Best of luck, CanadianNine 11:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I found his answers rather appealing, especially his justifications for 6 and 7. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, per experience, maturity, answer to Q6 (I highly agree with this), and no indication at all that he/she will abuse adminship. I know it's fashionable to posture that adminship is in no way an "upgrade", but the RfA process clearly denies this - opposing for such seems silly. Experience is low but exceptions can be made. Tan | 39 15:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak Support Mainly per Tan, but weak because admins need to communicate well with users and I'm concerned that your user talk contributions don't seem to include any warnings to vandals. Also edit summary use could be higher. For the record I disagree with you re IP edits, they were the magic ingredient in building Wikipedia and recruiting new editors. But the point of that question is to establish that you understand the pedia well enough to have opinions as to its future direction, we administer in accordance with policy so our views as to future changes to that policy are only relevant to RFA in the contest of assessing your understanding and commitment - which side you take on a contentious potential policy change is not relevant as to whether you can administer in accordance with policy. ϢereSpielChequers 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Some admin - Jennavecia? Iri? - had a great quote on their userpage at one time; something about how "anyone can edit" is a great way to start an encyclopedia, but not a good way to finish it. Of course, they were more eloquent, but I agree with it wholeheartedly. It was necessary to build the project past a collection of stubs and to generate interest and world-wide visibility. Now that it's the third(?) most visible site on the net, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Tan | 39 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I remember the quote, and agree that we may need to do things differently in different phases of the project. But I'm inclined to see flagged revisions as a better solution than mandatory registration. This is partly because the jaded cynic in me fears that mandatory registration could be more effective at getting our vandals to create vandalism only accounts than at getting our IP editors to create accounts; and partly because the lazy side of me likes the idea of only one patroller flagging an edit as good or bad instead of everyone who has Beaver on their watchlist having to check the good IP edits because even after 6 hours you might have been the first to check that edit. However this is not really relevant to this RFA, all we should be judging here is does this editor care and have clue enough to understand and argue one side of a policy divide, not whether we agree with their views on possible policy changes. ϢereSpielChequers 18:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   "Not a good way to finish it"...with all due respect, gents, we are about four hundred centuries away from finishing what we have started. The moment we limit the possibility of contribution to the country gentry — and let's not kid ourselves, most readers simply will never ever register an account — is the moment we abandon any hope of ever finishing what we started. FOREVER. I believe this very strongly. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Support per WP:AGF in that candidate has no blocks and no memorable negative interactions with me. One suggestions I have is to use more edit summaries. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Reluctant Support-Man you've been here a while but you haven't really engaged in contributing to Wikipedia. I like you answer to Q6 though and you seem like a no nonsense type of guy. So I reluctantly support you.--(NGG) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Nothing to suggest he would misuse the bits. tempodivalse [☎] 22:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support No worries--Michael (Talk) 10:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, no evidence user would abuse the tools. I disagree regarding Q6, but it's your right to have such an opinion and the fact you're copping so many oppose votes over it is disappointing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

   Thanks everyone who supported me. I thought jobs should be given to those who actually want to do them. Yes, my edit count is a little low but at least I contribute, unlike the 272 admins who have not posted anything in the last 2 months! or the 446 who have posted only 30 time in the last 2 months. I guess, the 928 admins left are more then capable of handling the huge workload. Anyway, I thought I could contribute here as an admin so I applied. Who knows, I may reach 3000 edit count in 5-6 years and reapply then.... {Raza0007 | Talk} 15:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Support Per Q6, I 100% agree with that.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. You've been here for a while, but you haven't really engaged in or got involved in anything much. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose - Concerned that the candidate thinks that adminship is an "upgrade", which may indicate unwanted traits. — neuro^(talk) 12:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Also concerned about potential misunderstanding of copyright (see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 February 18#File:Abdali-I.jpg). — neuro^(talk) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Adding some more — no edits aside from this to the Wikipedia namespace, only 4 talk page messages, which doesn't give me enough knowledge of the candidate's ability to communicate directly with editors through their user talk pages, and also, most of the things listed in Q1 do not require the bit. — neuro^(talk) 12:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Answer to Q6, "Unregistered users think that they can vandalize articles without being caught/penalized as there is no way to trace them" is worrying. I would not like to have an administrator that thinks that all unregistered IPs are vandals (which, even after the third reading, appears to be what is being said in A6). — neuro^(talk) 12:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I do not know if I am allowed to respond here but I will do so respectfully. I did not say all unregistered users are vandals. I said most vandalism is done by unregistered users. Surly, you must have noticed it as well. I myself was an unregistered user for about 2 years and I am not against unregistered users per say. About the copyright of image, my image that was uploaded here at wikipedia was then uploaded to commons by another user under GFDL, it was flagged there as it did not meet the criteria of GFDL and subsequently deleted from there as well as here at wikipedia. The matter was resolved. I did mention that I had a couple of issues with image copyright but that is not because I do not know the copyright policy. In fact due to the above mentioned incidents I know the policy even better. I consider Adminship to be an upgrade with responsibilities. Even wikipedia considers it to be an upgrade as they call recently approved people as "promoted"/"promotions".{Raza0007 | Talk} 13:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You are entirely allowed to respond. :) I didn't consider that you had been an unregistered user previously. I don't see 'upgrade' and 'promotion' as meaning the same thing, but I do see your point. Either way, unfortunately I cannot support due to the lack of evidenced experience (same sort of reason as neutral 1). — neuro^(talk) 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Edit counts don't particularly worry me, but I do expect amins to be reasonably active contributors. Sorry, but with such a thin contribution record, I can't be satisfied that you will always be on top of policy. Mayalld (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I am curious, what has the number of contribution to do with being on top of policy. It is entirely possible for one to know the rules/guidelines without contributing mindlessly. Don't you agree?{Raza0007 | Talk} 13:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Basically, I'm not satisfied that an editor who contributes only occasionally will have a broad grasp of all our policies, or be in a position to keep abreast of the changes that occur. Most of what you say you want to do doesn't require admin status in any case. I'm sure that you want to be an admin to help the project, but I'm just not convinced that you have the required skills. Mayalld (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose mainly because of the response to question 6 (wikipedia would die if IPs were not allowed to edit) and partly because of the weak response to question 7 (wishy washy stuff about knowledgeable and trustworthy users). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose as even a brief check of User Talk and User Talk history shows that involvement in any actual administration is non-existing and article contributions are not particularly extensive. ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Needs to improve his activity in Wikipedia. 500 odd edits in four years is certainly too less. Most amass 500 edits by 1-3 months. Too less activity to decide whether or not he deserves the mop. Answers to questions not too excellent either. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Correction, two years. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose - Per "If an article has references, but the references are not trustworthy, then the information can be allowed if there is consensus among trusted knowledgeable users until proper strong references can be found". — R² 15:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Unnecessary use of Bold above in the answers. PirateSmackK (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Another ridiculous !vote from you. On another RfA, you said that everyone except vandals should be made admins. Both absolutely terrible reasons and yet they both conflict. — R² 17:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I was going to support but the excessive use of bold just didn't look right. PirateSmackK (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You think that a candidate's aesthetic choices define whether they will work well as an administrator? I have seen some frivolous opposes in my time, but this really takes the biscuit. — neuro^(talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The candidate was using bold to make it easier for us to differentiate the question from the answer. A good idea actually, as most !voters only skim the questions (if they look at them at all).--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 18:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose for now I don't usually go down this road, but I can't make a good judgment on this user's ability to be a successful sysop with only 500 edits in four years. Want to see more experience and I'll be happy to reconsider in the future. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 17:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. You may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read

    • Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
    • WP:Admin
    • the admin reading list.

    Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.

    • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
    • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
    • Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be helpful.
    • My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing.

    To further elaborate with some constructive criticism. Posting your nom without having the time available to respond to the inevitable torrent of questions hints at not readiness. I am also concerned about an overall lack of experience because of a dearth of talk page edits, and the file upload deletion warning does not give inspire confidence. You should review the relevant policies. Question one mentions "suprevizing articles. That is not the role of an admin. You need to give us the name of at least one article that stands out and exemplifies your work. Your record of non conflict is not really what we are looking for. We need to know you won't lose your temper or otherwise use the buttons for evil instead of good. This is all already commented on in the boiler plate above. (Too be honest, Nick's questions have me seeing crosswise. Never saw anything like them.) Good luck for the future. Dlohcierekim 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the detailed reason. I did not see a minimum edit count on the Admin guide otherwise I would not have applied. I did not expect to set upon like this within the first 24 hrs too. I was expecting people will question me thoroughly before casting their votes, but it appears they have already decided I am not qualified with 24 hrs. I did not even have a chance to fully answer the questions. I will take your advice but to re-apply will be pointless as I am sure similar points will be raised again whenever I reapply. You need to update and change the admin guide to let people know what really is expected (edit count wise). Glad you agree that the question 4 and 5 from Nick were strange, as I still can not figure out how to answer q-5 in a concise manner. Considering I have already lost I will not even try it. {Raza0007 | Talk} 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You are welcome. I get the impression that with more experience you will be good admin material. I share your frustration with the process-- you are astute enough to recognize that the process is not perfect. (It's just better than the alternatives.) There has been discussion about finding a polite way to warn off the unwary. No consensus ever arose over how or even if to do so. Don't give up though. The dignity and aplomb with which you have conducted yourself are positive traits. Dlohcierekim 15:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I will not give up but the process did leave a bad taste in my mouth. I got a strange vibe that most people here want to have an admin who thinks like them and has similar views on issues. This was not mentioned in the admin guide as well. If people keep on dishing similar treatment to potential admins, none will dare to apply. I also realized that I should have done my homework and got a friendly community ready to support me before applying. It would not have hurt to have a current admin introduce me too. At lease I would have some support responding to criticism. It is very hard to debate with 20 people single handed. {Raza0007 | Talk} 16:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose. Few interactions with other editors. I would like to see more evidence of direct discussion and collaboration. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose, Stifle (talk · contribs) and Neurolysis (talk · contribs) bring up valid concerns, however if the user gains some experience in varied capacities would be willing to consider supporting at a future RfA at some point. Cirt (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose due to lack of experience. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose Serious experience concerns. There's not much to go on to judge whether this person would make a good admin or not. Timmeh! 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose Dissapointed at Question 6. There would be no Wikipedia without IP edits, as many new users come here through it. Amounts to a bit of assumption of bad faith.  Marlith (Talk)  00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose per Question 6. This is a free encyclopedia for a reason and disallowing IPs would tarnish that reputation. Tavix |  Talk  01:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of curiosity, what rights have you given up by registering your 'Tavix' account? What personal information have you disclosed? What benefits have you been given that poorer people could not have? In that light, what personal expense have you incurred at all? Do you not see that you are more anonymous now than these IP editors? Tan | 39 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What does any of that have to do with his reason for opposing? Mr.Z-man 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Go away. Tan | 39 02:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose - Per WP:NOTNOW and also answering Q6. If IPs were disallowed from editing, then account creation vandalism would increase by a lot. Also, you need to be on WP longer. Around 500 edits isn't enough. I expect around 5k edits to Wikipedia. MC10 | Sign here! 02:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Absolute and total oppose — this user does not believe in a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and has proposed to ban an entire class of users from editing. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose. Answer to Q6 shows a willingness to throw the baby out with the bath water, i.e. to use solutions that do not address and solve the problem but have a large impact on the encyclopedia. Creating a policy to disallow anon editing just because most vandalism is done by anon editors is the same as shooting a whole group of people because some of them have committed crimes. True, none of them will commit crimes anymore, but now even those who benefited you are dead as well. A candidate who is willing to punish a group of people because a few of them made mistakes should not be allowed to get into a position where they can really do so. Also, it shows a mistrust of anon editors and thus indicates that the candidate would be likely to treat anon editors in a different way than registered users. Also, I dislike the idea of adminship as an "upgrade" and the limited experience of this user. Regards SoWhy 10:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Becoming an Admin would not give me the power to block unregistered users. I was asked a question and I responded. My opinion will remain the same regardless of whether I become and admin or not. This opinion was formulated over a long period of observation and yes in my opinion it will improve the quality of wikipedia not destroy it. It takes only 2-3 minutes to register and registration is free. Those who actually want to contribute and make wikipedia better will not hesitate to register. Only those who want to create mischief will find it a bother to register just to cause chaos. {Raza0007 | Talk} 15:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21. Weak answers to questions. Most of the tasks listed in Q1 can be done without the admin tools. Answers to other questions seem rather superficial; they don't go into much detail and make it difficult to judge experience. Mr.Z-man 21:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral leaning oppose With no edits to the Wikipedia namespace (until creating this RfA), and very few edits to other users' talk pages, it's difficult for me to judge how well Raza0007 knows and can apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Much of what Raza0007 indicates s/he would do as an admin (warning users, reporting vandals etc) is stuff that does not need the mop - and is stuff that s/he could already be doing, but apparently isn't. However, as I don't have time to review the edits in more detail, I will refrain for joining the opposers at present. Bencherlite^Talk 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   If I start warning/notifying users when I myself am just a user, I will start an argument, as most users will find it offensive. As an administrator I will have authority that will allow me to take actions if I find someone abusing the system. One of the reasons for my requesting to be upgraded to Admin status was that I wanted to contribute more effectively and fully here at wikipedia. {Raza0007 | Talk} 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Apart from the fact that adminship is not an "upgrade", it does not imbue your actions with more "authority" per se. Sure, some new users might be scared if you start telling them you are an admin, but the broad masses will not give anything you say more weight just because of your status. There are dozens of users who are not admins and yet have authority. I'm kind of concerned that you have a wrong impression of adminship. Regards SoWhy 13:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't want to be an admin because I want to scare people! Usually, if you follow discussion entries, you will find people being polite to admins more then other users. As you mentioned, I can of course warn offending users or guide new users right now, but being an admin will lend weight to my advice/warnings. The things I mentioned above that I wanted to do after becoming an admin were just things I could think off at that moment. Of course I know the duties/responsibilities of an Admin. I only applied after reading the requirements for adminship and I think I fulfill all of them. The ~30 articles that I usually watch/edit, none are normally visited by admins. They do require an admins touch from time to time. There are approx 2 million articles on wikipedia and only ~1600 admins, out of those only ~900 are active. There are too few admins to manage/cleanup/administer. Wikipedia does indeed require people who know the rules and can effectively help manage the online community. Thus, I applied. And please, sorry for using the word "upgrade". I did not know my statements and words are going to be analyzed in such detail or I would have asked my lawyer to be present before making this request. I am afraid to add these lines as well. Who knows how many hidden meanings/ulterior motives can be extracted from them. I formally revoke the word "upgrade" and humbly request to be "demoted" to an administrator as I think contributing 3+ years here at wikipedia I have a firm grasp of the basic rules and those rules I do not know/have used yet, I can always look them up. Admins don't necessarily have to commit the whole rule book to memory, they just need to know where to look them up. {Raza0007 | Talk} 14:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral I am in agreement with Bencherlite -- a wider level of contributions would benefit a future candidacy. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   After 2 years my current contributions stand at around 500. In two more years, at this rate, they will be around 1000. Even if I apply then I will again be told that I do not qualify because I do not have enough contributions. Doesn't time spent on wikipedia have any bearing? When I am not contributing, I don't necessarily sit staring at the main page. I spend that time going over various discussion entries/ policies (if I want to look something up). I mean to say, other then not contributing at a faster rate, have I given you any reason for not considering me for an admin? {Raza0007 | Talk} 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You're looking at it in the wrong way, I think. It's not about whether there are reasons not to support your candidacy, the question is whether there is enough in the way of evidence to support your candidacy. — neuro^(talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neuro, please give it a rest -- you're a little Tigger-bouncy in this discussion! :) Raza, to answer your question: Your very low level of contributions as an editor would suggest you will be a relatively inactive admin. If your schedule will not enable you to participate a higher level of activity, it may not be fair to Wikipedia to have an admin who will show up only very occasionally. I hope that makes sense, Raza. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral. I have vowed never to oppose an RfA do to editcountitis, but under 500 is a bit low for me. I'm not crazy about the question answers and I'm not seeing any real contribution to admin-related areas or any really strong article building. I would switch to support in a future RfA (or even this one) upon evidence of building one GA (or FA) or three DYKs. Cool3 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   May I ask how jumping through content hoops demonstrates suitability for adminship? I don't see how they correlate. — neuro^(talk) 16:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   They don't correlate as such. What I see here, though, is a good and trustworthy editor; however, there's simply not enough evidence (edits) to be certain in that judgment. The process of building a few GAs or DYKs would give me more on which to base my decision and, in all likelihood, help the candidate develop more knowledge of policy and practice. The same results could undoubtedly be accomplished in other ways, but we're here to build an encyclopedia after all, so I suggested specific sorts of article work. Cool3 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral No striking reason to oppose, but a lack of activity leaves me unable to judge the trustworthiness of this user. hmwithτ 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral Per comments above. America69 (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral Per above. I personally feel that less than 500 live edits is a bit low to establish trust within the community- but I'm reluctant to pile on. PerfectProposal 00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral Leaning Oppose Needs more experience with policy and collaborative areas of Wikipedia. -download | sign! 01:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. I don'tmind the answer to Q6, but while we need more admins, we do not need more inactive admins. Wizardman 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Not-piling-on Neutral - I assume good faith in this user's intentions, but I see several glaring issues that should be resolved before a subsequent RfA: Yes, question 6 is on the list; enough has been said about that. Q7 is also concerning because consensus can never outweigh verifiability in my opinion; I'm surprised this question gets so much play honestly; you can't simply declare the sky purple because consensus says it is. We always need the references. I see that when pressed, verifiability was chosen as a one-word answer, but...the discussion doesn't support that point of view. Having said all that, though, my two biggest concerns are the power-up mentality I see in Q1, and the thought that an admin (or editor, for that matter) should only contribute to subjects he or she is expert at. That last point is exactly the opposite of what we need on Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  17:42, 29 April 2009 (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.