Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mehrshad123


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

Mehrshad123
Final (0/10/0); ended 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

- Specialties include Eastern Classical History. Physics, mathematics, CS and EE. Linguistics. Mehrshad123 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I Accept this nomination.


 * Closed early as with only 123 edits this editor is a long way from becoming an admin at this point in their career. Detailed notes left on Mehrshad123's Talk page. (aeropagitica) 23:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: Maintenance of articles within my fields of specialty. Seeking of and converging overlapping articles etc. Splitting overly broad articles.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I have contributed extensively to articles in the fields of Eastern classical and Geopolitical sciences which, sometimes, were very superficial in their coverage of the topic prior to my contributions. I am particularly proud of the fact that in a number of these articles, my edits acted as a catalyst to the commencement of Intense editing, Discussion, and Scrutiny of the facts being presented which turned out to be greatly to the benefit of the quality of the content.
 * 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 been involved with editing conflicts, and in most cases I have either successfully supported my case with sources, or I have accepted a more neutral stance which mentions all respective theories and their merits where possible.


 * General comments


 * See Mehrshad123's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * See the edit count and distribution with the Interiot "wannabe kate" tool.
 * Wikipedia is awesome!

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion


 * With only 112 edits, you are likely to get quite a few oppose votes. You might want to consider withdrawing for now and trying again when you have more experience. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, he didn't accept the nomination. An IP accepted it. I suggest this be withdrawn as malformed. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose


 * 1) Less than 500 edits. Answer to question 1 shows no need for tools. All things can be done as a normal user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TechWiz (talk • contribs).
 * Technically, the answer to question one could indicate need for the tools when he mentions merging and splitting. History merges and splits need admin tools. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Sorry, but 112 isn't enough for us to judge if we can trust you with the admin tools or not. I suggest a withdrawl. VegaDark 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Need to hang around and contribute alot more before trying for admin again. Also, doesn't sound like you need the admin tools for the sysop chores you outlined.↔NMajdan &bull;talk &bull;EditorReview 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose and suggest withdrawal. 112 edits is not enough to show whether you will be a good admin. Also none of the tasks you named require admin tools. Plus, having conflicts within your first 100 edits or so is probably not a good sign. Finally, though it's a personal reasoning, admin candidates should at least have a user page telling a little about them. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC) I'm considering removing this nomination because it hasn't been accepted technically by the user.  &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - While I'm sure you do good work in articles, you show no involvement in anything that would benefit from admin privileges. &mdash;Dgiest c 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Not enough edits and your answer to question one doesn't require admin tools.-- SU IT  -n-tie 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose while I appreciate your enthusiasm, you have nowhere close to the experience needed. Please visit WP:RFA now and then to see what is usually expected of admin candidates.  I suggest withdrawing this RfA. Dar-Ape 22:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Only 113 total edits, including only 4 in WP:NAMESPACE, is only a small fraction of what it would take to convince me of your knowledge of policy. I seriously suggest you withdraw, and consider re-applying when you have perhaps 3,000 edits, including 300 reasonably distributed in namespace.
 * 8) Oppose You simply need more experience. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Not enough experience.  Also, do not delete legitimate discussions or warnings from your talk page.  Coemgenus 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh no. Not another user who considers any sort of criticism on his talk page vandalism. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 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.
 * 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.