Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nhajivandi


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

Nhajivandi
Final (1/19/1); ended 12:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)  (non-crat closure)

Nomination

 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Well I have been a user since 2010 and I have been been doing my bit on Wikipedia and I have been wanting to be a Administrator for a few years but waited until I had a few years under my belt and did some more editing. Compared to most people who have done this before my edit count is low mainly because I am a college student and I have been very busy, but over the years I have been knowledgeable on the issues on here and try to be neutral, open minded, and as honest when I create pages or do edits I always strive to do the utter best when i am on here as a user and I well continue to do so as a Administer. I will be tough on those that abuse and vandalize pages and I will also help settle disputes with other users. I would also would like to bring new ideas as well such as protection levels of world leaders, and nations. If I am accepted, I will do my best to to be honest and fair in my actions and to never abuse the tools given to me. I welcome and look forward to this process and will answer all questions that are given to me to the best of my ability and to be honest to any answer I write in response. Thank you.

Questions for the candidate
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: One of the main things I would be doing is to help in page protection request because there has been major amounts of backlog lately and having another administrator would help eliminate the backlog. Another thing I would do is help block sock puppets, IP users that vandalize pages, and regular user that abuse there rights and vandalize as well. Another thing we should do I believe is to semi protect all country pages as allot of IP wars and vandalism as occurred in them and protecting them would uphold the integrity and trustworthiness of this site and the pages.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I think my best ones were the creating of Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher, modernize the Republican Governors Association page, and help add election info to election pages and other pages as well. I think one of the best ones was when I voiced my opinion for a new consensus exemption for WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries by saying that characters navboxes that are exclusive to one TV or movie network should not be deleted. The consensus was agreed on and accepted.


 * 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: Sadly I have been I think my first one was in the Foreign relations of Kosovo template when a sock puppet name KOOV (who is pro Palestine and anti Kosovo) was going one and altering and destroying the template and anything that was Kosovo related. I did my best to remove and make everything right with the pages he messed up although some are still there I think because some were good. The latest one was when I tried to create a page for the Death and funeral of Nelson Mandela right after he died. I thought it would be ok to do it since I had done the same with Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher. However I got incredible backlash from other users saying I had jumped the gun on this and though I did apologized, I was still vilified for it and the page was deleted. It was recreated the next day so I don't know if it was personal or something, but I have learned from that experience to never ever jump the gun again. Also I have forgiven those people as well and have moved on. Wish these things had never happened but oh well, you learn and move on from stuff like this.


 * Additional question from Scott
 * 4. Do you plan to start your admin career slowly and not undertake any duties you haven't observed for a while first?
 * A: At first yes, but I would expand to other area shortly afterwords I wouldn't work in a subject for long and would move on to others pages or subjects that need a administrators attention. I want to also add something, Even though I don't have that many edits under my belt. I am usually on here every day and have been since i've been a user 4 years ago. I'm surprised don't have more under my belt but it is what it is and if you can make good judgments and make the right calls. Then you deserve to be an administrator.


 * Additional question from Scott
 * 5. Do you learn from your mistakes?
 * A: Yes. If you don't learn from your mistakes, you can't succeed in anything you do in life.


 * Additional question from Scott
 * 6. Do you promise not to use your access to the tools to win a disagreement?
 * A: Yes. It is wrong to even do that in the first place. Any Administrator that does this should not even be an administrator in the first place and should have their tools revoked.


 * Additional question from Chris troutman
 * 7. You list the work you did on Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher as some of your best work. Did you choose that specifically because you created it? With the exceptions of adding an infobox and reverting Adam Cuerden that's all that you contributed to it. Many editors seeking "the bit" come to RfA with numerous Good Articles, DYKs, Featured Articles, and the like.  How do you answer critics who want admins to be prolific content creators?
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for Nhajivandi:
 * Edit summary usage for Nhajivandi can be found here.

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

Support

 * 1) Those were the correct answers. You're good to go. Good luck. —  Scott  •  talk  22:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Less than 1300 edits, little to no involvement in admin-related areas. Also, question 1 answer is a misunderstanding of the protection policy - we do not protect unless necessary, regardless of article type. --Jasper Deng (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of these pages are being consistently vandalize and they may be protected for a short time or not at all. And after the protection goes away, the vandals come right back and start distorting the pages all over again. This needs to end.Nhajivandi (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jasper, please read carefully and notice that Nhajivandi is saying what he thinks we should do. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion on our policies; if enough people agree, policy changes. If not, it doesn't. Having a diversity of opinion is a recipe for a healthy community. —  Scott  •  talk  22:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He implied that it would be consistent with the protection policy by implying that he was going to do such wholesale protection himself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I really can't see how you got that out of Another thing we should do I believe is.... Why don't we just ask him? He's right here. Nhajivandi, was that your feelings about a future direction for policy, or were you saying that you're going to go on a mass protection spree as soon as you get the tools? —  Scott  •  talk  22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Scott and Jasper Deng. No these are my thoughts on the matter. It would be very naive to just go around and protect every page in sight, your just asking for trouble if you do that. I would like to see pages on nations and heads of state protected Only if there is a general consensus. otherwise the status quo will continue. I should have been more specific when i said that and I apologize for not being specific on this matter.Nhajivandi (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. However, the rest of my oppose stands.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I had misread your comments and im sorry for that. But yeah I would only put semi protections on pages that need them. I wouldn't go around and violate current policy. pages that have high or history of vandalism or repeated vandalism I would semi protect but going arround and doing them on all would be a misuse of the tools and that I would never do. I'm Sorry I couldn't change your opposition, but if you or anyone have more concerns or questions. I would be more then happy to answer them.Nhajivandi (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Jasper really. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Jasper - really not enough experience, and protecting a group of pages is neither desirable nor how it's supposed to work. Sam Walton (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose not nearly enough experience. --Stfg (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose without prejudice to future reconsideration. Admin tools are very powerful and in the hands of the inexperienced can cause a great deal of harm. Come back when you have more of a track record demonstrating a reasonably good grasp of policies and how you interpret them. Especially you need to be involved in AfD discussions. In general it is exceedingly unusual for anyone to be approved as an Admin these days with less than 5000 edits under their belt. I generally prefer around 10,000, though I might come down a little if the candidate has crazy solid qualifications in the rest of his/her resume. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is hyperbole. It's virtually impossible to cause harm with the admin toolset. —  Scott  •  talk  23:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How? Harm does not refer to only physical pain by any definition. Whether you're referring to diminishing an editor's reputations or feelings via abuse of the tools. Indirectly as a transitive verb to cause damage to someone or something in this case the encyclopedia. I needn't list the ways in which I can only assume or hope that you're joking. Mkdw talk 00:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A wp:rouge admin (sic) can do much harm and that is why we need to be careful about who is appointed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
 * If no harm could be done with the admin toolset, there wouldn't be a need for this process. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 00:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, incorrect. Not only are you conflating harm with inconvenience, but you're forgetting that the admin flag carries non-tool privileges as well. —  Scott  •  talk  01:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that both harm and inconvenience could come from the tools being in the wrong hands. And what non-tool privileges do you mean? -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 01:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) Such as editinterface (or its Wikipedia equivalent – I don't think there is any equivalent, but templateeditor approximates this on templates), researcher, etc. So basically, in the wrong hands, admin tools will allow an admin to edit any page on Wikipedia and cause massive damage, or release a deleted revision online and cause massive damage. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I would consider being able to edit special pages (templateeditor, etc.) part of the tools. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 01:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not confusing anything and really there are some actions that cannot be undone especially around blocking and deterring users from returning. It's clear we disagree so I won't press it but it is a little shocking seeing this kind of denial coming from another sysop. Mkdw talk 03:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Jasper. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 22:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Jasper - Not much experience at all. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  22:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Insufficient experience. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
 * 4) Oppose - for now. Not enough experience, and the user's grammar is fairly subpar, which could lead to confusion and misunderstandings during communications with users. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Jasper. buffbills7701 23:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose It does not seem like you've done much of the recommended prerequisite reading for RfA. You do not meet my RfA Standards nor will you likely meet many of the others listed at WP:RFAADVICE. My advice would be to withdraw your self nomination and try to become involved in some of the administrative areas and get a feel for it. Once you come back with more experience we can see how you've done. Mkdw talk 23:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - sorry, not experienced enough. GiantSnowman 11:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose More experience needed. ///Euro Car  GT  23:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose – Sorry, but I see no experience in admin areas, and you only have a thousand and ten edits in article space out of 1320 edits total. Epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose – As per GT -- Anton Talk  05:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - No. Shadowjams (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. You seem to have made a solid start to your Wiki-career, and it's great that you want to help out more by becoming an admin here, but I think you need more experience first. My advice to you would be to have a really thorough read of Advice for RfA candidates and perhaps chat to some friendly admins for further guidance, then submit another RfA when you have more than 5000 edits to your name. Good luck in the future! — sparklism hey! 07:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose I do not see a need to pile on, but would like to give you some advice. Your contribution record is minimal and your understanding of crucial aspects of Wikipedia policy is clearly faulty. I urge you to withdraw this application now, spend some time increasing your knowledge and experience, and re-apply when your prospects are more realistic.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong oppose per Jasper again. I don't see any qualification for the candidate as shown by his answers to the questions and his other contributions. In my point of view he has problems in dispute resolution and content creation (Q3). No need to repeat what others said. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) The answers to the questions are actually pretty solid (albeit short), but I do agree with the opposers that a little more experience is necessary. As such, I will be neutral, but moral support for the next application (even if just a year out - you just need experience, as mentioned the answers are pretty solid). Good luck!  Go  Phightins  !  10:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.