Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rehman 4


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

Rehman
'''Final (138/14/11); Closed as successful by — xaosflux  Talk at 02:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination
– All, I would like to present Rehman for your consideration as an administrator. As a long-term Wikipedian of 8 years, 18,000 edits, 0 blocks, and 170+ articles created, I believe that Rehman has the expertise, temperament, civility, and dedication to the project necessary to excel in the admin role. Aside from diligent content creation, Rehman is also one of our few media file copyright specialists, and is highly knowledgeable in policies concerning non-free content and local/international copyright laws. He is also a frequent and valued contributor at WP:FFD, which is an area always in need of additional administrator assistance and attention.

I think Rehman has proven himself a clueful editor capable of handling a few extra buttons to the benefit of the community, and I hope you will agree with me. - F ASTILY   17:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Fastily. I accept this nomination. Reh  man  23:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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: I intend to start working on requests submitted at WP:FFD as this is one of my current areas of interest and is something that I already have experience in. I hope to start here, familiarize more on the local norms and processes, and learn my way into newer areas. I don’t plan to rush, as I understand that there are differences in deletion policies between Commons and Wikipedia, particularly Fair Use.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have written about 170 unique articles (excluding lists) since I have joined Wikipedia in 2008. While I have contributed to topics from a wider range, most of my work are about renewable energy (particularly solar and wind power), the energy industry in Sri Lanka, limnology (particularly dams and rivers), and geography (maps and mountains). My contributions onsite are aligned with my real-life interests, hence I pay special attention to proper coverage and quality. I have written one Featured List, and from what I can remember, 1 DYK and 1 ITN.


 * From recent memory, I think some of my best encyclopaedic contributions in article space can be found in the List of power stations in Sri Lanka page. I don’t have any FAs or GAs yet, but I believe that a number of articles which I have created are at an acceptable standard. Alongside writing, I also enjoy uploading quality media (such as pictures, charts, maps, etc) to support the articles I write. The best of my uploads can be found in User:Rehman/Photos. I have also worked on a number of infoboxes and navigation templates, such as Infobox power station, Infobox dam, and also lead projects such as Infobox river revamp.


 * 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 cannot remember being in any conflicts for at least in the past 4 years. The only conflict that I remember was from over 5 years ago, which was mutually resolved. Today, that editor and myself are in very good terms. I believe I have a good level for patience and calmness. If I feel a particular incident is causing me stress or anger, I am very well capable of standing down for a needed break in order to maintain a non-defensive or non-rushed response. This is a practice which I am used to, both online and offline.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
 * Additional question from Mkdw
 * 4. I've looked through your contributions at WP:FFD over the past year. Your statements are commonly, "per nom" and don't necessarily give us a good insight to your decision making abilities as a would-be admin. As you know, being a sysop is being handed the full set of tools. Can you speak to your experience in other administrative areas?
 * A: Of course. I have worked with a few WP:SPLICE cases in the past, with more experience in that area from Commons (where I started that page). I have also worked with many WP:MTC cases in the past, and understand the importance of preserving the records in such transfers. Other less active areas which I am familiar with includes WP:RFPP, and WP:RM (for mostly G6 cases). When it comes to maintenance work, I personally prefer working with files, but I am very much willing to work in other areas. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Reh  man  12:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Iazyges
 * 5. Question from Iazyges, if had to introduce a massive reform, what would you reform?
 * A: Hi Iazyges. Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I am in the UTC+05:30 timezone, and had only just returned home from work. To answer your question: I personally don't feel that there is a need for any massive reform here at the English Wikipedia (yet). But something that did catch my eye is the way Files for discussion is archived. Personally, I feel that FFD (and perhaps other places) could use a better systematic arrangement such as  or   comparing to the current , as that would help in easy navigation/sorting. Other than trivial things like that, I don't really feel there is a need for reform. I hope that answers your question. Regards,  Reh  man  13:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Cryptic
 * 6. Of the discussions on the pages linked at WP:FFD, which would you be least comfortable closing (for some reason other than "I'd rather relist it" or "I !voted in it/uploaded the image/am otherwise involved") and why?
 * A: Hello Cryptic. I was not able to go through all of it as that is a big list. But from what I did manage to look into, I will feel uncomfortable if I had to close this. The entry has already been relisted more than a month ago, but responses seems to be going very slow (last reply almost a month ago). If I have an option of replying (instead of 'close' only), I will guide the uploader on the OTRS process, or ping the other user as they may have missed the reply, to speed up the process. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Reh  man  14:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Ritchie333
 * 7. The celebrated Captain P Birdseye was born in Lucknow, British Raj in June 1889. He fights as part of the British Army in World War I, and has an official military photograph taken in 1914. The photograph is given to him following the Armistice on 11 November 1918. In 1926, the Daily Mail contact Captain Birdseye, asking to use the photograph as a lead image commemorating unrecognised military heroes. The offer is accepted but the article is never published for space reasons due to emergency coverage of the general strike. Following World War II, Captain Birdseye leaves India and retires to Mersea Island, where he dies just before Christmas 1945. The military photograph is published in an obituary in the Colchester Gazette shortly afterwards. The photograph is finally published in the Daily Mail in November 1968 as a retrospective on war heroes following the 50th anniversary of the Armistice. At the bottom of the photograph is a small watermark : "(c) Daily Mail and General Trust archives". In 2016, a Wikipedian starts writing an article about Captain Birdseye. What is the copyright status of the military photograph and can it be used in the article? If not, why not?
 * A: Responding from work, please excuse the brevity: Sorry for the late reply, RL has taken a rough turn for me. To answer the question, since the hypothetical photo is an official military photograph, the copyright should reside with the UK government. And hence the publication dates for the Colchester Gazette and the Daily Mail should be disregarded, as there don’t seem to be any formal permission from the government. The photo is ok for Wikipedia considering that works created by the government before 1 June 1957 are PD. I would also like to add that cases like this occur less than 0.01% of the time, and when they do, a community discussion/review always occurs. So it is never up to a single editor to decide. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Reh  man  06:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional Question from UNSC Luke 1021
 * 8. I have two questions for you. I'll just ask them both now. What WikiProjects are you actively a part of?
 * A: Hello UNSC Luke 1021. Most of my work can be found to be under WP:DAMS and WP:ENERGY, which I personally consider to be my most active areas. But a fair amount of contributions can also be found in WP:RIVERS and WP:LK, among other areas. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Reh  man  06:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9. How many articles have you written/heavily contributed to that reached A-Grade or Good Article status? Thank you.
 * A: Hello again, UNSC Luke 1021. I don't recall working on a particular article with the sole aim of bringing it to A-Grade or GA. This is because I mostly start articles with the intention of having a good "foundation" (i.e articles well linked, with refs, images, and categories), so that others can continue improving it. I find this particularly helpful especially for topics under the WikiProjects I mentioned above, as I believe the content coverage is relatively low in those projects. An important fact that I learned when working with new editors [at mostly offline events] is that starting the article (i.e. adding linkages, refs, images, categories, or even headings) is a step most new editors are not very comfortable in taking. This is the main reason why I am not entirely focussed on bringing articles I write to A-Grade/GA (but of course, that view can change). On the other hand, I did plan and successfully bring List of power stations in Sri Lanka to FL a few months back. Almost all articles/photos in that list (particularly wind/hydro power related) were created by me, and may be considered as examples of what I mean by starting off articles. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Reh  man  15:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Samwalton9
 * 10. Can you talk through an example of a time when you entered a debate or discussion with one opinion, but changed your viewpoint as a result of the discussion?
 * A: Hi Samwalton9. This is a recent example which I managed to dig out. I did a major revamp of Infobox river starting some months ago, and most of the new template were according to what I thought was better. Although probably not the best example, I believe the discussion changed my views on what types of parameters we should use in the template. Similar examples may also be found in archives of Infobox power station and Infobox dam. Another example from 9 months ago was also mentioned in this RFA by Deryck. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Reh  man  23:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Andrew D.
 * 11.We recently had a glitch with the lead image of the day's FA – Zapata rail. The image had been deleted on commons and then delinked here without anyone noticing.  A replacement image was found but there were issues with that too.  Please comment on how we might improve on such mishaps.
 * A: Hi Andrew Davidson. I haven't looked at the deletion reasons in depth but, apart from checking if the file is in fact in acceptable standards prior to posting on the Main Page, two ways to prevent such a situation would be to either protect (and preferably "watch") the file on Commons, or if you want to be extra safe; temporarily duplicate the same file here under the same filename. The latter would mean that, even if the file is deleted on Commons (or vice versa), the Main Page would not be harmed. Unless of course, if both files are deleted. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Reh  man  03:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Dane2007
 * 12. There have been many instances of "Infobox wars", the most recent ARCA being declined by the Arbitrators due to lack of any viable solution and/or community input. What is your opinion on the infobox wars and what proposed solutions would you have to mitigate the problem of editors "warring" over the use of infoboxes?
 * A: Hi Dane2007. Sorry for the late reply. I'm afraid I don't have a clear enough opinion on that case to be able to give you a proper answer at this time. Sorry for not being able to answer this question. Regards, Reh  man  07:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from User:Amatulic
 * 13. Suppose in WP:RFPP you see a semi-protection request for article XYZ. In looking at XYZ, you find a slow edit war going on between a regular editor and an anonymous IP address, among the handful of edits per day. Not all the edits are warring. There have been more than three reverts by both sides, but 3RR doesn't really apply because the reverts span more than a week. The most frequent anonymous IP edits involve an anon attempting to add well-sourced material that a regular editor has been reverting, characterizing the anon's contribution as WP:UNDUE-weight POV-pushing. This regular editor, who is well-established and respected with thousands of productive edits, made the semi-protection request. The anon has zero talk page contributions, although he has clearly explained his edits with edit summaries. What do you do, and why?
 * A: Hello User:Amatulic. Considering that the IP has not been edit warring, s/he is explaining the edits well, and s/he is also adding well-sourced material, protecting the page is an unwelcoming move for a potenting new editor. If I am to attend to that particular RFPP request, I would suggest the established editor to start a discussion on the article talkpage, and will politely decline the protection request. Since both parties seems to be civil, I believe this is the better solution. The IP's zero talkpage contribs should not mean a discussion shouldn't be attempted. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Reh  man  02:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Cordless Larry
 * 14. I see that you have been through the RfA process unsuccessfully a number of times before. Looking back on your last nomination, are you still of the view that it demonstrates problems with the RfA process, or would you have taken a different approach in retrospect?
 * A: Hello Cordless Larry. At present, I don't believe that there are noticeable problems with the RFA process. As an observation on this RFA, the majority of voters are not people I often bump into or have past interactions with, and hence shows that there is a good balance of outside views. Yes, it is quite difficult for people to pass an RFA here, but that I believe, is something that cannot be fixed; it's one of the outcomes of having to run a large website such as this. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Reh  man  01:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from QEDK
 * 15. Do you think that Wikipedia is too bureaucratic? And with that, do you think compartmentalizing the sysop bit can be an effective solution in any case?
 * A: Hi QEDK. My view on this is similar to my answer to Q14. As the site grows, I believe it is inevitable to have more stringent procedures/rules/requirements to streamline things, and to ensure sustainability. This may eventually result in making some people feel like the site is too bureaucratic. One key thing we can do to reduce this feeling is to smoothen the edges by being nice to people, and not biting. I don't have a well thought opinion whether compartmentalizing the sysop flag will help in future as the site grows, but at this point, I think it may make things more complicated. But that is just my opinion. I hope this answers your question. Regards, Reh  man  02:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 16. Can you point out your participation in one of the boards, or a resolution, particularly some kind of interaction with other users that you're proud of?
 * A: Hello again, QEDK. Most of my longest interations with other editors has taken place at template talkpages. Hence, recalling these at random, I'm proud of the team work that was put in to improving Infobox dam (1,2), Infobox power station (1,2,3), and more recently Infobox river (1,2). A number of editors participated in the discussions, to decide on the best ways forward. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Reh  man  07:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for Rehman:
 * Edit summary usage for Rehman can be found here.

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

Support

 * 1) Support - Rehman's edits seem to be both numerous and helpful OccasionalEditor (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Rehman appears to be a competent editor and when reviewing his previous RfA's he showed that he was willing to listen to the community and learn. I have no concerns at all with him getting the tools. -- Dane 2007  talk  00:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nomination. Kablammo (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as nom - F ASTILY   00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support This is the first time I ever support an RfA. Rehman has created many power station articles in November 2015, including Ace Horana Power Station and Ace Matara Power Station. Also, he has voted "delete" on many FFD nominations, the latest one being Files for discussion/2016 October 3. He will be a great admin on Wikipedia. GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 00:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support on the reputation of the nom who I know to be a serious editor. Slight  Smile  01:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per nom, seems to be competent. Dschslava  Δx  parlez moi  01:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. FFD is definitely a place where we could use another admin, and I'm glad to see someone volunteering to help out there. I have full faith in the nominator's statement and have no other concerns at this time. Good luck! -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming my support with a comment: people who are nitpicking his content creation and opposing based off that is exactly the opposite of what we need here. We have a volunteer who is clearly competent in a narrow area of the project where we sorely need more admins, and he is willing to step up and volunteer as an admin there. If you want to nitpick on something, try doing it where he is planning on volunteering, not somewhere unrelated like his last article created or AFD. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Seems like someone who would be a good admin, so I support it. LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Clearly qualified to wield the mop. bd2412  T 01:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as my default position, given his experience and the state of FFD. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support FFD is definitely a place where we need more admins. Seems to have more than enough experience.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 02:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Per nom. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I see no red flags and I trust the nom. -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 03:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - We badly need more admins, and there are no obvious red flags. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support The nominee has clearly demonstrated competence, and more sysops are currently needed. &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - has a good rationale for using the sysop tools, and enough experience to make me think that he can be trusted to use them well. Thanks for volunteering! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per Fastily. Why not? Jianhui67T ★ C 05:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - for simply 2 reasons. 1.) I see no issues with the candidate. 2.) We need more admins at FfD. Class455 (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Definitely a good choice for an admin. Minima ©  (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 06:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, an experienced FFD specialist is obviously a valuable person to have as an admin. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support because I see no good reason not to. A few bad AFD noms from years ago do not worry me. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Admin on Commons since January 2011. Well-qualified for FFD/PUF work. <font face="Comic sans MS" color="#8F00FF">lNeverCry 07:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support It's a long, long time since his last RfA, and a lot of good work and content since. Apart from that, admin on Commons clinches it. Absolutely no concerns.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support <font style="color:#552582;">Baby <font style="color:#061922;">miss <font style="color:#FDB927;">fortune 10:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support initally had concerns given the number of RfAs, but its clear previous issues have at least been somewhat addressed. There's a bit more content created since, and all-in-all a credible need for the tools in the mentioned areas -- samtar talk or stalk 11:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, after reviewing his answers, I am no longer concerned by his rfa's and other things I commented on, I feel confident he would make a good admin. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support He appears to be a competent candidate. What appears to be holding him back is the excessive number of RfA's he's already, but a review appears that he is now ready. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. I've seen Rehman around in deletion and protection discussion boards before. I often disagree with him but from our interactions I trust him to act impartially when needed. Deryck C. 15:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you point me towards some of these so I can check up on them - I can only see one from this entire year : Articles for deletion/Esa'ala Cave <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * e.g. Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 2. Yes he has nominated many things that were eventually kept, but I'm not worried that he'll misuse the admin tools if granted them. --Deryck C. 17:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per above. Experienced user, done lots of good work.- <font color="#4169E1">Earth Saver  ( talk ) at 16:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom's recommendation and description of their FFD and copyright competence. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I browsed the candidate's contributions for a few months and they seemed fairly sensible. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support At first I was concerned about this being his fourth RFA, but it was about five years ago and the editor appears to have matured and has more experience. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom and Tavix. Tavix summarized my thoughts regarding this RFA probably better than I ever could ... but I sure will try. Simply put, WP:FFD needs administrators who are willing to monitor it. In the past few months, as far as I can recall, we had only 1 successful RFA where the nominee's main focus was declared to be FFD. Content creation and WP:AFD participation have nothing to do with understanding image copyright laws and whether or not a file can be permitted for Wikipedia use. In fact, as referenced previously somewhere in Wikipedia I cannot recall at the moment, the FFD venue is avoided by most administrators due to the controversy the venue itself brings, especially if a file gets deleted and then its uploader essentially fights tooth-and-nail to prove the deleting administrator wrong and sometimes even verbally attacking the administrator. As a former regular participant in FFD, I can even attest that the FFD venue has probably the worst rate of administrator regulars who eventually stop helping out at the venue of all the XFD forums, with the cause usually being the "tooth-and-nail" uploaders I previously referenced. That, and here's the kicker: the nominee is already an administrator at Wikimedia Commons. Since the nominee wants to work at FFD and is a Commons admin (and since it seems that we honestly won't be unbundling the  from the admin toolset any time soon), I say it's time to give the nominee the mop to help make the current FFD backlog history.  Steel1943  (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support good rationale, no red flags. Looks to have had decent work with power plants / stations / buildings / Sri Lanka-topic pages / infoboxes. Per Tavix and Steel1943 as well... mirroring what's been said, but candidate looks to have had good understanding of copyright nad FfD experience — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 18:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - I was initially taken aback by the fact that this was a 4th RFA, but that does not matter - his edits and his judgment do, and both seem solid. No major concerns, net positive etc. GiantSnowman 18:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Looks like a useful candidate. He wants to be mainly in media and he's a commons admin - has to be a benefit to us. The opposes do not do anything to persuade me otherwise. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 19:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Make Wikipedia Great Again! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per Tavix and Steel1943. Seems like they've been an admin at Commons for a five years now and FFD needs admin help. I'm sure that the nominee will try to take the criticisms from the opposition to heart. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support No concerns, and I think the candidate will be able to put the tools to good use in their area of interest. Gap9551 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support More than enough time has passed since the last RfA to put to rest previous concerns about hat-collecting. They're already an admin on Commons, and we need more help with files. No indication that they would misuse the mop.  Mini  apolis  20:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) 'Support Good candidate with an interesting background (Commons admin). Should do fine with the extra bit. Pichpich (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I have long subscribed to the notion that we should implicitly trust editors with the tools if they have given us no cause for concern that they would misuse them. I do want to note here that both from myself and others, that it has been highlighted that the candidate has considerably less experience in other administrative areas such as article deletion and blocking; the community is (seemingly) granting them the tools for a fairly narrow purview. Therefore, use of the administrative tools in these other areas should be delicately applied until they gain more experience. Being an editor comes before being an admin. Mkdw talk 21:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support More than 5 years have passed since their last RFA, so hat-collecting doesn't seem to be an issue here; candidate has the experience necessary to be an admin. Joshualouie711 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Delighted to support. Candidate has a nice balance of a need for the tools and a long history (I set their account as Autopatrolled back in 2010). Despite the myths most of our hundreds of admins are uncontentious and quietly doing useful contributions, I believe Rehman will be such an admin. Not everyone needs to be at the drama boards.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Wikipedia is about content - right. A school is about teaching - right also. But the teachers won't get far without the caretakers, secretaries, assistants, payroll staff, technicians, and cleaners. Just as Wikipedia couldn't exist only on content creators. I wouldn't know what to do with a media file myself, and don't require the candidate to know about what I do. So long as they know enough not to get into areas they're not sure about, and I feel that's the case here, all well and good. Peridon (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your analogy breaks down a bit because the caretakers and cleaners never discipline the teachers or suspend and sack them. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No analogy is a 100% match. I didn't mention the Board of Governors (in the USA, I suppose that's the School Board) who can discipline and sack - and in the UK, a cleaner can sit as a Governor. I've known two... Peridon (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support An experienced editor who wants to help in an undermanned area. Daß Wölf (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support' Has given a significant part of his time to help editors across Wikipedia. He's not someone who has any shadowy behavior around the forums he frequents. I notice immature and impulsive edits at the initial part of his editing tenure but even that seems mellowed down to a stable output in the latter part of his editing tenure. Most noticeably, this editor seems to be amenable to changing any of his decisions that are challenged with logical reasoning. That is one quality that in my view is the most positive sign for any candidate. I am looking forward to this addition to our admin force. Lourdes  00:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Support I just believe we just need a nice and calm soul in this admin community. The reason it is a weak support is due to this being RFDed over 4 times, which is slightly alarming.&mdash; JJBers (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Fastily and his experience in Wiki. Audit Guy (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support an experienced editor who wants to work in an area where admins are required. Admin at Commons for quite a while. No issues here. Pratyush (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I like a candidate whose work is uncontroversial, who steers clear of conflict, who understands copyright from their tenure at Commons, and who wants to work in an area where we need them. Rehman has a long record here and one that gives me no cause for concern. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support because Wikipedia needs more active admins, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk
 * 8) Support: glad to see someone who close votes in the XFD pages, too many non-admin closures, including myself.  333-blue  08:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support : I'll start with the positives - he has one featured list and a bunch of other articles, so User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content isn't relevant. The previous RfAs were ages ago and can be completely discounted as water under the bridge, ancient history. I see a bit of minor conflict with over a FL nomination but nothing that was in any way incivil. FFD is a sorely neglected area of the encyclopedia, so any experience in that should be encouraged, and also we need more admins in and around India given the subject material I see coming into CAT:CSD all the time. I am going to assume that English is not Rehman's first language so I will cut him slack for that. The answer to Q7 is okay - it makes the most important point that these cases are complicated and best resolved by consensus. I personally would have liked more discussion about the Daily Mail claim on the copyright (I deliberately said nothing about whether the photograph was ever published by the Ministry of War in the first instance, or if exactly "giving" the photograph to Captain Birdseye included the copyright or not), and whether or not the first publication by the Colchester Gazette (which being more than 70 years after the subject and possible owner's death, would make it out of copyright) trumps the Mail, and whether or not the Mail would decide to hassle WMF Legal anyway - but Rehman isn't a mind reader so what he was looking for won't match what I was. All said and done, I think Rehman is going to be an okay admin in FFD but not a brilliant one. A couple of other points that sway me in the direction of "neutral" : you should change your signature immediately so it is clearly identifiable to new users where your talk page is - I have seen people oppose for this in the past. Also, get out of the habit of using your acronyms before you define them. I had no idea that WP:SPLICE was referring to history merging and had to look it up. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The candidate has a set of userboxes for his language skills which indicate that English is his native language while Sinhala is next at level 3 (advanced). Andrew D. (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * hello, as usual, my applause to you for taking so much effort to assess a candidate. This appreciation is not because you supported the candidate (if you remember, the last time I commended your comments was when you provided a devastating evaluation of a potential candidate), but because of the diligence you put in. I hope Rehman reads every line of your assessment and takes them into account if he becomes an admin. Lourdes  02:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OK, enough of the grave dancing now. I get it, I'm not going to run an RFA any time soon. In fact, I appreciated Ritchie giving me such an honest review, and I'll thank him once again for that - so your grave dancing is out of order now. OK? Patient Zerotalk 18:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaken. I've not referred to you anywhere. This discussion is anyway off-topic and should not be continued here. Please don't hesitate to ping me on my talk page for any clarifications. Thanks. Lourdes  01:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't play the idiot. In fact, you were the first person to go off topic. To quote: The last time I commended your comments was when you provided a devastating evaluation of a potential candidate. I wonder who you were talking about? Patient Zerotalk 08:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of the fact that I really wasn't referring to you but only to Ritchie's diligent effort, my apologies to you either way if it seemed so Let's close this here as this is really off topic. Thanks. (If any editor wants to shift this discussion to the talk page, please do so.) Lourdes  09:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Nominee is already an experienced admin on Commons. Admins are respected volunteer editors and many of them like to specialize.  To have an experienced editor with media copyright knowledge who, judging from past RfA experiences, has shown determination, strength and stamina, here on WP as a mopper-upper can and would only be a boon to this project.   Paine   u/ c  11:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I am quite convinced. -- Julien1978 <font color="#000000">(d.)   11:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Skilled editor, will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- I see no problems, and this is an obviously skilled editor, so the extra buttons should be safe in these hands. FWIW, I did not participate in the past three RfAs. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - good answers to questions. Optimist on the run (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak support. Lots of credit for the (over-)long wait since the last RfA, but I expected some discussion about those RfAs. I don't think the candidate understands the audience here. A comment in RfA3 worries me: an editor's work usually deserves two sets of eyes (rule of two in the cockpit), so getting the admin bit does not mean skip the tagging step and proceed directly to deleting. Temper is also a concern. Comments in any discussion should be more expansive. I hoped for more discussion on Q7: not only is it the candidate's area, it's also a teaching moment. Before the answer, the Q got me to read Crown copyright and find a National Archives flowchart. That answered some questions but made me wonder about others. Yes, I can follow the flowchart and get an answer, but how about more discussion that shows the candidate knows what is going on. There were some nice twists: when the picture was taken in 1914, its Crown copyright was forever. Yes, the image is PD now, but when did it PD? It did not PD on 1 June 1957 but rather 1964; Ritchie's 50-year anniversary was a nice touch. Glrx (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Looks like a good addition to the admin team. XyzSpaniel  Talk Page  17:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Experienced editor, no signs he's going to cause trouble or difficulty, and brings a greatly useful skill set. Oppose votes are nitpicking by raising minor disagreements and apparently expecting perfection. agt x  17:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Looks positive, no red flag. All the best. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I'm concerned that this is his fourth RFA (!) and I concur with whoever said he has a confusing signature. Regardless, I don't see those as reasons to oppose: I think he can be trusted with the tools, as I am certain he has learned from his previous attempts. I'm not bothered by the lack of content creation, personally I see no issue with admins working in gnomish areas. Patient Zerotalk 18:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - I'm abit concerned with the constant RFAs however I don't believe that's a reason to oppose, I personally don't believe the lack of content creation is an issue either, All in all I see no issues. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Rehman has enough experience, and seems unlikely to abuse the tools or delete the Main Page. Looks like a net positive for the project. Not getting into content disputes isn't necessarily a bad thing; it is perfectly fine for us to have boring administrators. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I believe this individual will be an asset to the admin ranks. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Weak support Support, because of many good contributions and admin experience at commons, but weak because not clear what he will do with admin tools here. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I default to supporting unless there are strong reasons to oppose, and I'm unconvinced by the reasons given for opposing. Lack of content creation is not a big deal. Creation of a poor article is also not a big deal, as long as said article can be improved on by other editors. This being 4th RfA is not very troubling, since the previous ones are so long ago. "I hope to start here, familiarize more on the local norms and processes, and learn my way into newer areas" is a positive, not negative, since it means Rehman has enough restraint to not do things (s)he is uncertain about even though the tools allow him to do so. Support. Banedon (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a time when we expected admin candidates to demonstrate cluefulness and a clear understanding of the established policies and guidelines, not just throw the keys at them and hope for the best. Keri (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And before that time, we used to throw the keys at good faith, honest and committed candidates, and hoped for the best... Lourdes 02:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to propose that we give the tools to anyone who asks nicely, you know where the Village Pump is. Keri (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cierto que. Lourdes  02:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support – As an admin, Rehman can be expected to be a net benefit to the encycopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Plenty of experience, interesting work, I'm happy to support. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Issues from previous RfAs have been addressed, and the answers thus far are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk)
 * 4) Weak support I've been hesitating for a while before supporting this nomination. First, I think their content creation leaves a little to be desired, from the perspective of suitability to be an admin. Rehman has created a number of articles that are short, non-controversial things on rather obscure topics: there is nothing wrong with that, except that it does not give them the experience dealing with complex content issues that I would like an admin to have. Additionally, their creations are not free of minor issues, either. Second, they have not been terribly active, which makes me wonder how up-to-date their knowledge of Wikipedia is. Third, I among others am not completely comfortable handing over an entire package of tools to somebody with a narrow expertise. That said, I think I trust the candidate to know their limits, and not use the tools in an area until they have gained some experience there. Furthermore, until we unbundle the tools, I don't think it is reasonable for me to oppose somebody with an area of activity different than mine: I wouldn't know the first thing about dealing with FFD. More generally, I am seeing an absence of glaring red flags, a generally calm and polite demeanor, and a willingness and ability to work in an area that needs more eyes. The old RFAs might be seen as hat-collecting, but I think they are old enough that they can be considered water under the bridge. I hope that the candidate will read through all the feedback they have received here, and will take it on board. Vanamonde (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Competent person who specializes in an understaffed area wants to work as an admin in that area. No-brainer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Adminship is no big deal and opposes below aren't sufficient to disqualify someone.--v/r - TP 05:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Provisional support pending answers to more questions and perhaps some revisiting of the early ones to address complaints about the initial answers.  I like the significant content work, the background "grunt" work (e.g. on FfD and templates), admin experience at Commons, and the lack of a history of continual controversy.  The criticisms seem mild and not insurmountable (e.g., not the most clearly stated need for the tools, not much of an AfD record, other quibbles).  Someone who focuses WP:CSD should probably ask some typical CSD-related conundrums as tests.  Anyway, there are no "smokings guns" presented so far showing why the tools would be a danger in this candidate's hands, and WP needs admins because we have backlogs of administrative work; adminship is not a magical reward for being really eloquent in telling us why you "need" them. In response to "not enough Featured work" whingeing: 170+ articles and one FL is plenty evidence of content competence and WP:ENC versus WP:NOTHERE devotion to building the encyclopedia, not seeking adminship to just get a wizard hat. The recent answer to Q9 is highly satisfactory to me. (I share the same editing pattern of creating new articles to fill gaps, often to around B-Class, versus working on A-Class/GA/FA stuff; WP having basic, informative, properly sourced, albeit concise articles on 10 notable topics serves reader interests more than spending the same time to improve one article on one topic from an already serviceable B-Class to better-than-B, in almost all cases. Not knocking GA/FA work at all, but only a minority of our editors focus on that, and it has nothing to do with administrative capability.)  I'm still curious about answers to the remaining questions (and any new ones).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Absolutely. — foxj 06:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support- why not? I see no pressing concerns with this candidate? Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  10:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Nice to see something different. Has demonstrated the need for the tools. SST  flyer  13:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Rehman is a Wikimedia community organizer who has managed in-person events and has a deep understanding of Wikimedia community culture. I recognize this user's offline Wikipedia projects as enough supporting evidence to establish a need for the admin tools. Beyond that, I am not aware of evidence that person could be likely to cause problems by using the tools. I acknowledge the opposition which says that the user is inexperienced in some administration areas, but also, I feel that the customary RfA evaluation process undervalues offline outreach and the usefulness of giving admin rights to people who are public figures for the community. This person passes usual RfA criteria, but also, has the additional need for admin rights for in-person events.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak Support I generally believe that the admin toolset should be given to users who need it to greatly increase their value to the project. If it weren't for the FfD work, I would probably be neutral, but with it, I will give support. <font face="Impact" color="red">Gluons12 <font face="Verdana" color="black">☢ &#124;☕ 19:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC).
 * 13) Support The admin toolset should be given to users who need it to greatly increase their value to the project ie content creators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support No red flags obvious to me, and the candidate has said what they would use the tools for, so it all seems acceptable.  Rcsprinter123    (state)  20:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Demonstrated need for the tools. Another FFD admin would be greatly appreciated. clpo13(talk) 20:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support: No issues here or any red flags. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 22:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support: user has a long history of productive contributions to the encyclopedia. I see no red flags. Will be a welcome addition to the admin corps. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support I toured Milan with Rehman, rode the train with him to Como and then took the ferry to Varese and the bus to Esino Lario before this year's Wikimania. That experience was enough to qualify him for me. Daniel Case (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support I have every confidence this person will be competent at being an admin. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b> Need help?   01:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Happy to see someone who understands the important role that the creation of stub and start-class articles plays in developing quality content and encouraging participation by new editors. Honestly, folks who play in the FA-only field are probably those most likely to (unintentionally) bite new editors when they inevitably fail to uphold WPs most stringent standards. Rehman seems to understand where most new contributors are coming from, and is likely to work well with them if he decides to branch out from the somewhat specialist niche he intends to work in. Antepenultimate (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support The nominee works mostly in narrow areas of our project but there is nothing at all wrong with that. Their area of expertise is important and the toolkit will help them in their work. The failed RFAs from several years ago are of no concern to me, as lots of time has passed. I read the opposes carefully, and hope that the nominee will take those comments to heart. But none of the issues raised there are serious enough to lead me to oppose. Therefore, I suppport. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - No reason not to. Kurtis (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) Support candidate has extensive article creation experience and concerns about power hunger seem to be misplaced. Giving Rehman the mop would be beneficial due to his expertise in file work. Lepricavark (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - per nom, and perhaps also, given that the candidate is from Manama and lives in Sri Lanka, as a possible tiny step towards countering americanocentric, anglocentric, and eurocentric systemic bias in Wikipedia (as in WP:BIAS).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) Support per nomination .Kurdistantolive (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 26) Support: per nomination. A net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Seems to be a good candidate. Not perfect, no one is, but willing to learn. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - Appears to be a competent editor and has created more then 250 articles. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">FIT</b><b style="color:orange">INDIA</b>&#160;<b style="color:red">(talk)</b></i> 13:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Nomination and answers are adequate to establish that tools could be used, oppose !votes present do not convince me adminship would be a bad idea. FourViolas (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Trustworthy, sensible, doesn't lack anything that can't be learnt. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 31) I was suprised when I checked Rehman's last RfA and saw that it was back in April 2011 - I thought it had been much more recent than that. Regardless, there has clearly been enough time between RfAs and Rehman seems up for the role of admin. Acalamari 23:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 32) No reason to believe that this user would misuse the tools, and the Opposes are weak and unconvincing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC).
 * "Unconvincing" in contrast to all the one line unevidenced support comments that are soooh convincing? "Seems competent" is the minimum standard set to be allowed to edit here (as evidenced by the number of editors blocked for being incompetent, and nobody is suggesting Rehman 4 is incompetent) - and it is not a justification for administratorship however many times it is repeated! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - He appears to be a competent reasonable editor. He should be a good admin. LK (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Rehman has been an administrator on Commons since 2011 and has done fine. Jonathunder (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I met this guy in Italy during the recent Wikimania and Wiki Conference India. I find his views quite balanced and a good understanding of Wiki culture and the kind of role he will be discharging as an admin. Hence I support him. --Muzammil (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I don't feel we should be being too picky on past mistakes, especially considering the fact that people mature as they age (or at least they should; some don't, but I digress). I don't think we'd want to turn away someone who's clearly level-headed and mature enough for the mop just because they were too overexcited ten years ago when they were 13. A single flaw should not destroy someone's entire life; otherwise we may as well just kill ourselves because we all have flaws. That being said, I believe the candidate in question is ready to have the mop, working in a part of Wikipedia that they themselves want to work in, not at the discretion of others. Because this is a volunteer project, after all. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 16:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I strongly support him. Best wishes! شہاب (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Very qualified. -- King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongest possible support FFD is an area desperately in need of new admins. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per Opabinia regalis. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - candidate seems level-headed and experienced. Frank  &#124;  talk  02:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - 5th time's the charm I guess. Good answer to my question, thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support: A volunteer is volunteering to do work that needs to be done and has shown that they understand pretty well how this place works. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   03:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support: Two reasons are there to support. 1) He is offering his services for wikipedia 2) He represents from such an area where there lies huge prospects for the propagation of wiki movement.--Drcenjary (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per nom, good candidate.-- <font size="3%"> Hakan · IST   11:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak Support. No offense intended, but I would like a better idea about how he would handle conflicts.  FFD conflicts were part of the reason  is no longer with us.  (There are many other reasons, and I am sure this candidate does not have those problems.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support opposes concerned me--there are real issues there. But reading your answers made me suspect you have the clue needed.  Please stay away from closing AfDs for a bit as there are non-trivial concerns with your understanding there.  But as I said, your answers had a lot of clue. Hobit (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support No issues found - RfA requests slighthy high in my opinion, but mine only. Nordic   Nightfury  13:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Long history of editing.  I have no problem with an admin starting in one area they are familiar with.   Malinaccier  ( talk ) 15:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Editor demonstrates clear knowledge of image copyright issues in the responses to questions, and even responds to some of the more ridiculous hypothetical situations proposed with respect.  --~TPW 15:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. No problem in my view. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, largely per Opabinia regalis. I trust the candidate to move slowly in any use of admin tools in areas where he presently lacks experience. That said, no candidate has experience in every possible area or even in most areas. The earlier RfA attempts are ancient history at this point and irrelevant in my view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. As others have already stated, we should not evaluate someone on overeagerness or mistakes from 5 to 10 years ago when the person has matured and shown he is a trustworthy editor. There is nothing in Rehman's record in that time to believe he will not study the policies, ask advice if needed and be careful if he moves into new areas. He is experienced and helpful in the area he wishes to work in and that area does not have enough administrators working in it. Answers are to the point. Seems to be helpful overall, sensible and has a good demeanor, all good traits for an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Appears to be a perfectly-qualified candidate. Daniel (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) support seems to fulfill requirements--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) support answers to the questions are friendly and sincere, apologetic even for replying late. We all have lives, even (prospective) admins. People shouldn't be judged by the speed of answer when the subject already apologises for being late. Edit count shouldn't be a reflection of ones worth to the encyclopedia. Actions are.  ron az <sup style="color:purple;">Talk!  11:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. No obvious controversies and seems to be very level-headed. This candidate would not abuse the admin tools. giso6150 (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 26) Support: clear net positive. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. No evidence that they are likely to cause big problems with the mop and they might even do some work clearing backlogs. Rehman seems to be a bit of the gnomish kind of editor who might do that sort of task.--Salix alba (talk): 13:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Really appreciate the answers given, and the acknowledgement of their delay. From reading their answers and reviewing their edits this is someone I feel would be a good deal of help to the encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Good answers, solid editor, no reason to oppose. ~<font color="#F900">EDDY  (<font color="Green">talk /<font color="Green">contribs ) ~ 14:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Good candidate. CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) 15:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - My question above wasn't really answered (it was more about your response at the time to your last RfA and whether you still have the same view of it - sorry if it wasn't clear), but there's not much time left and I don't see any issues here. It's a bonus that making Rehman an admin will help increase the diversity of that group of editors somewhat. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 32) Support  Not perfect but found nothing to indicate failure to become a productive sysop. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 33) Support I have been convinced by Rehman's answers, and I see him being a net positive with the sysop right, particularly in areas needing some extra hands. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 34) Support, as I did last time. Congrats, :)  S warm   ♠  23:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Weak Oppose   Argh!  Seems pleasant enough, but seems not to understand AfD issues with so many deletion nominations ending as "Keep" and "Speedy Keep" out of the relative handful involved. As all admins can close AfDs readily, I would prefer that the person have a bit more experience in that area. I also note a similar problem with BLPs with the stat page showing very few BLP edits.  As those two  areas get substantial activity, I would vastly prefer anyone learn about them. Collect (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt Rehman intends to take part in AfD, given that his stated administrative interests almost exclusively involve media files & WP:FfD - F ASTILY   00:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice - except we have had new admins suddenly "blossom" as I have noted before, and we do not give out partial tool kits.  One I voted "oppose" on - later was removed. Collect (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And new administrators should not be created just because the current ones can't be bothered with mundane tasks like backlog cleaning at WP:FFD, etc. What is needed is an obligation of burden sharing amongst the current lot. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That expectation seems to contradict the fact that Wikipedia is handled and managed by volunteers (with the explicit exception of WMF staff.) In fact, I'd rather have an administrator close and execute the result of a discussion where the administrator has experience and drive to help out in the respective field rather than have an administrator close a discussion who seems forced to do so and has next to no experience or interest in that field. The latter situation usually leads to errors and/or editors bringing up complaints about how the close was wrong, essentially causing more work for the community since the complaint/bad close would then have to be dealt with. Steel1943  (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a desire, not an expectation. In the future, maybe some sort of "para-administrator" position needs to be created, having only a selection of administrator powers (and with the option perhaps of the holder eventually gaining the full range of powers if he/she wants them) - but until then, as collect said, the powers granted to administrators are not partial toolkits. I think a basic competency in using all of the tools should be expected, even if they are not going to be regularly used. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is what you have in mind, but a similar idea was recently discussed without reaching a consensus at Wikipedia:Moderators/Proposal. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be odd to hold a candidate responsible for maintaining standards on everything that comes under the admin universe. It would not behove us to reject a trusted volunteer who in good faith offers to invest his time to improve Wikipedia in a particular area, on the basis that he has not shown one's expected standard on another desk. I am an editor frequenting Afds with a fair understanding of that forum, having closed many Afds and commenting on others too. I don't think the Afd desk is every administrator's cup of tea. I would go as far as to say that there may be current administrators who of their own choice veer off closing discussions at the Afd desk for lack of interest or lack of experience. I respect a candidate clarifying his competent areas of action. I would encourage to reconsider this stand of yours.  Lourdes  00:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Alas - the AfD discussions and nominations show a profound problem in that area. As far as I can tell, this candidate produces vast numbers of stubs and redirects which do not require an admin at all. I also suggest that arguing with any voter here is not helpful. Collect (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Does not inspire confidence. Sorry. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I was just reading through this RfA to see the reasoning behind peoples' !votes. Would it be possible for you to clarify what about the candidate doesn't inspire confidence? Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 03:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Looking at his contributions I see no indication that the tools are needed or would be of any benefit to him or the project. Answer to Q1 ("I hope to start here, familiarize more on the local norms and processes") does not - as Sportsfan says above - "inspire confidence"; if this is where the candidate feels he needs the tools and will be working I would expect him to be "familiar with the processes" already, perhaps even demonstrating clue, judgment, reasoning and grasp of policy with some NACs. Answer to Q2 could be summed up as "Unremarkable contributions", and certainly nothing that would indicate an understanding of policy, particularly BLP. Answer to Q3 tends to make me think that the candidate has been keeping a very, very low profile since his previous RfA, and lacks the "steel" that is sometimes required of our sysops. Overall, mild enough candidate on the surface, but no need or use for tools. We have enough "admins in name only" already. Keri (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose sorry Rehman but my investigation of your contributions have turned up a few issues. Firstly, your most recently created article, Achilleion, Colombo (created three days ago on 9 October 2016), has both a Crystal clean-up tag and an Underlinked clean-up tag on it. The underlinked tag is a sign you rush your work and the crystal tag shows a lack of policy understanding. Secondly, you seem to be a quite impatient editor. I say this due to this conversation (Jan 2016), this conversation (March 2016) and, to a lesser extent, this BRFA. You (well technically your nom) say that your interested in file work. However, the main issue with this FLC of yours was the use of images and you didn't make the changes until, well I just copy and paste what Chris Woodrich said at that review, "Rehman, when four or five different editors are telling you there's an issue with the images, you should probably think of alternatives." That was in July 2016. And actually while I was looking at that, I came across another example of your unwillingness to be patient here (Jan 2016) where you write this: "Hi all. Since all possible problems/issues are attended to, can we pass this as FL?". That FLC ended failing. This track record of your unwillingness to be patient is backed up by all those early, failed RfAs. Your AfD record, isn't great and, although I understand your unlikely to spend much time there, AfD records are good guidance on a users judgement, which is something you'll need at FFD. I found at AfD you commented at, (this one) where you, as I think the article creator, was strongly of the opinion to keep but where everyone else !voted delete. To be fair that AfD was a long time so I don't give it much wait but still it doesn't inspire confidence in me. You have have only no reports at WP:UAA and only one at WP:AIV which are both crucial admin areas. You have been laughed out of AN which, although a while back, not great. Finally, your editing history is a bit sporadic and your answer to question three isn't great. Now, I have !voted weak support because I also see a lot of positives. A nice FL, a really good need for the tools and the fact you're an admin at commons is great. Many of the issues I have found are from quite a while ago, but unfortunately due to the more recent ones I have to plant myself in this section. (sorry for the wall of text). — <b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 10:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The English WP is all about content so the first thing I did when I saw this RfA was to check the most recent article created, Achilleion, Colombo, only to discover the large tag adorning it. Created just a few days ago, to me, this demonstrates not only a poor understanding of basic content requirements but, more importantly, creating an article of that calibre immediately prior to an RfA demonstrates a lack of sound judgement, which I feel is a pre-requisite for any admin. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 11:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed both tags, since they were both inaccurate. See the general comments section. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tag removal does not miraculously endow sound judgement, which was the basis of my oppose, nor does it improve an incredibly poor article; I note I opposed own very recent RfA due to inexperience, lack of judgement and the inability to diffuse rather than inflame situations. My opinion has not changed and in response to the snarky comment from your fellow admin, Tavix, above: it has been shown on several occasions that admins do not restrict themselves to the narrow areas of their competence when it comes to the use of the block button hence my pre-requisite that candidates must possess sound judgement skills.  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Got called out for being wrong. You can drop the stick and walk away now -  F ASTILY   01:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Relax, Fastily. Your nom has a 92% support.  No need to be flexing your muscles at this rate.--v/r - TP 05:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I see nothing in the editing history of this editor that shows suitability for the position. No past signs of any interest in or engagement with forums that administrators frequent or interest in the issues that they might become involved with or be required to make decisions about. Little or no interest in any of the platforms where opinions are required to be expressed (such as AfDs, or RfCs, or even article talk pages). Yes, a large number of edits, certainly useful, but very uncontroversial to the point of blandness, and nothing to suggest any interest in doing more, doing things that might be difficult or require the composition (or analysis) of carefully worded explanations. He states "I cannot remember being in any conflicts for at least in the past 4 years." as if it were a good thing. It actually reveals a severe lack of experience. Not even one content dispute in four years? Many of the tasks of an administrator involve being involved in (and resolving) conflicts. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Extremely low edit count for someone who has been here 8 years, and even those edits are mostly unnecessary ones. Articles created are obscure and trivial (power stations, wind farms, and dams, and lists thereof ). No pressing need for the tools, and they are not given out piecemeal. Also, the fact that this is his fourth RfA , , (and he's still doing bulk unnecessary edits and creating obscure and trivial articles) speaks volumes. I believe he lacks sufficient clue to be an adminstrator. This seems to be someone desparate for power who started running for RfA when he had only 2,000 edits. Basically MIA since his last RfA in April 2011, except for front-loading his edit count the past 12 months with a lot of mindless unnecessary semi-automated edits. Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good enough edit count though,, for candidates who have have only been around for a year and get the bit. I don't see either how someone can be 'desperate' after letting 4 years pass since their last RfA - this one can perfectly well be considered a first one.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Desperate for power for RFA in 2010 with only 2,000 edits. That sort of telling behavior trait doesn't disappear, and in fact he repeated the RFA five months later, and then again nine months after that. And then went MIA except for front-loading his edit count the past 12 months with a lot of mindless unnecessary semi-automated edits. I don't think there is either the competence for adminship, nor the temperament and understanding that is required to wield that authority and all of the tools. As Tiptoethrutheminefield says, "a severe lack of experience." And by the way, I don't support editors for RFA if they've only been around a year. Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, it's actually quite a common noob mistake, and is as often a "hunger" to be more involved. It's also irrelevant ancient history with a candidate like this, who has been here for years and proven their constructive nature and ability.  As long as it passes WP:GNG, an "obscure" topic is not "unnecessary" or "pointless", it exactly what we expect out of WP's continued new-article growth, since the  and  things all already have articles (aside from WP:SYSTEMICBIAS gaps, e.g. things famous or obviously of historical import to non-native English speakers and to non-Westerners). The edit count seems comparatively low (it averages out to 187.5 per month, assuming editor was active in all months since joining, which is probably not a safe assumption, since most of us take breaks).  Given that the editor has created over 170 actual articles (not redirects), what is probably happening here is extensive article drafting before posting; those of us who edit more on-the-fly, creating first a barely salvageable stub, then working it up to Start, then B, in a long series of incremental edits, necessarily rack up higher edit counts that those who do substantial offline drafting first, but the latter type of editor is not actually doing less work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear to be right, SMcCandlish ☺. I've looked at a handful of Rehman's article creations picked at random, and his approach seems to be to create a properly formatted article of at least stub length (usually longer) in a single edit - other editors would have racked up 10 times as many edits to reach the same stage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Might I also say, as the person who first opposed Rehman last time, that it is absolutely possible for someone to change how they view adminship. And if he hasn't, then he's done such a good job of hiding it that I expect him to be capable of moderating any other ideas he has about being overeager when using the bit :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I don't like to be negative about another editor but my run ins with Rehman in the last couple of years (questionable response to Question 3) don't fill me with confidence that he is suitable for adminship. He does not seem to understand some basic principles of Wikipedia such as the purpose of redirects. In February 2014 Rehman moved content from several Ministers of Foo articles into Ministry of Foo articles and then promptly deleted the Ministers of Foo articles when the proper thing would have been to redirect them to the Ministry of Foo articles. He did this despite my and another editor's objection. In January 2016 he tried to delete a group of redirects (List of rivers in Foo) not understanding that they were all plausible titles. In October 2013 he tried to delete List of power stations but when other editors objected he claimed ignorance of WP:NOTDUP. Three months later in February 2014 he tried to delete Ministries of Sri Lanka but when other editors objected he, again, claimed ignorance of WP:NOTDUP. Here's another attempt to delete a redirect which was rejected as not only as "not implausible" but an abuse of WP:R3. Rehman also seems not to understand Wikipedia procedures (recreating a failed FLC) or how to work with others (breaking an infobox template and refusing to budge when other editors objected). All in all Rehman does not have requisite temperament, character or knowledge to be an admin.-- obi2canibe talk contr 14:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Some of the evidence just submitted by Obi2canibe is compelling.  But I am more put off by the fact that some of the questions to the nominee have gone unanswered for more than three days, and this despite the fact that the nominee has been on-site during that time.  We deserve (and should expect) a better commitment to responsiveness than we are seeing here.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Doesn't seem experienced enough, considering deletion, as well as per above. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * strong Oppose - there's a formal mistake - an user Rehman_4 does not exist at wikipedia. This matter should be cleared first and another vote should be opened with his real nick.
 * Regards
 * I&#39;m so tired (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. This is the fourth RfA of the account, which most certainly does exist. This is the appropriate naming scheme for multiple RfAs. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (Striking this as it is an error by the !voter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC))
 * 1) Oppose, moved from neutral, based on further review. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, low edit count for the time he has been here, low-quality edits that indicate a rush to inflate his numbers, and rushed responses that start with too much self-centered apologizing (timezone, being at work, etc.) which do not inspire confidence. While he may be qualified enough for the propsed WP:FFD task, he does not appear to be a solid choice for the full administrator toolbox. Fbergo (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Looking through this RFA and the past three failed nominations, I just see some of the same problems coming up again and again. MPD (Talk to me!) 12:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a very weak oppose, and I've been wavering about this since the RfA opened. When the candidate begins the answer to Q3 with "I cannot remember being in any conflicts for at least in the past 4 years", that makes me uncomfortable (and not because of the grammatical error). It's not that I'm looking for someone who gets into conflicts, of course! But anyone who is really active in the editing community will not go that long without bumping into something. Taking it with the somewhat low activity level, the past RfA attempts, and the "per nom" comments, I get the feeling that this is a bit too much of keeping one's head down while seeking to collect hats. On the other hand, I appreciate the candidate's courteous manner, and I recognize the need for more FFD admins. So I've been on the fence, but this just does not feel right. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Kinda of concerned given that this is the fourth RFA attempt. Given the five–year span since the last one, going to stay neutral and hope for the best.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  01:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral until he answers the questions posed to him (I assume he is in a different time zone). Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  03:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I also noticed this is the 4th RFA for Rehman. At first he seems like a nice editor. I will have to investigate this, however, before I !make an actual !vote. His recent edits only have a few FFD edits, mainly in short bursts, and his most recent 5,000 edits, a lot are minor edits to templates, whose fixes he then spread to multiple articles. I see a few big edits and a lot of small edits, not that it matters. So I am still staying neutral, so that my comment is not negative, but I don't know if I am committed to support yet. epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral: A lot of content creation, great work at FfD, but not a whole lot of AfD votes. May change my mind later. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I remain unsure about promoting candidates based on a very narrow rationale of their intended participation. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now pending answers to more questions and perhaps some revisiting of the early ones to address complaints about the initial answers. I like the significant content work, the background "grunt" work (e.g. on FfD and templates), and the lack of a history of continual controversy.  Some of the criticisms appear valid, but are mild and not insurmountable (e.g. not that clear a need for the tools, not much of an AfD record).  Someone who focuses on that sort of thing should probably ask some typical WP:CSD-related conundrums.  Anyway, there are no "smokings guns" presented so far showing why the tools would be a danger in this candidate's hands.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Moving to support.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I have to say that one FL and no GAs doesn't give me confidence that this editor has a real understanding of content creation, which is what we are here for. Understanding good (and higher) content creation and its pitfalls is organic to being an admin across the full scope of the role. I can't see how they will learn about these things without actually doing them. I also am concerned that this is their fourth attempt to get the tools. At some point you need to get the message you're apparently being sent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral at this point; concerns as to content creation experience and AFD history as noted above. Kierzek (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral The answers to the questions thus far give me the impression of "I am not fully prepared to handle administrative tasks outside of technical tasks involving FfD, but I could figure it out." FfD is an admirable place to help out in, but if you want to handle other administrative tasks (which you say you do) I am not certain that you have the experience in dealing with conflict and other skills administrators need to have on the English Wikipedia specifically (which I imagine is a far harsher environment for administrators than Commons). I don't think becoming an administrator first and figuring it out later is the way to go. That said, you have been around for awhile and you have Commons administration experience so I'll have to consider things further.ZettaComposer (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral TheUSConservative (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Giving the mop looks to me as a roll of dice, so parking here as the "balanced" position, pending an answer to Q14.
 * On the one hand, it seems fairly obvious the candidate would be a net positive at FFD, and that is where they intend to work. Risk of tool abuse in that position seems minimal. While they are not the perfect editor, all that matters in examining non-admin task record is that they are civil to other editors (and that is fine).
 * On the other hand, there are multiple examples of suboptimal behaviour showing unfamiliarity with guidelines and/or communication issues (see Yellow Dingo's oppose comment, with which I fully agree). Since User:Rehman belongs to Category:User_en-N (assuming that tagging is not incorrect), issues with English cannot really be pleaded. If the candidate had expressed a wish to do some admin work at AfD/RfD I would have !voted oppose pretty much instantly.
 * For the record, I see no issue with former RfAs - the last one was five years ago, for Vishnu's sake. If someone got blocked multiple times for civility and sockpupetting but somehow came back and had a clean record for more than two years, I would considered the time was served. However, I would like to see the issue addressed - but Q14 was the first time it was asked. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Staying neutral after Q14. That's how "politically sensitive" questions ought to be treated at RfA, I guess, but none will be impressed by that. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 10:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting observation,, except that Q14 like a couple more up there, is the type of question (like many that get asked at RfA) that has nothing to do with whether the candidate will make a good admin or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just had hoped they would use it to address former RfAs (and that would be an interesting thing to know, for what it reveals of the candidate's temperament). To be fair, it was not what the question was about. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 14:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral: Support from many people I respect, and the criticism that this nominee doesn't do enough AfD and when they do, they lean "keep" is a plus in my eyes. But I also see people I respect in the oppose column, and I have concerns about any admin who doesn't know what content creators go through to create quality articles.  There is nothing like the FAC gauntlet and the ability to accept and respond to feedback is a crucial skill.  I'm waiting to see a bit more.   Montanabw (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Based on the nominator and the pretty clear intent of the nominee to extend their powers in Files for Deletion, one of the most screwed up, bitey, counterproductive, anti-encyclopedic aspects of the entire project. This nominee has already passed by the time I found this RFA so no sense moving beyond that heartfelt statement of the obvious. Carrite (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) To be honest, when going through Rehman's Commons contributions to 2012/2013 and these here I did receive the impression that they work on complicated copyright cases a lot, and some of the FFD items that are backlogged fall under that category, not all of them though. This might be a problem when cleaning up the backlog there. Otherwise per Tigraan. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

General comments

 * His AFD stats are a tad low, and his rate of deletion when he nominates is also quite low. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, although he has the reviewer right, he has yet to approve or reject a single pending change. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=review&user=Rehman&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype= these five], perhaps? -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , That is strange, it was blank for me. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  11:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a lot of overreliance on AfD stats, that place is as much a walled garden as anywhere on wikipedia and not particularly more indicative of someone's ability to be an admin as any one of a dozen other drama boards. Montanabw (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * He has made 976 Article namespace articles, 716 of them were redirects, while not necessarily a bad thing, thats a pretty high percentage of redirects. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that really a thing? I don't really see a problem with that. Are you saying you'd rather see 260 articles created and no redirects? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all The ed17, I'm merely commenting on the high percent, with no judgement involved. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  03:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's basically irrelevant. We already know he's created over 170 real articles, which is significant. Infrastructure-minded editors create redirects (I've created thousands of them), and others (who might not, for example, spend much time thinking about obsolete terms or the misspelling habits of non-fluent readers) may not.  The candidate is not resting in any way on the total number of page creations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with SMc on that one. 170 real articles counts for a lot.  We all create a zillion redirects, that's standard mop work.   Montanabw (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed the maintenance tags from that article, as both were inaccurate. It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to create an article about a notable complex proposal, and other than one sentence which could use a minor rewording (which I did), everything was clearly spelled out as the features of a proposed site, not a current site. The proposal exists as of right now. As for the underlinking, it's a stub, and the links that already existed were clearly sufficient. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It may miss the ball on WP:SIGCOV though. --Izno (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to the sourcing in the article, I found a few other pieces of significant coverage via Google, but moreover, this is likely a subject that has more coverage outside of English-language sources than in them. The fact there's 4–5 significant online English-language sources almost certainly indicates more outside of that. We'd need someone who speaks the language(s) of Sri Lanka to verify one way or the other. Even with only the English-language sources I found, it's either passed WP:GNG or come very, very close. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:40, 14 October 2016 (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.