Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sangak


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

Sangak
 Final (0/4/2); Ended Fri, 3 Feb 2007 at 17:50 (UTC)

- I have been working on Wikipedia for some time now. When I started with wikipedia more than two years ago, I could not imagine one day, wikipedia would become a part of my life. Now I feel I could be doing much more good with admin tools and there are much more rooms in wikipedia for me to be helpful. When I joined wikipedia there were very few articles on Iran and Persia related topics. In the first phase of my works I initiated many articles on science, art, literature and culture. In the second phase I am now working to improve the quality of articles and also maintenance of wikipedia. I believe maintenance is very important for obvious reason. Besides by taking part in wikipedia maintenance I feel I am respecting the time and energy that many users invest on wikipedia. Sangak 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: As with the ongoing learning process that I'm experiencing in simply editing Wikipedia, I'd like to start with less challenging examples of administrative duties, and progress with experience. I will probably start helping protections in WP:RFP, as I've seen times when the list is not looked at for one day or two and people are left without assistance. I would be happy to some time helping out in the areas there is currently a backlog. I'd be keen to be part of the team that reviews and acts on candidates for speedy and proposed deletion. I also like to get involve in talk pages with users who are involved in a conflict. I think many problems will be resolved by simple communications.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I have not reached my ideals yet. However I have to say I worked with love on almost all articles I edited. They may be not as high quality as some of you may expect but I tried my best. For instance I offer my current project on Abbas Kiarostami. It's not a great article, but I rewrote nearly the whole thing, and think it is, at least, much better than before.

To give you some more examples:
 * Science: Residual dipolar coupling, J-coupling, Exclusive correlation spectroscopy, Group II intron.
 * Iran: Science in Iran, Iranian women's movement, Iranian cinema and Persian literature.


 * 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 edit Wikipedia for enjoyment and learning. In general, I find it quite easy remain objective about editing conflicts and naturally look for a middle ground in response to opposing perspectives. I have been in conflicts over the content of some articles. However we could usually resolve the problem without any need for an admin to step in. The reason was simple. I always tried to use academic sources to support my edits and I have been always ready to admit my mistakes or misunderstandings. As a scientist I learnt to be self critical over the years. In situations were I was right, either the other editor accepted it or started to insult me. Then I would remind him/her to see WP:CIVIL. I tried to be very calm and polite and I could easily work with any user and cool some hostile-looking conversations down just by being civil and referring to well-proven Wikipedia policies.

I also have a tradition for myself. When I write an article, I will look for some expert wikipedians from different countries and invite them to read the article and comment on it. In several cases I asked English native speakers to read my paragraphs and tell we whether the tone used is neutral or not. Then I will revise my edits based on the feedback I get.


 * General comments


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



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion About my edit counts. I've just checked it with editcount. I have nearly 5000 edits on 500 distinct pages. Also I have 546 edits on Talk pages. It means 10% of my edits where in Talk pages. Please see also my works before July 2006: Sangak1, Sangak2, Sangak3. For my works on history of religion and contemporary politics see Sina. Unfortunately there is no way to merge my contributions to eachother. Thanks. Sangak 16:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * About being involved in AfD debates, I have to say that this was not my plan up to now and I had other plans as I explained. This is my future plan. Sangak 17:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on feedbacks from some editors, learning policies by studying is not enough for some one who wish to be an admin. I actually studied the policies intensively during last weeks and wished to used them in future as admin. In anycase I withdraw my request and thanks you all for your inputs. Sangak 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose. Too little Wikipedia-space activity, and almost no use of edit summaries.  I'm also a bit worried by the article Sangak1 cites above, Abbas Kiarostami; I've started correcting the numerous formatting errors (spaces, use of italics, quotation marks, etc.), and I've removed some of the PoV language, but the article is still very PoV in tone. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Few Wikispace contribs (and most of those to WikiProjects) make it hard to assess policy knowledge. What contribs there are raise concerns about the candidate's interpretation of WP:NPOV, especially here. The sentence: In wikipedia, Iranian president Ahmadinejad is considered racist I find especially problamatic. NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia adopts an opinion because e.g. it is the majority opinion on such matters. That someone has been described as racist can be sourced and mentioned in context. That some of their speeches have been interpreted as racist can be sourced and mentioned in context. But Wikipedia should never as an encyclopedia determine whether or not such claims are true or false- it should provide information not judgments by editors. WJBscribe 16:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sangak has explained to me that his comment above was as a result of Ahmadinejad being included in the Category:Antisemitism. This controversial category includes people who have been accused of antisemitism as well as those who are definitely antisemites. But understanding the basis for the comment (which was a criticsm not an endorsement), I am less concerned by it. However, the lack of Wikispace edits remains a problem as the only policy discussions to which he has contributed (under any of his accounbt names) are 2 AfDs. Simply too little demonstration of the sort of policy knowledge needed in an admin. WJBscribe 17:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Per this diff and I'm concerned at such a large number of edits to one AfD. --  Heligo  land   16:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Heligoland. (edited to add) I read your explanation about the "vote count" on Heligoland's talk page, and that makes me more concerned that you don't have enough experience in administrative areas to need the tools yet. Jeffpw 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - not really going to oppose for edit count reasons, but you have 79 Wikipedia space edits, 31 of which were to a single AFD. I would prefer to see some level of experience with administrative processes before supporting. --BigDT 15:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I don't see much activity in the projectspace. Edit summary usage needs work. -- A nas '''  Talk? 17:17, 3 February 2007 (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.