Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Exir Kamalabadi

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

[edit] Exir Kamalabadi

Final (4/5/4) Ended 09:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats: Please take this nomination down. I don't think I'll be promoted --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 09:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self-nom. Accepted.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 15:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 voters:

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: Well, vandalism is a big problem on Wikipedia. I will be using my admin powers mainly to combat vandalism. I would like to have the "real" rollback button. I would also be trying to block IPs and Users conducting vandalism.

My standard for blocking IPs conducting vandalism are: I will issue 3 or 4 warnings before I block them for the first time, for 1 day. The second time, I will issue 2 warnings before blocking them for 2 days. Third time, I will issue 1 warnings before blocking them for 4 days. Fourth time: no warning and 10 days. And on extreme cases, half a year. My standard for users conducting vandalism are: First time, four warning before blocking them for 2 days. Second time, 2 warnings before a one week block. Third time, 1 warning before blocking them for two weeks. Fourth time, no warning before blocking it for a year. I will be constantly checking WP:AIV.

I will also be active in deleting stuff, mainly speedy deletion, since I'm most familiar with the policies regarding them. Of course, I will also check WP:AfD, but not as often.

Whichever way I use my powers, I will never abuse them, as I shouldn't.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I don't really have a particular article that I'm proud of, except for like maybe Mir, which I expanded a lot, but I'm quite pleased with my anti-vandalism work. I've reverted loads of vandalism, including a few very obscure (fact-changing) ones. I'd say I'm pretty skillful in spotting and reverting them. (Pardon my lack of humility) I'm also quite proud in my work of welcoming newbies. User:Turtleflipper, User:FilipeS and User:Dweller are welcomed by me, and I'll say they are pretty useful contributors to Wikipedia.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: No. I've never encountered any conflicts. I don't think I ever will. I consider myself quite easy-going (excuse me for my lack of humility), and I don't have a strong view on mostly any issues, so I never got into any conflicts. The only issue that I feel strongly is my religion, the Baha'i Faith. I avoid editing pages regarding my religion, so to prevent myself from pushing my POV. I refrain from editing controversial articles like abortion, so I wont get into any edit wars. All in all, I try to remain civil, and follow Wikiquette.

Question from Imoeng (talk • contribs)

4. Will sysop tools reduce your mainspace editing?

Definitely not. I always strive to be balanced, and I always remember that I'm here to create an encyclopedia. I will never compromise mainspace editing for maintainance

5. Regarding your statement, "I refrain from editing controversial articles like abortion, so I wont get into any edit wars". What if there is a user asking for a mediation or arbitration for a particular controversial article?

I will simply point that user to the Mediation or Arbitration Committee. After all, the users over there are excellent conflict resoluters.

Question from bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs)

6. Regarding your statement, "However, I believe I'm actually more experienced than editors who rack up 2000 edits in one month," in what way do you believe you obtain more experience with lower edits? In other words, how do you gain more experience?

I simply gain more experience by staying around here for a longer time. I don't think it is the number of edits that matter when experience is concerned... It is the amount of time a user is staying around Wikipedia. --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 06:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Exir Kamalabadi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Exir Kamalabadi's editcount summary stats as of 00:55, 22 October 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 00:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Three times so far has the Chinese block of Wikipedia been offered as a ... something ... That feature is the candidate's problem; it is not RfAs problem, and neither the candidate nor his supporters can reasonably expect sympathy for it in the sysop-or-not question. The contributions need to stand for themselves, without appealing to Governmental interference in far wider issues than an adminship on a website. This seems brutal but it would be wrong to permit ourselves to create admins out of political sympathy alone. -Splash - tk 02:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I wasn't trying to gain political sympathy by saying that... I was just thinking, people might oppose me, saying that I have a tendency to have long breaks from Wikipedia. I just wanted to make it clear that my two long hiatus is not because I took breaks, but because I couldn't access Wikipedia.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support changed from neutral. Good luck! - Mike | Talk 00:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. I was wondering when this would come along. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak Support Seems trustworthy. A few of his comments for some reason make me doubt, but support nonetheless. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   Which comment makes you doubt? Did I say anything inappropriate, or is my vandal blocking policy too strict? Comments are appreciated --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 07:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Support. Doctor Bruno  07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Fewer than 500 edits in one year. Michael 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   Did you even bother to read the nomination? If you did, you'd know why. – Chacor 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   Well, China blocked Wikipedia for a year. Don't you think it'll be imposible for me to make 500 edits a year if I can't even edit Wikipedia? :) --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose While it is unfortuante that the political situation has interfered with your Wikipedia experience, I believe I see < 2000 edits total. This is not enough top sufficiently evaluate your suitability for adminship. Once you have a greater track record, it will be easier to support. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   I understand that people opposing me for my low editcount do so because they cannot be certain about me having enough experience in Wikipedia. However, I believe I'm actually more experienced than editors who rack up 2000 edits in one month. Regards, Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 01:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   It is alright, and I know that edit count is not always reflects one's contribution. However, in this case we need to measure your experience, and there is no other way to do it except with your edit count. Maybe if you have another idea you can tell us. Cheers -- Imoeng 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose I am opposed due to Exir's stance on IP banning. Edit and comment, but banning based on IP is blocking open discussion of dissenting views, which I am opposed to. Tnfiddler 03:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   I think this is an unfortunate misunderstanding. I wont block all IPs, I will only block IPs conducting vandalism. I think that you misunderstood and thought that I will block all IPs --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   Why shouldn't I block vandals? If an IP is vandalizing, is it wrong to ban it? I would appreciate if you are a bit more specific, so that I can change my policy somewhat. --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 06:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose because of hard and fast IP blocking numbers. Don't assume that such a procedure will serve you in every situation. Andre (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   In your opinion, what is the right amount of time for blocking vandal IPs? I would like to know the general consensus on how long I should block vandals. --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 06:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose You should spend some time writing articles first. Also I don't like the answer to Q5. We can't just simply send every edit conflict up the hierarchy. ~ trialsanderrors 09:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Sorry, I'd like to have supported but without any indication of how you would deal with conflict I cannot support. – Chacor 00:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   I've never encountered any conflict, how am I able to prove myself if I can't even get into a conflict? :-) --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 01:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   Not enough experience, sorry. I was going to oppose, but then I noticed your mention of the ban. I hadn't heard about this. Care to fill me in on what happened :-)? - Mike | Talk 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. – Chacor 00:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

2. I think with a bit more experience the candidate would be a successful administrator. The edit count is a bit concerning, but I would support the candidate if a few experienced administrators offered to work with him as a sort of advanced admin coaching. I believe Exir Kamalabadi has a sincere dedication to the project and can be trusted not to abuse the tools, but the experience issue is what precludes me from supporting hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   I believe I actually have more experience and more understanding of the Wikipedian policies and guidelines than the editors who edit 3000 edits in four months. I've spent a week looking at the administrators log just before I nominated myself, to make sure I absolutely understand everything. --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 01:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   Like I said earlier, I don't doubt your trustworthiness. The experience is a rather big issue and there's really no substitute for "hands-on" experience. I would suggest spending some more time editing; participating in and closing non-controversial AfD's that have concensus to be kept on Wikipedia are great ways to build real experience. Also, like I mentioned earlier, if a few admins are willing to take you under their wing, so to speak, I'd be happy to support hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral You want to be an admin and you don't think that you will encounter any conflict? You also avoid controversial articles. Can you offer evidence that you understand about the processes of arbitration, mediation and deletion review, along with the associated policies? (aeropagitica) 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, I understand that while China stopped you editing it severely reduced what your edit count would be, and that you have thoroughly read the policies regarding admins but somehow I think more edits would be better anyway. I strongly support your strict stance on vandals, as an RC patroller I know that it is often, though not always, the case that banning is the only solution. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:42, 22 October 2006 (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.