Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MiddleEastern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] MiddleEastern

Final (0/10/0); Ended Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:21:15 (UTC)

MiddleEastern (talk · contribs) - I believe I should nominate myself for adminship so that I have easier ability to edit pages. I am trying to make articles based on the Middle East especially neutral, so far the only admins watching those pages have jewish userboxes, therefore I think we definately need good measure. I work tirelessly to remove both sides of POV from articles, and I attempt to resolve my disputes calmly even when other users are hurling insults MiddleEastern 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I, MiddleEastern accept my own nomination, and promise to uphold the ways of wiki as best I can:


I request your support, I will do my best to serve your community and be open to recall at any time.

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
I intend to watch every section of the administrators noticeboard, articles for deletion, and of course my own talkpage. In addition to this I will be watching a huge selection of articles and using "pop-ups" to remove obvious vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
The contribution of which I am most proud is not actually an article, after noticing huge vandalism on United States, I took the unusually measure of copying and pasting the entire article into United States, this page is a soapbox for vandals with the intention of stopping the encyclopedia itself being used as a soapbox, as per WP:NOT
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?
I have been in conflicts recently over Allegations of Israeli apartheid, I used the admins noticeboard and calm words to try and diffuse the argument. I lost my cool once, but now I feel proud of my actions.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

The candidate is canvassing for support [1] Gwernol 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this place works on consenus over credentials, Wikipedians, not my edit history decides --MiddleEastern 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The only way we can decide on your credentials here is by looking at your edit history. We have no other information to go by. Looking at yours, I see you specialize in WP:POV-pushing [2] and you have been warned multiple times for breaching WP:NPA and other policies. Gwernol 14:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I am running here, there is no real difference between admins we have now, I want to champion the new user, help them instead of warn them or insult them. I want to be a new kind of admin that can change wikipedia for the better. --MiddleEastern 14:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out this extraordinarily biased user page, and the fact that the user has been removing the MfD notice from the page. Gwernol 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's for vandals to attack in order to proctect the real article, as you would have seen had you read my userpage --MiddleEastern 14:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I did read your user page. Please assume good faith. Every one of the offensive changes on that page were made by you. You even reverted them back when another user removed them. You also removed the MfD notice from that page despite clear instructions not to do so. You don't understand policy and you repeatedly demonstrate serious bias in your actions. Gwernol 15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The user is advertising his RFA also here and here. --Meno25 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This has now been removed on advice from experienced admin --MiddleEastern 14:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I appreciate MiddleEastern's passion, and share some of her frustration with POV pushing by some admins and editors. I disagree however, with describing them as editors with "Jewish userboxes". Many Jewish editors here are very balanced in their approach to editing, just as many of their Muslim, Christian, agnostic, atheist (whatever...) counterparts are. I'm not going to vote on the adminship, because I don't think this is a serious request. It seems to me this is designed to make a point about systemic bias in Wikipedia. While MiddleEastern may be right about this being problem - there is a "Western-centric" political bias, as with everywhere in the English-speaking world - it is not a solution to put yourself forward for adminship with so little experience here. Even those of us who would like to see those kinds of problems addressed could not vote for you. While you are right that decisions here are made by consensus, there is no evidence we can point to in your edit history showing that you are a serious editor with a long-term committment here. Regards. Tiamut 15:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- adminship requires the trust and respect of the community. To gain it you should demonstrate it from a balanced and neutral perspective, not gain power just to silence opposition. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

#Support I looked very closely at how RfAs work, I know I can do it :) --MiddleEastern 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you don't know how RfAs work or you would know that the candidate may not support their own nomination Gwernol 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose: Did you have a look about how RFAs work here? New user (first edit on March 5, 2007), no reports to AIV, no contributions in XFDs, 90 edits (!),you are even advertising your RFA, please any bureaucrat close this RFA. --Meno25 14:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. No need for tools. – Chacor 14:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Probably not. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose fewer than 100 edits means we have no way to judge if you have the required understanding of policy. Your nomination strongly implies that Jewish editors cannot be neutral which is an astonishingly biased claim. You demonstrate in your nomination that you do not understand the role that administrators play on Wikipedia. Gwernol 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. You must be kidding. Too few edits, and some of your edits (in Israel and related articles) were less than constructive. Opposed. - Mike Rosoft 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose per lack of experience and nomination wording, and suggest quick withdraw before this gets a bit nasty... The Rambling Man 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I can't vote support for someone who's been here w/ us for less than 10 days!!! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Can somebody/anybody please stop this per disruption or per anything else they can think of? Thanks--Tom 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, obviously. [3] Kafziel Talk 15:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. POV-pusher. The nominating statement pretty much says it all. 6SJ7 15:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.