Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nimur

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.

Contents

[edit] Nimur

(0/10/2) Ended 03:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nimur (talk · contribs) – Regular Wikipedia contributor seeking Administrator privileges. I previously had a weak introduction, so I will add a fresh one here: I am an active contributor to Wikipedia, and I hope to bolster my contribution by performing adminstrative duties. I enjoy adding articles, but I also do user-level cleanup work such as reverting and warning vandals, formatting, grammar, and spelling checks, and building consensus when articles reach controversial junctions. There's a few articles I watch regularly, usually because I have some educational background in those areas, but I try to throw in random articles and RC-Patrol to keep my perspective more broad.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: (Self-nominated...)


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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Assisting in the blocking of vandals. Presently, I have been on RC Patrol, but am only able to report and revert vandals. It would be nice to be able to temporarily block problematic IPs and Users. I am familiar with the process and its caveats (such as shared IP addresses, etc).
This is my primary motivation, but I am happy to contribute to other needs as they arise.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have nearly 1000 edits to the English wikipedia (not counting Wikimedia Commons and Wiktionary, and a few minor edits in French Wikipedia, ...and of course a few anonymous edits when I forget to log in :).
Green Hope High School was my largest creation. Despite its local scope, I feel that I created a strong article which has been viewed and edited very often since its creation. Following this article, I spent a lot of time working on education-related articles, assisting the Schools Wikiproject.
I spend a lot of my free-time on WP:RD/S (the Science Reference Desk), and can use my educational background to quickly point people in the right direction. I also enjoy the "Random Article" link - this is a fast way to get to articles needing "help" and make some improvements in sections I normally wouldn't visit.
I have contributed to North Carolina State Highways project. I have written the Outlying Landing Field Article and recently started Wildlife of North Carolina (which I am seeking to improve drastically in the next weeks).
Especially in these articles with "local scope," I try to keep the information concise, relevant, and provide a strong introduction for context.
I have also uploaded considerable images, formulae, and technical information related to certain scientific and mathematical articles.
Please see my user page or my Image Contributions for more details.
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: I have occasionally had a few debates. I reverted much vandalism on the 2006 Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict; in the past week, I have removed "nonsense information" from a few pages, which caused significant opposition from the contributing users. I tend to assume good faith, and sometimes the easiest way to avoid conflict is effective communication via Talk pages.
I am strongly committed to WP:NPOV as my primary guiding philosophy. I will force myself to take a neutral stance, even on issues which I have personal opinions on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for debate; I seek to inform, not to propagandize.

Comments

Support

Oppose

  1. – Chacor 14:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC) lack of explanatory paragraph, poor RFA listing.
  2. Oppose, lacks of explanatiodn in nomination. –Terence Ong (T | C) 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. I may accept the explanation if you're nominated by someone else, but given it's a self-nom I expect that you have higher standards. I'm sorry, but I'd have to suggest withdrawal. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Would have expected much more of an introduction for a self-nomination. Who are you, what brings you here, why do you think you would make a good admin? --StuffOfInterest 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Lack of experience is a major concern here. However, do not give up hope and try again after three months. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: It's great that you're working the Science reference desk, but an administrator needs experience fighting vandals, deleting articles, investigation and conflict handling. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per StuffOfInterest. Too soon. — Gary Kirk | talk! 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose because of low edit count. Maybe in a few months' time. Sorry. --Alex (talk here) 19:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Ter; WHY do you want to be an admin? --Mhking 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You have currently made just over 1000 edits, whereas successful admin candidates usually have at least 2000 edits. You've also only been a very consistent contributor since June. More edits and a longer period as a consistent contributor are needed before adminship can be seriously considered. Good luck if you apply again in the future. Zaxem 02:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I don't think the lack of an introduction is significant enough to oppose, but I'd like one before I support. Perhaps some comments on the quality of edits, since 1,000 edits is likely to fall with most others' standards. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I don't see anything to directly oppose at the moment but I also don't see a statement of intent from Nimur. Why is adminship going to be useful for his work on Wikipedia? I would lean towards withdrawal and an editor review instead at this stage, as a quick look at the stats shows only 57 user Talk edits, 549 article space edits and 176 projectspace edits. Instant advice would be to get involved with projects, start talking to users - warning vandals, advising people at the Help desk, etc - and come back in three months or another 2000+ edits. There is potential for a good admin here. (aeropagitica) 20:45, 5 September 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.