Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Street Scholar

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] Street Scholar

Final (talk page) (1/9/1); Ended 19:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Street Scholar (talk · contribs) - I've been editing on wiki since 2005 I've made many contributions to wiki from Sikhism related articles to Punjabi poetry to psychology my edits pretty much speak for them self Street Scholar 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self nomination.


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Any which is required.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my best contributions are to Jatt sub tribe articles, Sikhism articles and Punjabi military related articles - much of these articles on these subjects didn't even exist or were stubs so I believe my contributions have improved them immensely. Moreover, these articles have been useful to students interested in Indian subcontinent related articles.
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: Yes, I been in conflict with one or two users - one of them is banned for sock puppetry and flame. To resolve conflicts I generally contact (neutral) 3rd party. If you been editing as long as me and especially Indian and Pakistani related articles you're bound to get into conflict with users. I've always kept my cool and tend not to get emotional.

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Street Scholar before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

OK, I don't have much time so I'm going to keep this short, as am doing an assignment. Just to make something clear I'm thinking of withdrawing my request for adminship in fact I feel like am going to retire from editing on wiki. Firstly, to address Melsaran she has made baseless claims against me. If you don't provide the context to something, i.e. the text before and after the comment someone has made then naturally anyone can twist that comment to suit their own agenda. I could start a holy war by misconstruing and not providing context to text from Harry Potter its not cleaver.

The first claim she made without giving any context to was, with respect to this article this article was heavily edited by an Indian user sometime back who was known to make controversial claims with dubious or partisan sources and was abusive to me several times when I first signed up. The reason why I requested that article to be deleted was based on that. Moreover, the user who created the article has been banned indefinitely for trolling and being abusive. See the here: Link based on what I have said I believe I was right to request the article to be deleted. Rather then getting into a revert war with him.

Next she talked about my block log if you notice I was blocked by Menrope this was back in October 2006. She blocked me for allegedly making personal attacks. I think the evidence was inconclusive and the ban increase from 48 hrs to 1 week was clearly suspect to say the least. Then I was blocked for another week for making racial attacks by none other then an Indian admin which I found was strange at the most I should have been issued a warning. Then I was banned by a user named H who left wiki June 07 after some disputes his been having another user am assuming from looking at his user page. I was blocked by him for 2 weeks for making a factual statement, and he deemed it as a "personal attack" it was for the first claim mentioned above. And then finally I was blocked by another Indian admin, does anyone see a patter here? for making this comment on my own user page. I admit, that was a comment which I regret I made and apologize to anyone offended by it, I should not have made that comment. However banning me for 1 month for that is going over the top. All in all my block log if anything has normally been me being blocked on speculative reasons.

And the final two claims she made, no one can hold those against me as it was a personal opinion one of those articles should be deleted and the other kept. I don't even see why she mentioned them. You have to consider how long I have been here also, most of if not all of my comments which seemed a little rude were made during the time I was learning, and I didn't have much of an understanding of wiki policy.

Regards, --Street Scholar 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Candidate - I would suggest withdrawl per WP:SNOW. Please take note of the valuable feedback from the discussion section below, and we look forward to another RFA when you have addressed all these concerns. My talk page is always open for help or advice if required. Best. Pedro |  Chat  19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Further Comment 1)"in fact I feel like am going to retire from editing on wiki" - please don't because this RFA did not go the way you wished. 2) Please clarify if you wish to withdraw. If you do, please do not think that the withdrawal reflects badly on you in any way. Best. Pedro |  Chat  19:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I want to withdraw, am seriously going to ponder what am going to do over-night I felt even before this, that users could make groups to bully other users, and this has just only reinforced my opinion. It's shame, but I don't think I'll be missed anyone. --Street Scholar 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Very, very weak support Although this is going to fail, it should be noted almost all of the opposes cite diffs from months ago. This user hasn't been blocked in quite a while as well. ~ Wikihermit 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    True, many of the links were from months ago, but he still thinks that this edit was acceptable, and these troubling edits are still way too recent (all from less than 10 days ago). Melsaran (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well one of them I am in the right according to wiki policy to request the deleting of the article, its been over 48 hrs, its been almost a year and no one has supported him.

Cite: link --Street Scholar 19:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Per lack of experience. I think 1200 edits are nice, but the only main admin work you took part in was AIV and ANI, and there are much more parts to being a admin (I think, like WP:XFD, WP:CSD, WP:RFPP etc.). Try again in about 2-3 months taking part in those areas. Good luck next time. --Hirohisat Kiwi 16:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Street Scholar just came back after a four-month hiatus that started with a month-long block. Granted the block (for personal attacks towards a vandal) was probably overkill, but Street Scholar has a long history of personal attacks. That he so recently considered and kept the feminazi reference convinces me that this problem has not left us completely.--Chaser - T 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    A few diffs: comments to and about an admin who blocked him "You're such a wise woman" and "I'm not a satirist, but sarcasm is a concept which goes above the heads of the females, if you get what I mean" and towards someone reviewing his unblock request "You're an Indian helping an Indian out, Jesus, and I am supposed to believe your decision is un-biased?". I realize that Hkelkar was banned by arbcom, but that doesn't excuse making statements like those.--Chaser - T 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Not using edit summaries frequently, getting blocked recently, politically incorrect language unbecoming of an admin, insufficient edit count, insufficient constructive discussion with other users, disappearing for months at a time, weak answers to questions, and no demonstrated need for the mop. Sorry, but try again in six months, show some improvement, and I will reconsider my stance. Bearian 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. I'm sorry, but I'll have to oppose. Q1 doesn't really demonstrate knowledge of what adminship is, and you seem just a little too inexperienced overall (only a few comments to AFDs). I suggest that you try again in a few months' time. Melsaran (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    Strong oppose per this. I wonder how you can say you "always keep your cool", see also your block log which includes several blocks for personal and racial attacks (like [1]). I reviewed your other comments to AFDs, and none of them appear to be constructive[2][3] Melsaran (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    Also note that he has been canvassing for this RfA[4]. Melsaran (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose per this and other diffs mentioned above showing lack of composure. Also this editor is not very active on Wikipedia and doesn't have nearly enough experience in admin-like activities (XfD and other Wikipedia namespace). Unimpressive edit summary usage. I recommend a few months of high activity without edits that show that you can't "keep your cool". Useight 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose Per everyone above. And especially your block log. Also, you have very short question answers. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 19:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose While I don't like to see "Pile-on" opposes, I do wish to comment, and suggest that you go into your preferences, to the 'Edit' tab, to 'force' an edit summary when leaving a blank one. I'd also suggest that you carefully review all the comments made here, reviewing each link given to you, and not take these personally or negatively, but take them as constructive criticism towards helping you in the future. You can still greatly help the project without being an administrator, and I would encourage you to make some changes mentioned here, continue editing, retain a cool head, preview before saving, and perhaps with time, things will change. However, at this point, I would respectfully suggest it may be best if you withdraw. Ariel♥Gold 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per the block log, and this diff. Basically he speedied an RfC about himself that was in another user's talkspace. Granted, it was expired, so it should have been deleted, but I think Streetscholar doing the deletion himself (and without comment in the speedy tag or edit history) shows a profound lack of judgement. --Bfigura (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong Oppose Edits like this are unacceptable for an potential admin This. You have a long history for making personnal attcks. You have short answers to all questions, and they show little knowledge to what an admin does. You have been blocked several times as well. I strongely suggest withdrawl by WP:SNOW. Sorry. PatPolitics rule! 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I'd like to support this editor as most of his edits are valid, but the divisive reference to "feminazis" on his user page, horribly weak answer to Q1 and apparent refusal to use edit summaries put me off — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:29, 6 September 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.