Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Striver

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] Striver

Final: (1/18/1) Ended (early) 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Striver (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Striver for adminship. Striver is a civil, respectful, mature, level-headed and active wikipedian. He is a well established user in wikipedia who has contributed to many articles (He has amassed more than 15000 edits). He is also very good in finding academic sources. I believe he will be a helpful administrator--Aminz 07:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


Aminz, i am honored by your suggestion, and i would appreciate becoming an admin but i really think that there is no way that 80% will support my adminship. I engage in way to many heated topics, and there is to many people that outright hate my work here. Knowing that, i never bothered to edit in any way that is needed to becoming an admin. Yes, i know that there is people that want to be admin and also edit problematic areas, but those people never actually take a real hard-line stance and go hard to create extrem-controversial articles. I did that, and i put my energy in editing rather than reputation building. I did not bother to create edit summaries for my over 20 000k edits, i do not bother do pretend to assume good faith when i know there is none involved. I mean, i even have two admins doing this].

I know that i could be a good admin if i wanted to, i have been admin on several other sites, for example, i am top level admin at Swedens biggest Internet community.

I will not reject the nomination, not because i think it will succeed, rather to see how i am doing. If it happens to be that there is only a few people that have a systematic bias against me, and the rest have valid complains, then ill try to fix it and then maybe go for a re-nomination. As stated previously, i know that i have blemishes, and that is since i did not figure it would be worth the effort being "nice" to people that are not genuinely interested in following protocol, but are rather motivated by other agenda.

So, lets see how the landscape looks like, and Aminez, thanks for the gesture.

Oh, and btw, i do know that i need to not use admin priviliges when i am engaged in issues that i myself are involved in. And i do know that i would need to spend more time on being "social" instead of just doing what i want to do, in order to deserve adminship.

One last thing for people voting. There will be to groups voting "oppose". One of the groups will not vote "support" unless hell frezes over. The other have genuine motives. For you that have genuine motives, give good argument of why you oppose it, so ill have the oppurtunity to take it to heart.

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:

I am very well versed will all tasks, and as an admin, i would be able to contribute in a greater scale. And of course, i know that admin powers are not to be used on issues that oneself is involved in.

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

I dont know, take a look for yourself: User:Striver/Contributions. The list is not complete, i started to keep the list some while ago, and i have created articles prior to that. I am "pleased with" Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, Wikipedia:WikiProject Arabic names (and most entires), Wikipedia:WikiProject Hadith (and almost all entries), Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (one of many, many, many Sahaba articles i created), Sahih Bukhari (including the template), 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium (including the templa, both template and article are/have been afd'd for non-good faith motives), Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era (horribel title, but important article), Genealogy of Khadijah's Daughters (important article), and then i also created the list of Islamic scholars, many of the scholar articles, most of their book stub-articles that are important for navigation, adding pictures to articles... and a heap of other stuff that i cant be bothered writing here.

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:

If? On a daily basis. What did you expect, i am a Shi'a and a "tin-foil nut-case". The Shi'a aspect have settled down, when i was new, most Shi'a views were not... lets say "beloved". They are more tolerated now, and i take much of the creidt for that. But still there is a large group of people hanging around and voting delete and blanking things on a procedural basis. For example, see how this was afd'd four times.

And that makes me furious. And not aiming at becoming an admin, i did not bother very much to temper my anger.


Comments
Username        Striver
Total edits     24778
Distinct pages edited   4592
Average edits/page      5.396
First edit      05:39, 28 January 2005
        
(main)  15160
Talk    3649
User    1552
User talk       1283
Image   210
Image talk      11
Template        200
Template talk   84
Category        24
Category talk   2
Wikipedia       1847
Wikipedia talk  756

Support

  1. Strong Support Nominator --Aminz 16:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose clearly an unworthy candidate for adminship. For one, see the user's block log. [1] Second, the user has a strong history of pushing a 9/11 truth movement POV on Wikipedia articles and refusing to accept consensus. [2] I don't feel the need to get into specifics, but the user has personally attacked other users such as User:Zora (going as far as using profanity against this user) [3], he has created Wikiprojects for the sole purpose of advancing his views, he has falsely claimed vandalism in edit summaries, at one point he even listed five articles for afd in revenge for another user listing one of his articles for afd [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. More deserving of banning for exhausting the community's patience then for adminship.--Jersey Devil 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, i said "fuck you"... Also, MONGO violate 2 rules when blocking me, fist he was involved, second, it was not even a 3rr. Ill let the person i said the F word to have a say on MONGO blocking me: "I'm the editor Striver was cussing out and I've continually butted head with him over his edits to Islam-related articles. That said, I think Mongo was unfair to Striver in imposing the ban. Striver hadn't broken the 3RR rule yet " --Striver 12:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose. No freaking way. An editor with a transparent and unyielding agenda, often blocked, prone to wikilawyering and system gaming. I can think of few people less suited to become admins. Striver is a civil, respectful, mature, level-headed and active wikipedian: only one of those adjectives is true. --Calton | Talk 12:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, sorry, no. Even leaving behavioral issues and the ideological nature of the POV conflicts he's involved in aside, there's a huge issue of general article quality. Take just those articles he lists above that he's particularly proud of, and then look at what state they were in when he first created them (before others cleaned them up). Random selection: [9], [10], [11]. (And keep in mind that a huge lot of other articles got deleted for being much worse.) I can't trust a person to be a good judge of Wikipedia policies when their own article writing is so poor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per the evidence above, including Striver's own version of the events (at User:Striver/Yes, i said "fuck you"...). While it's admirable that Striver detailed his side of the story instead of just ignoring the issue, the underlying events still happened, and don't speak well for being suited to adminship. I'm also concerned with the "revenge" AfD nominations mentioned above. Giving admin tools (which include the ability to directly delete articles) to someone who has attempted to delete articles for reasons of revenge seems like an unwise move. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I should also add, in reference to Starblind's comment above regarding the "revenge" afds that after the nominee placed those afds they were quickly removed because of the malicious intent, after which the nominee responded by reverting the removal with the edit summary of "rv vandalism" [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]--Jersey Devil 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    looks like i need to creat an article about that incident too...--Striver 14:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose obviously, because the candidate says 80% won't support, so I won't support. --Alex (talk here) 13:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strongest possible oppose -- Take a look at this users contributions - he has created a zillion stubs for every conceivable person who has ever said that the US government caused 9/11 and ever book they've written. Many of his articles have gone through AfD, are going through AfD or have already been deleted. GabrielF 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC
    See User:Striver/Contributions - he keeps a very thorough list of his contributions, including redirects. GabrielF 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. My strongest oppose yet 1)answer to Q3 is extremely bad - if you become angry at peoples reacion to your religion and make even a statement like that you are unsuitable. 2) you dont want ot be an admin! I see why youve accepted (I self-nomed for the same sort of reasons) and i think its admirable that you want to improve, I am only voting because I will try and give you some hints on how to do that. 3) Zoe said it best: However, I must add that Striver has been a disruptive editor wherever he goes, and that his many edits do not reflect a substantive contribution to WP. His English (a second language) is atrocious and his reading limited to what he can google. He creates useless stubs with abandon and all too many of his articles clog the AfD process. He doesn't seem to know how to work WITH other editors, or how to compromise, and is prone to grandiose schemes and unilateral reorganizations without prior consultation. I have never agreed with her before ( ;-) ) but this says it all, before you can become an admin or even a respected member of the community you need to move focus from articles which you may become personally and emotionally involved. Either that or learn ot compromise and open your opinions. If you would like any more advice feel free to ask on my talk page :D good luck with improving yourself (I found my failed RFA inherrently useful).--Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per all above. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose completely not a consensus builder, seems to treat wikipedia like an ideological battleground. MLA 14:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose if nothing else for this massive assumption of bad faith right here in the nom: There will be to groups voting "oppose". One of the groups will not vote "support" unless hell frezes over. The other have genuine motives. Gwernol 14:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose and urge speedy close. The candidate's comment under !vote number 4, by itself, is too troublesome. Newyorkbrad 15:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose giving Striver the mop given his track record at AfD would be a bad idea Thatcher131 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Impossible to support the worst POV pusher I have ever seen in this forum.--MONGO 15:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Concerned about possible abuse of tools. JBKramer 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per the ample evidence given above. Xoloz 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per evidence above. Have witnessed instances of POV pushing, POINT violations, inability to assume good faith, build consensus, or maintain civility. Working to temper some of these tendencies would be a good first step towards being a more constructive and respected member of the community. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose I have run into Striver so many times in the past months, since maybe January?, on 9/11 articles. In addition all the above oppose reasons, here's one of the latest examples of his conduct, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Big_Wedding. He keeps citing Wikipedia:Notability (books), which is a proposed policy. Look on Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) and you can see it has absolutely no consensus. In {{Notabilityguide}}, he (two days ago) added Wikipedia:Notability (books) to the list of guidelines [17], despite it being only a proposal at this point. He also argues that since "The Big Wedding" has an ISBN number, that's sufficient criteria to make the book Notable. Just about anything published these days has an ISBN number, even ordinary U.S. government publications such as the 108 page "Are You Ready?: A Guide to Citizen Preparedness by FEMA. It's silly to think that Wikipedia should have an article on such a publication, yet alone anything or everything with an ISBN number. I don't think he quite understand's Wikipedia's principle of Notability, with all the many stubs he creates for non-notable books, websites, and videos. Either that, or he chooses to ignore it. I don't know, but given all these reasons, I don't think Striver should be given the admin tools. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose: we've got enough obnoxious admins already, thank you. Plus, I don't like sloppy use of shift key. Thumbelina 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, please expand answer one. Thank you.--Andeh 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    In what way? *smile* --Striver 14:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    The answer is very broad and doesn't actually pick out any tasks, I don't think any user has the experience to do all admin chors.--Andeh 14:17, 7 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.