Testwiki:Requests for adminship/SyedNaqvi90

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

SyedNaqvi90

Final (0/7/1); Closed early per WP:NOTNOW/WP:SNOW by Beeblebrox at 05:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Template:User – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to do administrative work for Aerospace Engineering, Pakistan related-stubs and Shia Muslims related stubs.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contribution to Wikipedia, is maintain the sourced neutrality of articles related to Aerospace Engineering, Shia Muslims, under repeated vandalism and Pakistan related-stubs and news. I was also among the first users to provide the Pictures of Pakistan's defense related articles. [1],[2] and many more. I have been learning alot from my experiences on Wikipedia. And i am highly willing to further contribute on Wikipedia. Many users are vandalizing articles related to Shia community, and my job is to maintain those articles from repeated vandalism and preserve the truth historical and personal facts regarding those personalities since they are a part of my heritage and believe.

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 have been involved in few conflicts over editing in regard of Pakistan & Shia Muslims related-stubs, i have dealt it with my debating abilities and by providing sourced references for support my claim. I was recently involved in a debate with two user over their repeated vandalism of the article related to Jinnah in the end i had to contact the Admin to resolve the issue, infact i was blocked for have a username (Paki90) being a racial slur though i never realized it, later i got convinced to change my username. I have have never felt stressful about it since i am committed to work for best interest of Wikipedia, and articles on my watch-list. I ready for the responsibilities that i might be given, and hopefully I'll never let down any on in this regard, and work as fairly as i can, and would keep on contributing on Wikipedia. Regards!

General comments

RfAs for this user:

The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

• Links for USERNAME: Template:Usercheck-short
• Edit summary usage for SyedNaqi90 can be found here.
• Note this sockpuppet investigation. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SyedNaqvi90 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

I do, i have seen him reasoning on [3], [4], [5] and his contributions are fair enough [6], prehaps his claims regarding stubs on his watchlist are just. Should be considered.Mohsin Ahmed (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The above was left by a suspected sockpuppet. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 03:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is totally a biased claim, i supported him just because he requested me to, and since i consider him the right person for Shia related-articles. Nothing else.Mohsin Ahmed (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

He sounds more like a meatpuppet, but regardless this matter should probably be kept off the RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

vote indented as it was made by a now blocked sock account. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, I don't see any experience and I don't see a reason for your need of admin tools. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 02:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

   Let's make that strong oppose due to usage of sockpuppets. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 03:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Per NSD. Hardly any experience. Hi878 (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Concerns with experience, judgement, maturity, breadth of exposure. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose It seems that the candidate has not yet renamed a page. Also there was a lot of trouble in the past with copyright on pictures so I would like to see recent correct uploading before giving the responsibility to clean up other copyvios. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Premature. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose You seem to be a net positive to the project, but I don't think you have enough experience to be an admin. Please remember that being an admin doesn't add any additional editorial authority. If I were you'd I just focus on improving the encyclopedia and not worry about adminship for a while. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose: Mostly WP:NOTNOW. Although the supporter is an admitted meat puppet, both seem to be innocently unaware of basic policy which is crucial to being an administrator. Come back in about 4,000 varied edits, at least six months, and a basic understanding of WP policy and you'll have my support.--It's me...Sallicio!^$\oplus$ 05:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Sorry, I don't see sufficient admin-related work experience to be able to hold confidence in you having access to the tools. Please don't be discouraged if this RfA doesn't pass! I think if you spend 6 months to a year more writing content as well as delving into administrative areas, I'll support. Airplaneman ✈ 02:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

   Leaning towards oppose per this very recent AN/I post. Might consider WP:NOTNOW. Airplaneman ✈ 02:57, 29 April 2010 (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.