Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AA

AA

Voice your opinion (talk page) (14/1/0); Scheduled to end 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AA (talk · contribs) - A cool head, a clam heart and a helping hand are some of the stuff that defines AA. Always a perfectionist, his passion for quality, neutrality and credibility is hard to match. Very active in a quite a number of areas, interacting with editors who represent a wide spectrum of attitudes and dispositions. Has a fine command of wikicodes, and is innovative enough to already contribute a good deal to that end. He may be especially important when mediation is needed between editors of South Asian origin, as he'll become the second editor from Bangladesh if found worthy. In the 7 months he has been working on WP, he has handled conflicts like a wizard of peace and consistently made amazingly positive contributions to every place he's been to. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. → AA ^(talk) — 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been an editor since March 2007 and in the 7+ months of my tenure, I have edited a wide variety of articles, been involved in a few conflicts, done many vandalism reversions and nominated many articles for deletion (via CSD, PROD, XfD processes).

I am somewhat of a perfectionist and aim to follow the GA/FA criterias in all of my edits which hopefully makes the end result easier to get through the GA/FA process. I have also met some wonderful editors along the way and helped where I can to the best of my abilities.

I have tried to contribute widely and gain experience in multiple areas and think I have developed a fairly comprehensive understanding of policies and guidelines to make best use of the admin tools. → AA ^(talk) — 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to assist mainly with CSD & PROD. As an editor I have tagged many articles which have been deleted and it would be much more efficient to be able to tackle the task myself instead of adding to the burden of existing admins. On a related note, I would also assist in AfDs (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) - initially focusing on ones where the outcome is clear-cut.

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

A: I would consider sourcing to be one of my key traits; to push Wikipedia towards becoming a reliable source. Article wise, Biman Bangladesh Airlines is undoubtedly my best contribution. It was the first article I gave my full attention to which enabled me to aquire a broad range of experiences as an editor since the article went through GA review (ando became GA) followed by A-Class review, Peer Review, FAC and is now FA. Fatimah is another article which was a highly biased non-neutral article when I encountered it. I spent considerable time using resources at the library to source and rewrite the article to meet NPOV and verifiability policies. I hope to take this towards GA/FA in the next few months. On the template front, {{cite quran}} is one of my creations which sought to combine multiple individual templates into one standardised citation template for Qur'anic quotations. I also made some useful changes to the League of CopyEditors project when I sought their help with the Biman article.

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: Only one noteworthy incident with an editor engaged in disruptive editing. The editing patterns of the editor was predominantly to revert other's changes and on the whole did not provide many "encyclopedia building" edits. I tried to reason with the editor and coax him into collaborating constructively so that we could collectively enhance the article. However, it did not prove fruitful as his revert-warring and incivility continued extending to uninvolved admins who eventually indef blocked him for making personal attacks. Reviewers may wish to see the following diffs/links for further history A, B, C. Personal attacks and userpage vandalism has also been directed at me at times in response to my RC patrolling but this has never caused by any upsets and I take this as part of the "job" (see D).

Question by Archtransit

4. Do you see a potential conflict of interest or ethical violation in your username? AA is a common abbreviation for American Airlines. You note an airline article as one of your proud contributions as well as being a member of Wikiproject Airlines. WP policy says "Usernames that match the name of a company or group" are inappropriate user names. Yet, as an administrator, you will be tasked to enforce wikipedia policy, including indefinite blocking of people who use inappropriate user names. What is your solution? Grant yourself an exemption? Change your name? Pledge not to enforce wikipedia rules in certain areas? Place a disclaimer on your userpage that you have no affiliation with American Airlines? Good luck in your RFA! Archtransit 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I do realise that AA is a common abbreviation, not only of American Airlines, but Alcoholics Anonymous and many others. The username was usurped and therefore I did not consider it to be inappropriate since a bureaucrat fulfilled my request. I am not promoting any organisation or product who's abbreviation is AA nor am I editing any American Airlines related articles and as such believe the statement, "usernames satisfying one or more examples are not necessarily inappropriate", applies. However, as with all issues on Wikipedia, if there is consensus the username is inappropriate, I have no issues with picking another one. Thanks for the concern (It actually hadn't even crossed my mind). → AA ^(talk) — 16:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See AA's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for AA: AA (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/AA before commenting.

Discussion

• Only 9 edits to AIV. That shouldn't be too much of a problem if you use the block button correctly, but if you are in doubt, please be a little hesitant during the first few days of your adminship (if you are promoted). Melsaran (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly continue to use existing methods to start with (i.e. reporting to AIV/RFPP etc.) until I am proficient in the relevant area. I believe having the tools places extra responsibility to ensure their correct use and therefore it's preferable to tread cautiously and if in doubt leave it for a more experienced admin to deal with while watching the outcome from behind the scenes as part of the learning experience. → AA ^(talk) — 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned about having an admin with "a clam heart". That sounds worryingly invertebrate to me. Can you confirm you are warm-blooded and have an internal skeleton? --John 05:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Well, that should be apparent. I was the nominator, right? I have already wrote a good deal about the reasons to support him while nominating (and also at his editor review). Never mind the flowery language. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support A review of the last 1500 contributions shows nothing but good work. In addition your deleted edits show a raft of accurate CSD tags, so I have no concerns on your policy knowledge. You answers are clear cut. Basically ticks all the boxes for me. Pedro :  Chat  15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   How do you check deleted edits? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Deleted edits for a user are listed at Special:DeletedContributions, which is limited to administrators. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Support Glad to give my support. I am confident that this candidate would not abuse the added tools given to him as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Seems to be a solid editor. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Nothing to suggest this editor will do anything but good with the tools. Phgao 17:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Sure, looks good. A great variety of contributions in many places, would do fine with the tools. Melsaran (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support No reason not to. I looked through some of your contributions from March, and they were all really good. I did notice, however, that you maybe made some typo's (Please don't bite my head off for writing this! It's only constructive criticism - and I hope it will be treated as such :-), e.g. "existance" instead of "existence". I honestly don't mean to be nasty or picky about it... Okay, I'll stop. I'm scared that people will interpret it wrong :-( But anyway! You have my full and complete, unwavering support! Scarian^Talk 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   I do appreciate constructive criticism and appreciate your efforts in reviewing my contribs. I do try to be vigilent and double check my work a few times - even after submission but, unfortunately, some errors do get through and this is where the collaboration element of Wikipedia is so beneficial. Having observed the League of Copyeditors in action, I have great admiration for their work. → AA ^(talk) — 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for the reply! I thought I was out of place with my comments. All the best! Scarian^Talk 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Support No reason to oppose, no concerns with him/her having the tools. east.718 at 19:34, October 2, 2007
9. Support had a look at your edit account and your most recent edits. You've got edits across the namespaces and according to Pedro (I'm not an admin) you know how to Speedy delete. All in all, a good user and you'll make a great admin--Phoenix 15 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Well-balanced and experienced editor. Seems to know what he is doing and I trust he will do well with the tools. Useight 21:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support User has plenty of experience, and demonstrates an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia. Good Luck!--bobsmith319 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Too few MediaWiki edits for my liking, but o well. CO₂ 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    Only administrators can edit MediaWiki pages, because the whole MediaWiki namespace is protected. ~ Sebi _[talk] 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

    I believe that was a joke. AntiVMan 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

13. Support No reason to oppose. Not very many reports to AIV, but like he said, he's done a lot of deletion work. —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 23:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Qualified, and wants to help out in areas that need it. Hell yes! :) Jmlk17 00:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Seems like a reasonable, well-balanced individual who learns from mistakes and is unlikely to misuse the tools. Ronnotel 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Fine with me. — aldebaer⁠ 01:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
17. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for apparently insufficient knowledge of core policies. On two current AfDs (1, 2) the nominee recommended to keep two articles on reasonable notability grounds, which is fine – but he did not notice or care that the articles utterly fail WP:V, an overriding core policy. One article (now deleted) was not sourced at all, and the other is currently sourced to the article subject's website and to Wikipedia itself. I have not reviewed the nominee beyond these AfDs, so feel free to take this vote with a grain of salt. Sandstein 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you for you comments and, although I do not wish to discuss a closed AfD here, I feel I should clarify for the reviewers since my knowledge of policies has been brought up. I believe your arguments are that the articles were not sourced - which I believe is not a reason for deletion. My comments on the AfD were based on the potential verifiability. To this end, I gave a few examples where the article in question (Airpoints) was the subject of non-trivial news coverage ([1], [2], [3], [4]). At worst, it was borderline and I respect your closure of the AfDs. → AA ^(talk) — 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral