Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Rehman 4 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr Ernie (talk | contribs) at 16:45, 12 October 2016 (→Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:45, 12 October 2016 by Mr Ernie (talk | contribs) (→Support)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Rehman

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (30/6/2); Scheduled to end 23:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Rehman (talk · contribs) – All, I would like to present Rehman for your consideration as an administrator. As a long-term Wikipedian of 8 years, 18,000 edits, 0 blocks, and 170+ articles created, I believe that Rehman has the expertise, temperament, civility, and dedication to the project necessary to excel in the admin role. Aside from diligent content creation, Rehman is also one of our few media file copyright specialists, and is highly knowledgeable in policies concerning non-free content and local/international copyright laws. He is also a frequent and valued contributor at WP:FFD, which is an area always in need of additional administrator assistance and attention.

I think Rehman has proven himself a clueful editor capable of handling a few extra buttons to the benefit of the community, and I hope you will agree with me. -FASTILY 17:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Fastily. I accept this nomination. Rehman 23:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to start working on requests submitted at WP:FFD as this is one of my current areas of interest and is something that I already have experience in. I hope to start here, familiarize more on the local norms and processes, and learn my way into newer areas. I don’t plan to rush, as I understand that there are differences in deletion policies between Commons and Misplaced Pages, particularly Fair Use.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I have written about 170 unique articles (excluding lists) since I have joined Misplaced Pages in 2008. While I have contributed to topics from a wider range, most of my work are about renewable energy (particularly solar and wind power), the energy industry in Sri Lanka, limnology (particularly dams and rivers), and geography (maps and mountains). My contributions onsite are aligned with my real-life interests, hence I pay special attention to proper coverage and quality. I have written one Featured List, and from what I can remember, 1 DYK and 1 ITN.
From recent memory, I think some of my best encyclopaedic contributions in article space can be found in the List of power stations in Sri Lanka page. I don’t have any FAs or GAs yet, but I believe that a number of articles which I have created are at an acceptable standard. Alongside writing, I also enjoy uploading quality media (such as pictures, charts, maps, etc) to support the articles I write. The best of my uploads can be found in User:Rehman/Photos. I have also worked on a number of infoboxes and navigation templates, such as {{Infobox power station}}, {{Infobox dam}}, and also lead projects such as {{Infobox river}} revamp.
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: I cannot remember being in any conflicts for at least in the past 4 years. The only conflict that I remember was from over 5 years ago, which was mutually resolved. Today, that editor and myself are in very good terms. I believe I have a good level for patience and calmness. If I feel a particular incident is causing me stress or anger, I am very well capable of standing down for a needed break in order to maintain a non-defensive or non-rushed response. This is a practice which I am used to, both online and offline.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Mkdw
4. I've looked through your contributions at WP:FFD over the past year. Your statements are commonly, "per nom" and don't necessarily give us a good insight to your decision making abilities as a would-be admin. As you know, being a sysop is being handed the full set of tools. Can you speak to your experience in other administrative areas?
A: Of course. I have worked with a few WP:SPLICE cases in the past, with more experience in that area from Commons (where I started that page). I have also worked with many WP:MTC cases in the past, and understand the importance of preserving the records in such transfers. Other less active areas which I am familiar with includes WP:RFPP, and WP:RM (for mostly G6 cases). When it comes to maintenance work, I personally prefer working with files, but I am very much willing to work in other areas. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Rehman 12:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Iazyges
5. Question from Iazyges, if had to introduce a massive reform, what would you reform?
A: Hi Iazyges. Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I am in the UTC+05:30 timezone, and had only just returned home from work. To answer your question: I personally don't feel that there is a need for any massive reform here at the English Misplaced Pages (yet). But something that did catch my eye is the way Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion is archived. Personally, I feel that FFD (and perhaps other places) could use a better systematic arrangement such as Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016-10-12 or Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016/10/12 comparing to the current Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 October 12, as that would help in easy navigation/sorting. Other than trivial things like that, I don't really feel there is a need for reform. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Rehman 13:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Cryptic
6. Of the discussions on the pages linked at WP:FFD#Old discussions, which would you be least comfortable closing (for some reason other than "I'd rather relist it" or "I !voted in it/uploaded the image/am otherwise involved") and why?
A: Hello Cryptic. I was not able to go through all of it as that is a big list. But from what I did manage to look into, I will feel uncomfortable if I had to close this. The entry has already been relisted more than a month ago, but responses seems to be going very slow (last reply almost a month ago). If I have an option of replying (instead of 'close' only), I will guide the uploader on the OTRS process, or ping the other user as they may have missed the reply, to speed up the process. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Rehman 14:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Ritchie333
7. The celebrated Captain P Birdseye was born in Lucknow, British Raj in June 1889. He fights as part of the British Army in World War I, and has an official military photograph taken in 1914. The photograph is given to him following the Armistice on 11 November 1918. In 1926, the Daily Mail contact Captain Birdseye, asking to use the photograph as a lead image commemorating unrecognised military heroes. The offer is accepted but the article is never published for space reasons due to emergency coverage of the general strike. Following World War II, Captain Birdseye leaves India and retires to Mersea Island, where he dies just before Christmas 1945. The military photograph is published in an obituary in the Colchester Gazette shortly afterwards. The photograph is finally published in the Daily Mail in November 1968 as a retrospective on war heroes following the 50th anniversary of the Armistice. At the bottom of the photograph is a small watermark : "(c) Daily Mail and General Trust archives". In 2016, a Wikipedian starts writing an article about Captain Birdseye. What is the copyright status of the military photograph and can it be used in the article? If not, why not?
A:
Additional Question from UNSC Luke 1021
8. I have two questions for you. I'll just ask them both now. 1: What WikiProjects are you actively a part of? And 2: How many articles have you written/heavily contributed to that reached A-Grade or Good Article status? Thank you.
A:
Additional question from Samwalton9
9. Can you talk through an example of a time when you entered a debate or discussion with one opinion, but changed your viewpoint as a result of the discussion?
A:


Discussion

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
Support
  1. Support - Rehman appears to be a competent editor and when reviewing his previous RfA's he showed that he was willing to listen to the community and learn. I have no concerns at all with him getting the tools. -- Dane2007 00:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nomination. Kablammo (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support as nom -FASTILY 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support This is the first time I ever support an RfA. Rehman has created many power station articles in November 2015, including Ace Horana Power Station and Ace Matara Power Station. Also, he has voted "delete" on many FFD nominations, the latest one being Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 October 3#File:Eubearth back in high school, grade 12.jpg. He will be a great admin on Misplaced Pages. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support on the reputation of the nom who I know to be a serious editor. SlightSmile 01:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom, seems to be competent. Dschslavaparlez moi 01:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support. FFD is definitely a place where we could use another admin, and I'm glad to see someone volunteering to help out there. I have full faith in the nominator's statement and have no other concerns at this time. Good luck! -- Tavix 01:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    Reaffirming my support with a comment: people who are nitpicking his content creation and opposing based off that is exactly the opposite of what we need here. We have a volunteer who is competent in a narrow area of the project where we sorely need more admins, and he is willing to step up and volunteer as an admin there. If you want to nitpick on something, try doing it where he is planning on volunteering, not somewhere unrelated like his last article created or AFD. Thanks, -- Tavix 13:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support. Seems like someone who would be a good admin, so I support it. LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  9. Support. Clearly qualified to wield the mop. bd2412 T 01:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  10. Support as my default position, given his experience and the state of FFD. ~ Rob13 02:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  11. Support FFD is definitely a place where we need more admins. Seems to have more than enough experience. Omni Flames (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  12. Per nom. Ed  03:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  13. Support - I see no red flags and I trust the nom. - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  14. Support - We badly need more admins, and there are no obvious red flags. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  15. Support The nominee has clearly demonstrated competence, and more sysops are currently needed. — Music1201 03:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  16. Support - has a good rationale for using the sysop tools, and enough experience to make me think that he can be trusted to use them well. Thanks for volunteering! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  17. Support per Fastily. Why not? Jianhui67 05:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  18. Support - for simply 2 reasons. 1.) I see no issues with the candidate. 2.) We need more admins at FfD. Class455 (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  19. Support Definitely a good choice for an admin. Minima© (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  20. Support, an experienced FFD specialist is obviously a valuable person to have as an admin. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  21. Support because I see no good reason not to. A few bad AFD noms from years ago do not worry me. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  22. Support Admin on Commons since January 2011. Well-qualified for FFD/PUF work. lNeverCry 07:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  23. Support It's a long, long time since his last RfA, and a lot of good work and content since. Apart from that, admin on Commons clinches it. Absolutely no concerns.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  24. Support 10:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  25. Support initally had concerns given the number of RfAs, but its clear previous issues have at least been somewhat addressed. There's a bit more content created since, and all-in-all a credible need for the tools in the mentioned areas -- samtar 11:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  26. Support, after reviewing his answers, I am no longer concerned by his rfa's and other things I commented on, I feel confident he would make a good admin. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  27. Support He appears to be a competent candidate. What appears to be holding him back is the excessive number of RfA's he's already, but a review appears that he is now ready. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  28. Support. I've seen Rehman around in deletion and protection discussion boards before. I often disagree with him but from our interactions I trust him to act impartially when needed. Deryck C. 15:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Deryck Chan: Could you point me towards some of these so I can check up on them - I can only see one from this entire year : Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Esa'ala Cave Ritchie333 16:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  29. Support per above. Experienced user, done lots of good work.- Earth Saver (talk) at 16:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  30. Support per nom's recommendation and description of their FFD and copyright competence. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose Argh! Seems pleasant enough, but seems not to understand AfD issues with so many deletion nominations ending as "Keep" and "Speedy Keep" out of the relative handful involved. As all admins can close AfDs readily, I would prefer that the person have a bit more experience in that area. I also note a similar problem with BLPs with the stat page showing very few BLP edits. As those two areas get substantial activity, I would vastly prefer anyone learn about them. Collect (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    I doubt Rehman intends to take part in AfD, given that his stated administrative interests almost exclusively involve media files & WP:FfD -FASTILY 00:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Does not inspire confidence. Sorry. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Looking at his contributions I see no indication that the tools are needed or would be of any benefit to him or the project. Answer to Q1 ("I hope to start here, familiarize more on the local norms and processes") does not - as Sportsfan says above - "inspire confidence"; if this is where the candidate feels he needs the tools and will be working I would expect him to be "familiar with the processes" already, perhaps even demonstrating clue, judgment, reasoning and grasp of policy with some NACs. Answer to Q2 could be summed up as "Unremarkable contributions", and certainly nothing that would indicate an understanding of policy, particularly BLP. Answer to Q3 tends to make me think that the candidate has been keeping a very, very low profile since his previous RfA, and lacks the "steel" that is sometimes required of our sysops. Overall, mild enough candidate on the surface, but no need or use for tools. We have enough "admins in name only" already. Keri (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Weak Oppose sorry Rehman but my investigation of your contributions have turned up a few issues. Firstly, your most recently created article, Achilleion, Colombo (created three days ago on 9 October 2016), has both a {{Crystal}} clean-up tag and an {{Underlinked}} clean-up tag on it. The underlinked tag is a sign you rush your work and the crystal tag shows a lack of policy understanding. Secondly, you seem to be a quite impatient editor. I say this due to this conversation (Jan 2016), this conversation (March 2016) and, to a lesser extent, this BRFA. You (well technically your nom) say that your interested in file work. However, the main issue with this FLC of yours was the use of images and you didn't make the changes until, well I just copy and paste what Chris Woodrich said at that review, "Rehman, when four or five different editors are telling you there's an issue with the images, you should probably think of alternatives." That was in July 2016. And actually while I was looking at that, I came across another example of your unwillingness to be patient here (Jan 2016) where you write this: "Hi all. Since all possible problems/issues are attended to, can we pass this as FL?". That FLC ended failing. This track record of your unwillingness to be patient is backed up by all those early, failed RfAs. Your AfD record, isn't great and, although I understand your unlikely to spend much time there, AfD records are good guidance on a users judgement, which is something you'll need at FFD. I found at AfD you commented at, (this one) where you, as I think the article creator, was strongly of the opinion to keep but where everyone else !voted delete. To be fair that AfD was a long time so I don't give it much wait but still it doesn't inspire confidence in me. You have have only no reports at WP:UAA and only one at WP:AIV which are both crucial admin areas. You have been laughed out of AN which, although a while back, not great. Finally, your editing history is a bit sporadic and your answer to question three isn't great. Now, I have !voted weak support because I also see a lot of positives. A nice FL, a really good need for the tools and the fact you're an admin at commons is great. Many of the issues I have found are from quite a while ago, but unfortunately due to the more recent ones I have to plant myself in this section. (sorry for the wall of text). — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The English WP is all about content so the first thing I did when I saw this RfA was to check the most recent article created, Achilleion, Colombo, only to discover the large tag adorning it. Created just a few days ago, to me, this demonstrates not only a poor understanding of basic content requirements but, more importantly, creating an article of that calibre immediately prior to an RfA demonstrates a lack of sound judgement, which I feel is a pre-requisite for any admin. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Sagaciousphil: I've removed both tags, since they were both inaccurate. See the general comments section. ~ Rob13 13:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    Tag removal does not miraculously endow sound judgement, which was the basis of my oppose, nor does it improve an incredibly poor article; I note I opposed your own very recent RfA due to inexperience, lack of judgement and the inability to diffuse rather than inflame situations. My opinion has not changed and in response to the snarky comment from your fellow admin, Tavix, above: it has been shown on several occasions that admins do not restrict themselves to the narrow areas of their competence when it comes to the use of the block button hence my pre-requisite that candidates must possess sound judgement skills. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I see nothing in the editing history of this editor that shows suitability for the position. No past signs of any interest in or engagement with forums that administrators frequent or interest in the issues that they might become involved with or be required to make decisions about. Little or no interest in any of the platforms where opinions are required to be expressed (such as AfDs, or RfCs, or even article talk pages). Yes, a large number of edits, certainly useful, but very uncontroversial to the point of blandness, and nothing to suggest any interest in doing more, doing things that might be difficult or require the composition (or analysis) of carefully worded explanations. He states "I cannot remember being in any conflicts for at least in the past 4 years." as if it were a good thing. It actually reveals a severe lack of experience. Not even one content dispute in four years? Many of the tasks of an administrator involve being involved in (and resolving) conflicts. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Kinda of concerned given that this is the fourth RFA attempt. Given the five–year span since the last one, going to stay neutral and hope for the best.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    Neutral until he answers the questions posed to him (I assume he is in a different time zone). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. I also noticed this is the 4th RFA for Rehman. At first he seems like a nice editor. I will have to investigate this, however, before I !make an actual !vote. His recent edits only have a few FFD edits, mainly in short bursts, and his most recent 5,000 edits, a lot are minor edits to templates, whose fixes he then spread to multiple articles. I see a few big edits and a lot of small edits, not that it matters. So I am still staying neutral, so that my comment is not negative, but I don't know if I am committed to support yet. epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
General comments

*Also, although he has the reviewer right, he has yet to approve or reject a single pending change. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64:, That is strange, it was blank for me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Not at all The ed17, I'm merely commenting on the high percent, with no judgement involved. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've removed the maintenance tags from that article, as both were inaccurate. It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to create an article about a notable complex proposal, and other than one sentence which could use a minor rewording (which I did), everything was clearly spelled out as the features of a proposed site, not a current site. The proposal exists as of right now. As for the underlinking, it's a stub, and the links that already existed were clearly sufficient. ~ Rob13 13:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)