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

Final (0/7/2); Ended 01:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (closed per WP:NOTNOW by Ktr101.)

Mohammad adil (talk · contribs) – This User is interested in military history الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: Checking articles against vandalism, and un-sourced text. Being a lover of history, specially military history, during my "reading time" on wikipedia i have came across several articles which were molested by some stubborn editors, and those editors were still unchecked. I looks quite awefull when some random reader click on any wikipedia article only to see a page "manhandled" by some editors. People will lose their trust on wikipedia if history articles, specially islamic history and islamic military history articles will continuously be "massacred" like this. More over i intend to tackle those ip addresses that r involved in this apparently nasty work.

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

A: I think Battle of Yarmouk, with its battle maps, that were created by me, apart from this an article that covers vast and tiring topic of Muslim conquest of Persia is a nice effort from my side. Also my graphic contributions.

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, on Battle of Yarmouk and Umar, obviously i dealt it with justice. we discussed things on talk page and i abstained from editing my material untill all opposition to it cold down and we came to consensus. I even didn't pasted my newly written article of Umar until the conflict over talk page was over. In future i am determine to follow the same policy.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

4. Hello Mohammad, welcome to the RfA process. My question to you is what does copyright mean to Wikipedia?

A:

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

5. What kinds of actions could an admin have to do to address copyright problems caused by vandals?

A:

• Links for Mohammad adil: Mohammad adil (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mohammad adil can be found here.

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

2. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.

   For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.

   However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.

   The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.

   As an admin, you will inevitably have to...

   1. Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
   2. Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
   3. Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
   4. Negotiate a compromise.

   Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.

   Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.

   If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).

   My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. iMatthew ^talk at 21:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - 29 project-space contributions lead me to believe that you do not know key policies, particularly deletion policy.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'm not worried overly on the edit count, although it is a little low, but your lack of talk page replies, your somewhat single minded agenda in Q1, the sentence and first person pronoun case construction in your responses and the inaccurate transclusion of this RFA all add up to an oppose at this time. Pedro :  Chat  22:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - Essentially per Pedro. Your overall edit count isn't that alarming, but your activity in the project makes it relatively difficult to assess your knowledge of policy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose sure, it's not all about the count, but yeah, sub-4000 is a bit low. Keep up the positivity though and come back here later.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thanks for offering to take on the role of admin. I respect the value that your contributions and especially your mapmaking adds to this project, and I'm glad to see you have a clean block log and several civil conversations on your talk page. However I'm not sure you yet have the policy knowledge that an admin needs, you had a number of non free image warnings as recently as July, and no subsequent policy discussion or work such as speedy deletion tagging that would allow me to judge your knowledge of policy. But this is very much a not yet, and I hope to see you here again after three months. ϢereSpielChequers 00:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't normally focus on edit count in a given namespace, but I have to agree with Unionhawk here in that you have very little, if any, experience in the project space. At a minimum I like to see some participation in community discussions. Still, per my RfA voting policy, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and refrain from opposing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I appreciate your submitting yourself for consideration to assist as an administrator. As it happens, my criteria has significant similarities to Juliancolton's. I am not yet convinced however, that you are at quite the level of expertise requisite for adminship. I could very easily be persuaded to support, as this is definitely a borderline candidacy. —Matheuler 22:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.