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


Rehman[edit]

Final (11/25/10); Ended by ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe at 14:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Rehman (talk · contribs) – Hello. Before i proceed, i would find it useful to inform you that i have approached the RfA multiple times before, but have always refrained myself from nomination every time i came across WP:GRFA and/or WP:NOTNOW. I strongly understand that not every user can be an administrator, and that there may be many more users who are more dedicated than me, and that possessing such rights is not a souvenir, instead has many responsibilities. Thus i will not protest against anyone if this nomination is declined.

I have studied the functions of several administrative tasks over my 2.5 year period on this project, including the requirements and conditions to be one. And today, i believe i can take the responsibility of being one. Although, i only find my edit count not high enough, of which i believe wouldnt be that of a problem, as i have never considered the edit count before, and have always tried to merge and avoid repetitive edits wherever i can. It was a preference of which i didnt know of consequences of.

My purpose of nominating is not, and never was, to fight vandalism. I believe that every editor, either with no rights or with total rights, has a degree of responsibility in safeguarding all functions of this project. I have been given Rollback Rights on August 31st 2009, of which i find it to be a sufficient anti-vandalism tool for a non-admin.

During my career at Wikipedia, my fields of interests were mostly funnelled through two main categories, namely nature-related (particularly Energy) and maintenance related. I have actively participated in many article cleanup processes and other related areas such as deletions, speedy deletions, renaming processes and so on and so forth. There had been some periods when my activity is near zero, the only reason for that would be due to real-life health reasons. I expect real-life factors to greatly loosen in the near-future, giving me more time to work on this extraordinary project; which is one of my main reasons for nomination at this time. I have also noticed that there are not many administrators in my current time zone, +05:30 UTC, which i believe may, and can, be considered an added advantage.

Before concluding this self-nominated RfA, i do need to openly say that i did perform some quite hilarious (and false) edits during my early days on working on this project. Although, i can assure that it was, and will always be, only a single-occurring show; everyone learns from their mistakes. But, no matter what i have done before, i can proudly say that i have never showed anger, swear, or committed any such acts that will make me an evil editor, instead of a dumb one. Rehman(+) 14:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Just as described in the above nomination, my primary interest is maintenance related tasks such as deletions, page moves, backlog control, and so on and so forth. Secondary priority would be in vandalism/spam control. I've also had some interest in mediation, although i intend to take that up in later after receiving administrative privileges.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions, which is also the most time consuming, and also what greatly reduces members in the wikipedia orphanage, would be the arrangements in list-type articles, and edits relating to interlinking articles. Some of the things i enjoy the most in maintenance would be to pick a remote article, one that has not been paid attention to, and change it in a way that would not only attract readers, but also editors themselves. Some of my work could be found within my userspace; a list of namespaces which i have cleaned and taken responsibility of.
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: During my editing career, i have come across very few conflicts. Of which i believe, is because of my strong belief that humour and politeness, in whatever the situation, will always change the way we think of each other. Conflicts, or even editing itself, have never caused me any stress, simply because it is, and never will be, my top priority. My top priority is to safeguard the factors in my real-life, which i believe is very similar to that of your top priority. I dont take conflicts so serious only for the reason that, contributing to this project is like making a donation; if you argue, it means you are fighting to donate more, which is quite acceptable. No matter which party "wins the battle", if the "winner" harms the factual accuracy, or the purpose of this project, then i would consider it vandalism; similar to that of an AIDS-infected person fighting to donate blood. But of course, if a "battle" is too severe for a "donation" which is harmless, i would simply consider backing out. A considerable level of today's vandal-acts is only because editors forget the basics; etiquettes, faith, and even simple things like welcoming people. During my career, whether an admin or not, this would be the primary side-job; to promote harmony and more collaborative behaviour.
Additional optional questions from TheWeakWilled
4. Can you explain in your own words what CSD criteria A7 and A3 are, and an example of a page that you would speedy delete for either of these reasons?
A: I would consider DB-A3 a kind of a internet-wide soft redirect. Because, it does nothing but redirect the reader to the external site, (Simple example: "Microsoft" > See "www.microsoft.com"). DB-A7 is a speedy deletion criteria basically dealing with notability issues, (since if it is not verifiable, it is probably not notable in turn). This criteria involves non-notable animals (subjects, not species), organizations, individuals and web content, (Simple example: "John the Cat" > "...very smart cat that is owned by John (my neighbour)...").
Additional optional question from Phantomsteve
5. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?
A. Even if I were an admin at that point, I wouldnt find its tools necessary to solve this. I would probably verify the sources myself (and verify the if the sources are notable too) and launch a discussion as I have done in my recent edits. I would refrain myself from violating BRD Rule or the Three Revert Rule. If this doesnt work, I would consider a issuing a warning.
Additional optional questions about CSDs from Phantomsteve
6. Could you please answer the following questions related to CSDs:
a. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to accept a request for a speedy deletion using the relatively new criteria A10?
A. I would basically, first open both articles and manually compare both. Then perform an online search to confirm. If it is obviously a duplicate, I would proceed deletion.
b. Which CSD do you find the hardest to judge, and how would you ensure that you make a correct assessment for deletion under this criteria?
A. I would find DB-A7 the most difficult to judge; one could find a new song made by a new author almost in everyday.
Additional optional questions about AfDs from Phantomsteve
7. Could you please answer the following questions related to AfDs:
a. In an AfD, what would cause you to ignore or discount !votes?
A: If the vote was cast by a known IP with bad history, or simply if its a repeated vote.
b. Could you explain in your own words how you would judge the consensus in an AfD?
A: I would simply judge that by the majority count towards each option.
c. Under which conditions would you close an AfD before the 7 days have elapsed?
A: If, only if, the solution is obvious, (it is a quite notable article, it is pure non-sense, etc) as per votes.
d. In which cirumstances would you relist an AfD for another week to allow concensus to be reached?
A: I would relist such an AfD if the votes are near equal on both sides (propose - oppose) or if there is only a few votes itself.
Additional optional question from Cargoking
8. Why do you not capitalize the letter 'I' when referring to yourself?
A: I believe I dont have a proper answer to that. I would say its all typos.
Additional optional questions from Shirik
9. How would you handle this and this CSD nomination?
A. For Sample-2, I would try to find more information/sources myself before considering it a non notable subject. For Sample-3 I would try to understand if it is a notable/special type of guitar, or if its just another model, before considering it non-notable.
Question from Prop3v56
10. How did you orginally get involed with wikipedia?
A: I do not have that much of "expertise" in contributing to real-life on-site projects. It is only after my brother found this site where "anyone can edit" (now referred to as "anyone can contribute" by myself), that I started learning what this is all about. He discovered this site in 2006, and I created my first account in 2008. So, thats basically the story...
A few from Smithers
11. Can you explain, in your own words, CSD criterion G1?
A. In simple terms, G1 the speedy deletion criteria where the subject consist nothing but false facts or no facts itself (nonsense).
12. Can you explain, in your own words, CSD criterion A9?
A. A9 can be used against a page that contains facts about a musical recording, of which its artist page doesnt exist, hence the musical recording and the artist can both be considered non-notable subjects.
13. A dictionary definition that exists in Wiktionary is "trans-wikied" to Wikipedia. Someone nominates it for AfD, saying that "Wikipedia isn't a dictionary". Does this dictionary definition meet a CSD criterion?
A. If its obvious that both pages contain equal detail (or Wikitionary more) it can sometimes be considered CSD. If its not, it is always better to stick to the deletion at AfD, where there discussions may lead to moving detail to Wikitionary, or other constructive moves.

Question from Politoman

14. Let's say that you were sitting at home watching TV and saw a wikipedia article mentioned on a popular television show. Would you get on-line and take any measures to "protect" the page to stave off the impending rush to mess with that article? What steps would you take?
A. If I know any trustful editors that are already working and maintaining on the article (since before the broadcast), I would not rush online, instead would follow my schedules and land on the article as I come online. If this is not the case, I would rush online (if I am able to, without causing trouble in real-life) and first study the current situation (if editors are already monitoring it), since many "monitors" would moreover just happen to monitor each other, than what they should. If there are no monitoring users, and if the increased activity in article is more vandalism than constructive, I would try my best in controlling the edits (reverts, warnings, etc) before temporarily semi-protecting the page. If this doesnt help (over a longer period of time), I would indefinitely semi protect it, (just like what I requested on the Bahrain article last year).
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
15. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: If I understand the question right; I'd say yes, Wikipedians have some level of rights. I would create a certain degree of public awareness/attention to uphold these rights. I hope I've got the question right.
Additional optional questions from Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk
16. (follow-on question from question 5.) This is a two parter. The first part is to ask what sort of warning you would give to the editor when you feel that you have exhausted all avenues in resolving the issue? The second part of my question is how would you enforce that warning?
A. 1). If it is the first warning, I would substitute ((subst:uw-delete1)) warning, followed by the relevant level of warnings if necessary. 2). If I've understood right; I would post the warning on the editing user' talkpage (IP or registered).


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Moral Support candidate has been editing since May 2008, has a clean block log and is a civil and useful editor. Contributions at 3,300 are more than enough for my support (yes a huggler could achieve that in a weekend, but I think this editor isn't a particularly automated one). ϢereSpielChequers 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: SoxRed's tool here shows 0% automated edits -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions are good, answers to the questions are not. I consider that Rehman could make admin in a few months, but admins need to understand policy in order to administer according to it. ϢereSpielChequers 19:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per WereSpielChequers. ···Lauryn 22:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support per Phantomsteve's comment and per WereSpielChequers. While 3,300 edits is a little low, I trust you and Im sure that you'll not break anything :) Good luck!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I originally landed in the Neutral section thinking I'd support this in a month or two without reservation. But, really, if I'm already thinking that, there's no reason not to just support right now. You have a clue, and while lacking the project-space experience I normally look for, clue is more important than lots of experience. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Looking over each of the candidate's contributions, there is no reason whatsoever not to support Rehman for this position. He is consistently polite in dealing with others, shows absolutely no lapse of judgment in his decisions, is honest, intelligent, fair, and pretty much everything this project needs in an administrator. I foresee a long and prolific career for Rehman on Wikipedia. Reg7ha (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC) — Reg7ha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support: Just not enough experience. Ret.Prof (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. per WereSpielChequers and good work improving our power station coverage. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that I do not recall having any negative interactions with the candidate, the candidate was trusted with rollback, and the candidate has never been blocked, so, per WP:AGF, I will support. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per Were. It's not brain surgery, it's janitorial work, so brag most of wikipedia's administrators, and you can learn the deal with AfD and everything else. The learning curve may be steep, but you'll be polite while learning, I think. That I think you'll remain civil as an administrator is, more importantly, something that can't be learned. I am tired of brash, cheap-shot administrators at AN/I who have nothing to do but pile on at the latest drama-fest over the same 12 editors. Maybe requiring "Experience" over civility is a problem at RfA. Stay civil. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I definately must support this man. Great answers to questions and his contributions show him to be quite level-headed and polite. Prop3v56 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support We need a few 'more' funny and polite admins --NotedGrant Talk 20:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. How much "experience" does one need? The candidate has a few thousand edits already and his heart is in the right place. Politoman (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Seems experienced anough to me. Singopo (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - seems very level-headed and I really doubt he would abuse the tools. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - I'm just not seeing the experience in the project space that I've come to expect from admin hopefuls. Wisdom89 (T / C) 14:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Just not enough experience across the Wikipedia and usertalk areas. Vast majority of experience is in the last two months alone. You have to get more significant experience in admin related areas so that we are able to judge whether you can handle the tools. Polargeo (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Oppose. Insufficient experience as of yet. What I've seen so far looks pretty good, but I want to see some more before I'm comfortable with your knowledge of policies and procedures. As a side note, I'd recommend capitalizing "I", it would be more professional. Useight (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 18:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to sound rude or give any sort of lecture or anything, but I see Rehman as experienced enough to understand some of the basic RfA ideal requirements; he mentions in his self-nomination that he has read over WP:NOTNOW as well as WP:GRFA before and I would assume his understanding of adminship is significantly higher than that of a newcomer who's merely nominating himself without knowing what he is asking for (they are the target audience of the NOTNOW user essay). Master&Expert (Talk) 01:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and the fact that the user has very few edits in the administrative areas of the project. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Concerned about lack of experience, keep up the work and try again in 3 months... -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 19:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I have mainly had contact with Rehman at Talk:List of onshore wind farms#Restructuring, where he did not take kindly to my mention of his inexperience, and the matter eventually went to WQA at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive79#User:Rehman. Johnfos (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a WQA report you filed and which was dismissed quickly as "already resolved before filing" is a valid concern, even if you question the candidate's experience... Regards SoWhy 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. You're entitled to your opinion. The WQA was filed immediately after this comment by Rehman. regards, Johnfos (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience in multiple different capacities, including content work. Cirt (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Your edit count isn't low enough to concern me. My concern is the lack of participation in the non-article space, in particular if one of your reasons for requesting adminship is to delete articles, I want evidence that you have knowledge and experience in what should and shouldn't be deleted, and I'm not seeing it. My other big concern is a request for the admin bit in order to participate in mediation; mediation doesn't require being an admin at all, and in fact being an admin doesn't really give you any advantage at all as a mediator. -- Atama頭 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Answers to questions 6B and 9 lead me to believe there is a lack of full understanding of the CSD criteria, especially with regards to criterion A7. I would advise getting a thorough overview in this area, participating in new page patrolling for a bit to practice this, and come back with a fuller understanding. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, with Moral support - Simply not enough relevant experience. Might be quite willing to support in the future. I'd rather see more automated edits, which are hardly meaningless, than this few in general. Automated edits, or nearly automated edits, are quite easy to get without leaving a (TW) or (HG) tag on the end. I'm not accusing this editor of this, but I'm bothered by the general trend of mindlessly looking at the "Automated Edit" tool and discounting that number. I would worry severely about an anti-vandalism editor that hadn't used huggle, or something very similar. Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per answer to question 8: "I would say its all typos." Admins can't afford to make so many typos. —  Cargoking  talk  10:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're aware that admins are humans, yes? I could understand the user perfectly well, so the odd typo or grammatical error isn't important to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yes, yes! So could I. What I meant was that all of the questions that were answered had uncapitalized 'I's. It is simple, basic grammar. I would have concerns that an admin (or anyone at all on the entire project) wasn't able to communicate using proper capitalizations. But the problem has now been fixed. I now move my reason to oppose for lack of contribution, as well as other oppose vote comments. —  Cargoking  talk  15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose AFD concerns. There is no majority rules here. Instances where they has been off-site canvassing, if there are (and there has been) 30+ keeps, and 8 deletes, the article gets deleted. "I would relist such an AfD if the votes are near equal on both sides (propose - oppose) or if there is only a few votes itself." would be closed as no-consensus. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Questions 4, 7 and 9 suggest a lack of understanding of the CSDs and the ways in which AfDs should be closed. For example, a guitar is not covered by A7 at all, notable or not. As deletion is one of the candidate's nominates areas of activity, I cannot support at this time. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose This candidate doesn't appear to understand all of the criteria for speedy deletion, at least not enough for me to trust you with the delete button. For example, A7 definitely cannot apply to guitars or songs, and an article duplicating Wiktionary content can be speedily deleted per A5. In addition, the answer to Q7b is wrong; consensus is determined based on strength of arguments, not a head-count. Also, it appears that he's only participated in two AfDs during his entire time on Wikipedia, and his vote in this one didn't add much to the debate. Now's not the time; sorry. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - My questions were not answered too well in my opinion. First of all, as Willoughby said above, you can delete a transwikied article by a ((db-a5)) deletion (question 13). Then, on question 11, the article is completely illegible and incoherent. And on top of that, your deleted edit count struck me a wee too low to be working in deletion (question 1). Sorry. smithers - talk 04:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I want to support, but the answers to 7 indiciate an alarming misunderstanding of consensus, especially if they want to close AfDs. I would recommend 1) participating in more AfDs, and 2) watching over the closes of the longer ones; they're often a good indication of the stuff admins have to consider at AfD. Come back in 6 months, maybe 4, and I'll support. GedUK  11:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Q7, Q11. Tim Song (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Clearly a good-faith editor, but the answers to 4 (the key is assertion), most of 7 (in general, WP:CONSENSUS appears nowhere in this answer, and what is a known IP with bad history?), 11 (patent nonsense is specifically described in the criterion), and 12 (A9 does not imply the artist is non-notable, merely that the artist has no article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not establish notability; it uses it as a criterion for inclusion) show a lack of understanding of policy that would be problematic in an individual given the admin bit. No prejudice against a future RfA...just not while these misunderstandings of policy exist.  Frank  |  talk  15:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - I'm really not comfortable with some of the answers, specifically to Question 7. I'd suggest coming back in 5-7 months. In the meantime work on the concerns raised here, and do some reading up on WP:CONSENSUS. I like how you see the importance of humour and politeness, but some more experience would definitely help. Sorry, I think you could pass RfA one day, but not just yet, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Oppose Incorrect answers to Q7 and Q11 show a lack of understanding of how consensus is determined in Afds and our speedy deletion policies, and just a lack of common sense, which is especially concerning when the user states they want to work in deletion. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - per experience in admin-related areas. Spongefrog, I did not look at your contributions. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per astonishingly bad answer to Q7b. Tan | 39 05:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per above. —Terrence and Phillip 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose also per Q7b. The candidate fails to grasp the most basic aspect of WP:NOTVOTE as it applies to Afds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Nothing in your contribs makes me want to oppose, but you mention getting involved in deletions, and I'm not seeing a lot of participation in AFDs. ~DC Talk To Me 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per DC. 80 project space edits in 2 and a half years isn't admin material. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I'm not going to pile on, but I feel that you need a bit more experience before you can get the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I don't see anything that makes me want to land in the oppose section, but more- and varied- experience would be good before being given the mop. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Moving to support. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I feel that the answers to the questions show that you do not have a deep understanding of the deletion policy at this time. I feel that you need to understand these more completely (especially with regard to CSD A7/A10 and AfDs) before I would feel confident with you having the bit. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per Doc Quintana. Just more experience throughout more aspects of the project.  fetchcomms☛ 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. In essence, per DC. It wouldn't be right to oppose because nothing I've seen makes me think you couldn't be trusted with a few extra tools, but I would like to see a greater comprehension of the deletion policies, and, since you mention it, particularly the criteria for speedy deletion and a bit more AfD participation if you want to work in deletions. The answers to the questions on these areas show you understand the basic principles well, but being able to judge the borderline cases is the mark of a good admin. To sum it up? Spend a bit more time in project space, on new page patrol and a few GA/FA/DYKs wouldn't hurt. HJMitchell You rang? 19:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I can't oppose, but I'm not too comfortable supporting right at this time. I'm concerned that Rehman may not have a sufficient understanding of deletion quite yet. I suggest accumulating just a bit more experience in deletion-related areas and returning in just a few months. Otherwise, I think he's fine - 3300 edits over 2.5 years is not general inexperience (I have less than that). Master&Expert (Talk) 01:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, and though I have a lot of respect for this self-nomination and a lot of what the candidate has working in his/her favor, the almost total lack of experience in "Wikipedia areas" and namespace forces a learning curve too steep to climb for after a successful nomination and this should be handled first. Though I have no specific reason that I'd oppose beyond this communications issue and a somewhat worrying view on AfD, it's for those same reasons that I can't think of a specific reason to support. Gaps in knowledge or need for further research are just what they are, and neither good nor bad, but aren't admin-like qualities. This isn't a WP:NOTNOW with a fair edit count and evident enthusiasm to the community... just that the candidate has chosen to spend time in certain areas and not others leading up to this nomination. Would love to support in the future. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral, in what is essentially an open-book exam, user still got Q11 very wrong. With that said, seems to have a level head and with a few more months of experience should be ready for the mop. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  10. Neutral I believe from what I see that this is a candidate with potential. The responses to the question are not all that great because they don't seem to spend the time in areas where those questions come up. This can be gained by (*gasp*) admin coaching, spending time around WP:AFD to see the discussions and how they are closed, and heck, sometimes just watching WP:ANI for awhile. What I'm saying is keep up the current good work, take a lot of positives from this RFA, accept and understand the gentle critiques, and then set out to learn. Adminship is no big deal, but you seem to have many of the required qualities. Come back to RFA in a few thousand more edits/6 months or more - but not until you feel you have a good amount of quality work in the areas that people say you're lacking. This RFA is not a "never", it's an "almost". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:10, 25 January 2010 (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.
Category