Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ammarpad

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Ammarpad

Final (64/40/9); ended 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Ammarpad (talk · contribs) – Friends, Wikipedians, Others, lend me your ears. I'd like to introduce you to Ammarpad. It's been a little while since I've done this, but I was glad to have someone like Ammarpad drop me an email recently to ask if I'd have a look over their contributions with respect to a nomination for adminship. Well, I had a look, and I was impressed. Ammarpad is exactly the sort of person I look for in a candidate. Yes, he's only really been around for a couple of years, but in that time he's amassed over 33k edits. He's spent most of his time helping out on the encylopedia. be it at WP:UAA or helping new users at the WP:TEAHOUSE. At the same time, he's managed to work on quality articles such as 2018 Kentucky Derby. Overall, I've found a helpful, friendly editor who would significantly benefit from the tools. In the end, isn't that what we're looking for in a candidate? WormTT(talk) 21:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you WTT. I want to add that I have never edited for pay and will not, even in the future. I have only one account, the one I am using now. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal. I am withdrawing this RfA, and I am grateful to both those who supported me and those who opposed. I appreciate your participation and your comments are valuable to me. Thank you all. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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've been contributing to many administrative areas but substantially to WP:AfD, WP:UAA and WP:ITN/C. I have substantial number of actioned reports of username policy violations at WP:UAA and have been participating in WP:ITN/C for sometime now. So, with admin tools access, I would like to further my work in WP:UAA, WP:AfD and WP:ITN/C in situations where admin tools are needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have created a few start class pages, a DYK and a GA (with collaboration). I am proud of them. I am also equally proud of my background edits in maintaining the quality of our articles, getting rid of spam and promotional contents as well as user accounts which are solely here for that. Outside mainspace, I am proud of my contributions to WP:RM, a vital process in determining suitable names for our articles. I closed many RM discussions and do help in clearing the backlog with a kind of regularity.
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: Actually I have never been involved in any serious conflict directly but I know dispute or misunderstanding is something one can't evade unless they're not truly editing. I've been embroiled in a content dispute at AN/I once about a year ago which would have been easily resolved at talkpage had the complainant waited for my response in few hours. Since then I always try to respond promptly to queries about my actions or inactions and also keep a cool head in discussions. Also, I find it particularly useful, when in a dispute, to disengage and give a thought on an issue far away from keyboard and then come back some hours or even days later and respond with better approach or walk away altogether if the issue has been resolved.

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.

Question by Nosebagbear
4. Using a random sweep of 40 of your AfD !votes, you cast the final !vote in 32 of them, and didn't have the 1st or 2nd !vote in any of them. Since it's already starting to be discussed, what would you say to concerns that your AfD participation shows so little "original" policy judgement and is instead piling-on?
A: Well, commenting first in a discussion is not necessarily evidence of original "knowledge of policy" same as commenting last or penultimate is not evidence of lack of policy knowledge. It's what the commenter says that matters and I believe that's what closers consider not incidental order of comments. I believe, I have not done that deliberately, I used to browse the daily log when I have time and only comment on where I think my comment would be useful. My record is not perfect, not even near, but overall I believe I fairly understand how our myriad of content policies apply when discussing a particular article in a deletion discussion.
Additional question from Dolotta
5. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?
A: That would be WP:CFD process. I have very little participation there and near total lack of interest, as such I don't envisage working there, if given the access.
Additional questions from TonyBallioni
6. Can you explain how you would handle username blocks and your general views in regards to them?
A: That'd be according to Username policy, TonyBallioni. For a username to be blocked, it must meet at least one condition of being inappropriate username which is not allowed here. In borderline or unusual cases, discussion with the user can be better alternative instead of blocking. I would find this tabulated guide quite useful in assessing reports at UAA.
On my views about such blocks, it's in line with what the community wants. However, I am really sympathetic to certain situations and that's why in all the accounts I reported to UAA, save attack names or obvious troll, I had to check their global contributions to know what they were doing in other projects. For instance, a fortnight ago, I found a username TVN Group (talk · contribs) which quite clearly violated our policy as an WP:ORGNAME and also showed sign of promoting their company. But I didn't directly reported it to WP:UAA board. Instead, I checked their SUL info and found out that the original account was created on dewiki project which has conflicting policy with English Wikipedia because they allow usernames for organizations and even verified this one via OTRS. I reported the account to be discussed here at RFC/NAME, however, the user was blocked before people were able to comment. So I think now that accounts are global, for an account to be blocked for violating WP:UPOL, there has to be more reason than the superficial account name, of course with exception of usernames which are obviously attacking a particular person or user or shows clear intention of disruption like some account which are created by socks and announcing that they're back.
7. Can you list some situations where policy dictates or allows for a certain outcome where you would just do nothing? By nothing I mean ignore it completely and there is no record on-wiki of you even being aware of it.
A: Since per policy, administrators are not required to use their tools. I can think of many. For instance, when closing RM discussions, I sometimes write the closing rationale and hit preview to read. I'll read it again and then discard the entire edit, this happen for many reasons. So in those situations even though the hypothetical action is allowed by policy I am also allowed by policy to do or not do it. I'd be happy to explain more what I would do if you've different example of such situations in your mind.
Additional question from Reyk
8. In your opinion, what is the most important policy on Wikipedia, and why?
A:I think all our policies are important, but since you're asking for the "most important" let me first draw out these two: Verifiability and Biographies of living persons. These two policies are critical to Wikipedia's credibility and in turn to justification of its existence. When content cannot be verified, that erodes the credibility of Wikipedia significantly and makes it less useful. When biography of a living person is not written in accordance with all requirements of BLP policy that can expose the subject to a real life harm or danger as well as tarnishing of public image which are all antithetical to why we're here.
To choose the "most important policy" I will go with the latter: i.e WP:BLP policy for it incorporates the content of the former and many other policies which are important too.
Additional questions from Hhkohh
9. We have an admin called 331dot, if an editor reported username to WP:UAA, such as 331comma, 311dot, 333dot, 331 dot. Which administrative action will you do?
A: It depends. Sometimes when accounts like that are created, their first edit has more information than their usernames. "333dot" and "311dot" are clearly impersonating the admin we know and they should be blocked just like how I once reported Zzuzzz (talk · contribs) for impersonation and was blocked. I can give the benefit of the doubt to "331comma" and wait to see whether they're genuine new user or a returning troll, which their first few edits will show. If they've not edited, then no need for a block.
"331 dot" likely cannot be created due to anti-spoof save by those who have (override-antispoof) permission and who are unlikely to do so.
10. Please explain why your RfA runs during New year
A: That was incidental. And, in my milieu, there is no difference between January and any other month in a year.
Additional question from Andrew D.
11. You are active on the Hausa wikipedia, as that's your native language, and it seems that you applied for admin status in that Wikipedia earlier this year but that discussion still seems unresolved. Please explain the process over there.
A: There's not any real "community" or "formalized processes" over there, but for stewards to grant the access temporarily, they require a person to open such discussions even if no one will comment. I have been given the access and I did what I wanted to do then, it already expired. That's why the discussion remains the way it's and it will be so until when we have active community to develop discussions closure formalities.
Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
12. Is this 😂 username allowed ? Can you state the policy on this if yes why and if No why ?
A: Currently, this kind of username (emoji) is not allowed. The policy prohibiting that came into effect on 7 November 2017 after this Request for Comment and the relevant policy is now at WP:NOEMOJI. However, in the RFC it was decided for the prohibition to not apply retroactively, therefore this user and any other who created their account before 7 November 2017 were allowed to continue using it.
Additional question from Zingarese
13. Imagine that you are preparing to deliver a closure on an AfD discussion about a living musical artist that had several participants (in this scenario, let’s say six or seven). All of the participants, except one, vote to delete, claiming that the article’s subject does not have coverage in reliable sources and fails notability guidelines. However, the participant who votes to keep claims that the article’s subject “passes #8 of WP:MUSICBIO because they have been nominated for a Grammy Award” and the official GRAMMY website verifies this claim to be true. Additionally, they provide links to reviews of an album of the artist by The New York Times and Magnet. What consensus do you believe has been reached here and how would you close this discussion?
A: I would assume no one commented after the Keep vote, therefore I wouldn't close the discussion, and would relist the discussion instead so as to give the community opportunity to comment after the new fact has arrived.
Follow up question: Now imagine that seven days after you’ve relisted the discussion, four more users vote. The first user votes to delete, with his reasoning being in its entirety “Not at all notable” & no links to any policy pages. The second user votes to keep, stating that the article verifiably passes #8 of MUSICBIO and that the reviews by NY Times & Magnet are already sufficient enough in terms of RS coverage. They additionally provide a url of an lengthy interview of the artist conducted by The Christian Science Monitor. The third user votes to delete, saying that “MUSICBIO states that a musician may be notable if at least one of the criteria are met. Even assuming that one of the criteria on the list is met, notability is not automatically granted to the subject. There simply isn’t enough in-depth coverage to establish notability.” Both users who vote to keep disagree with this user’s view, saying that this artist unequivocally passes MUSICBIO #8 and that the coverage in such renowned publications as NY Times and The Christian Science Monitor is very extensive. FInally, a fourth user comes and votes to keep “per user #2”. Assume there have been no plausible counterarguments to the claims of the keep voters. There have already been ten or eleven participants; how would you close this discussion?
A: Frankly, as a matter of personal policy, generally I don't close discussions I once relisted. Check the discussions I relisted here and see who happened to close them eventually. So I can tell you, it would be very unlikely closed by me. However, to answer your hypothetical in a rare circumstance (which would be hard to occur), if I consider closing it, I would close the discussion as 'No consensus,' which defaults to keep. But believe me, the former option of abstaining is habit in me and that's more what you should expect from me than the hypothetical.
Additional question from Mz7
14. As a follow-up to Q12, if you encountered an emoji username as an administrator – say at WP:UAA or just on your own – what are the checks that you would perform, and what actions would you take, if any?
A: It is first worth noting that emoji usernames are rarely created. In my almost 2K reports to UAA in over a year, I have never had a cause to report emoji username because I encountered none, neither I saw one reported by another user. If I stumbled upon a new account with emoji unicode, I would first check their Global Account log to see whether they have significant contribution in any other project. If they had, I would left a {{uw-username}} notice to them and add pointer to the policy on why their username is not allowed on this project. The notice has a link to WP:CHU if the user wishes to change the name. If the account is brand new, I would check their contributions here, if they edited constructively, I would left them a notice same as above. If they're clearly troll or vandal, then there would be more reason to block them than the username
Q14 follow-up: Thanks, Ammarpad. Now suppose that the user ignored your message and kept on editing, albeit constructively. What would you do? Mz7 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: Hmm, this is very unlikely too especially if the user is new. And since it's unusual case I would defer it to WP:RFC/NAME to hear views of others. This is partly because I have never seen a user blocked by any admin because of emoji in UAA or anywhere which further confirms the rarity of such happenings
Additional question from Alex Shih
16. This is more of a philosophical question. Do you think there are double standards on the way things are done here on English Wikipedia (e.g. treatment of editors, application of policies), if so, would you provide some examples (could be drawn from any topic area) and explain what you would do different as part of adminship?
No, Alex. I don't think so. And I don't think so I ever expressed that after I truly understand the environment. Perhaps you're thinking about my first few days here but I believe that was long time ago over a year and when I was truly novice coming to a place that at first intimidated me. I believe we all behaved oddly, before we understand the intricacies holding this virtual space together save if one is not truly a new user. There's nothing that I would do different whether I am given the access or not, I am not putting myself forward to bring reforms I just put myself forward because I believe I demonstrated I know how to do this, I can do this, and there's a need for people who want to do this.
Additional question from Vexations
17. Can you give me three examples of messages you placed on user talk pages where you have thanked, praised or otherwise encouraged a new-ish editor?
A: Not thing I can immediately recall, and it's worth noting new users largely have difficulty understanding talk pages and messages left there. But I do thank them in individual edits [1], [2] and I am happy, a times I became helpful to someone who was new.
Additional question from Crazynas
18. What do you believe is the most important quality for an administrator to have? Why?
A: The key trait is patience. They should've patience to not act in hastiness on issues which do not obviously require immediate action or which they've doubt. And when in doubt, they should ask a colleague or the community before taking action. If an admin cultivated that habit, there would be more productivity and less occasional furore we see after some admin actions.


Additional question from Swarm
19. What do you have to say in response to editors who are concerned about your attitude or temperament, based on past incidents?
A: Well, Swarm, I believe I am even-tempered but not perfect in that evenness. There are comments of mine that were brought up, which occurred in my first three months of active editing here, that's over a year ago including the one you linked to in PERM request, in retrospect these were not in good taste, but I couldn't help because at that time I was new to the place then. The other comment I would like to comment on is my comment on the CU/OS election, I had a look and I believe I could have voiced my opposition in a more diplomatic manner. However, since after those incidents, (save the most recent one on WT:ADMIN) I changed as I assimilated the environment and my tone took new shape. So I will say I find them generally to be helpful feedback and thanks the people who brought them up.
The most recent incident is my comment here (in a still open RFC) which someone finds "combative" because I said (and supported proposal to that effect) "On English Wikipedia, stewards cannot desysop, only Arbirtration commitee can, albeit stewards have the technical ability to remove a user from admin group in an emergency situation pending figuring what the issue is all about" and gave examples which proved that. I am afraid, I still support that proposal because it makes sense to me. In addition, my examples there remain true and are verifiable.
Question from SashiRolls
20. If you met a text-donor who still didn't know where to look to decide whether the MoS had anything to say about whether Sudanese protests (2018) should be named like Protests in Sudan (2011-2013) or if it should be the other way round, or... the way it currently is, what would you say? I also wonder what you think about WP:NOTNEWS. No pressure for the response, I have no intention of voting against you. I'm only refraining from voting for you because of question #16 (not that there's anything wrong with what you believe: I don't want to inadvertently lead to any inexplicable backlashes. ^^)
A: If they're asking the question on my talkpage, I would point them to WP:RM process, where people would decide what is the suitable name for the article. It seems that's what you're asking for here, though I don't know whether you mean the scope should be extended to 2019 or just you want use something like "Protests in Sudan... (year)." Since both names seems quite correct and the subject is not something that has definitive, fixed name, this is issue with style where community input is needed.


Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support. Candidate has significant experience (particularly with upholding editorial standards, eg AFC) and strong communication skills. AGK ■ 21:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reconfirming my support. Granted the candidate weighs in on AFDs that already have had participation, but this does not demonstrate lack of judgment any more than a lack of participation at all in deletion debates would do. We often see candidates that don't frequently contribute at AFD. There were a few other areas of concern noted, but I didn't find them convincing. AGK ■ 13:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've seen Ammarpad around and he seems knowledgeable, reasonable, and certainly not a jerk, so no reason to think he doesn't pass my my simple RfA criterion.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support We need more admins, and I don't think they'll abuse the tools. The few times I've interacted with them have been pleasant. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Ammarpad gets it - yes, indeed. Atsme✍🏻📧 21:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as appears suitably experienced, especially good AfD log. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - has clue, does good work, especially at WP:ITN/C, would be a worthy admin. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As nom WormTT(talk) 22:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting here that I do still support Ammarpad, and am yet again disappointed by some of the opposition rationales. Adminship should be something that we give to those editors who can be trusted to use it correctly, and Ammarpad is clearly a good candidate in that regard. I accept that his behaviour at CUOS elections could have been better, but the elections were not monitored as well as they could have been - something that I have acknowledged and intend to work on in the future. Wikipedia is desperately short of Admins - there are 517 active admins today, yet just 16 17 started editing in the past 7 years (2012 and beyond), we need to ask ourselves some hard questions about why that is. WormTT(talk) 14:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Worm That Turned: Where do you get those stats? These are the numbers of successful candidates between 2012 and 2018:
    2017 (21)
    2016 (16)
    2015 (21)
    2014 (22)
    2013 (34)
    2012 (28)
    Total (142)
    Even assuming a few are no longer active, your number of 16 can't possibly be even close to accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, it is. Of those 142 new admins, only 16 17 were created on 1 January 2012 or after - taken from [3] and removing admin bots and one individual who moved his admin tools to a new account. WormTT(talk) 14:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry, miscounted - it was 17. WormTT(talk) 14:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) WTT is talking about when they started editing not when they become admin - even now, most accounts that become admin are older than 2012. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarly, I count a total of 44 admins who were created from 2010 and beyond. Which means that the ratio of active admins from the first 9 years of wikipedia (2001-2010) to the second 9 years (2010-2019) is 473:44 or more than 10:1! WormTT(talk) 14:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC) EDIT: noting that this is the ratio of active admins. Factor in the inactive 700 and it's far worse. WormTT(talk) 15:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very uncommon to see a successful admin candidate with less that 5 years of experience. The bar is higher now than ever. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: friendly editor, has a clue. About time! SITH (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Candidate has demonstrated significant experience in AfD, speedy deletion, and UAA. Their work at the Teahouse demonstrates that they can interact with new editors in a positive manner. There is nothing I could find to indicate that they will misuse or abuse the tools. Good luck! EclipseDude (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Moved to neutral.[reply]
  9. Yes, support. Dekimasuよ! 22:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yeah, give this character a whip mop; ticks the necessities, doesn't tell noobs to fuck off: bonus. ——SerialNumber54129 22:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Has plenty of experience in AfD and RM, has shown understanding of core policies on talk pages. Would make a fine admin in those areas. Good luck! ComplexRational (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - seems unlikely to abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - why not? is the question I always seem to come back to with RFA. If anyone's interested, I wrote up my stringent RfA criteria here. programmingGeek(contribs) { this.timestamp = 23:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah well. I won't give up the day job then! :p ——SerialNumber54129 23:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  14. support Mahveotm (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support More admins is always a good thing; also trusted nom. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Binod Basnet (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Having seen the candidate's work at RM, I deem it an honor to support this bid for the mop. Ammarpad is a pillar of the Wikipedia community! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Seems clueful. —JBL (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  19. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support has had a level head and a good grasp of policy when I've seen them around. Am surprised they don't already have the mop! --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support great candidate and will obviously be a net positive with admin tools. And oh boy the opposition for AFD "stat-padding" is ridiculous. This forum has created such a high standard that it necessitates any candidate to be cautious in almost everything that they do. Now people are unhappy that editors are cautious in their lead-up to adminship? Jeez this is getting just plain silly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Foxnpichu (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Sure. Has been helpful at RM. feminist (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken a look at the oppose rationales and none of them are convincing. Reaffirming my support. feminist (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support for meeting my basic criteria and no reason presented why not. Ifnord (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Ammarpad falls into the 'I thought they were an admin already' category. He/she isn't perfect but the positives far outway the negatives. JC7V (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I reaffirm my support fully. Not every admin worthy candidate gets the bit. Tony opposes so now everyone has to opposes. Unbelievable. JC7V (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on people, Ammarpad can stay away from AFDs as an admin. Please give him/her a chance. Don't be swayed by the opposes. Ammarpad will always be an admin in my eyes. UGH. JC7V (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If Ammarpad agrees not to close AFDs as an admin, would that ease concerns? How many long time admins have had bad AFD noms or bad AFD stats before becoming an admin? AFD is a great way to gauge adminship but not the only way. Not every admin will be perfect in all areas. Ammarpad as stated in the neutral section gave great answers to the questions (as i also concur) which means he more than likely would be a good admin. Give him/her a chance. JC7V (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. No significant concerns, and I trust WTT. Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC) striking after reading some opposes[reply]
  26. Support Good record to stand on and no concerns. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Spport I often think editors who aren't admins are already admins (and, on the flip side, am sometimes surprised at those who are). Like JC7V, Ammarpad is one of those whom I've seen around and thought they already were an admin. So, sure, let's make it official. edit - temporarily moving to neutral so as to more fully examine the discussion below Chetsford (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Someone I've seen a lot of good work from, and works behind the scenes too (OTRS, meta etc). Certainly seems trustworthy to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, found precious, - I trust that you'd talk to a user before blocking (unless it's obvious vandalism) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Yep. talk to !dave 11:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, precious does it for me. FitIndia Talk 12:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Easily meets my RFA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 13:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per Worm's testimonial, also per my opinion that the admin tools are no big deal and easily removable whenever poor usage is reported. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Govindaharihari Please let me assure you, while it might be the case on your native wikipedia and some others, it is certainly not the case that the Admin. toolset is "easily removable". Rather like a puppy, it is more or less for life here. Leaky Caldron 19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No major concerns. Nigej (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I have had my eye on Ammarpad for a while, I think Ammarpad will make an excellent admin with the right combination of contributions to the pedia and need for the tools. The Opposse’s arguments do not sway me at all, this candidate does have content contributions and in my view 12 months is ample to qualify for adminship, so 24 months is more than enough. ϢereSpielChequers 15:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Revisiting the Oppose section as the numbers have shifted. Looking through the history of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ammarpad/Modernpaper.co, I see a candidate who has changed deletion criteria from A3 to spam as an article goes from A3 worthy to G11 material. I am happy with that, especially as most of the candidate's Wiki activity has been since that edit from early 2018. ϢereSpielChequers 06:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Would be a net positive for the project. I believe they would make an excellent administrator. scope_creepTalk 15:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Always helpful and courteous, has a WP:CLUE, and seems unlikely to misuse the tools. Home Lander (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  39. (edit conflict)Support Meets my RfA criteria, no obvious problems that I have known. SemiHypercube 17:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support meets my RfA criteria. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - seems to fit the bill. Cabayi (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Reasonable AfD record, and no obvious content concerns. And no reason the think the person waits to see how any AfD is going before opinion, so that issue is a non-starter. Collect (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Probably the laziest !vote in the world but due to New Years I've not bothered doing any sort of research on the candidate however their answers above have left me impressed- Clueful and trusted editor, Easy support. –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 22:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Clueful user, I feel like several of the opposes are really reaching to find a reason and assuming facts not in evidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support A competent editor who would be a net positive to Wikipedia if given the admin tools. Ammarpad seems to be getting some opposes for not being nuanced enough in his response to questions 6 and 7. However, these were very general questions covering a broad range of policies and guidelines, so I doubt Ammarpad could have been much more nuanced. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Good luck.--Mona.N (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per WTT. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, no issues with their OTRS activity, which shows competency for admin tasks. Nakon 06:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, as I'm quite surprised Ammarpad isn't even an admin yet. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 12:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I've read the opposes and most of them have a lot of weight. At the same time, I've seen Ammarpad's work and believe that he's absolutely committed to the project. Add to this the fact that they're open to criticism and ready to change their track when mistakes are pointed out. In this light, I'm ready to hand them the tools; I just would suggest that they give a strong statement confirming to the opposers that their issues are accepted and will be taken care of. Lourdes 12:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lourdes I am one of the Opposers but I do agree with this statement. While I opposed on the grounds that I see behaviour here that I don't want in an admin, I also think that Ammarpad has the capacity to take that criticism onboard and move forward as a great admin if this RfA passes. While I will keep my Oppose where it is, but the ideal result would be for them to pass and also clean up the way they do AfDs to incorporate more searching before !voting. I don't want to support in the hope/trust that that is what Ammarpad will do, but I can respect the votes of those that support on those grounds. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 17:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support: I believe my first encounter with Ammarpad was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aminu Abdullahi Shagali, I was impressed with how he calmly reacted to my stiffness. The ability to be able to accept that you might have interpreted guidelines incorrectly in harsh situations is a valuable trait I want to see in admins. Besides, I do not think Wikipedia will be worse with him being a sysop, it'd be nice to have some diversity in the ethnic background of admins, to the best of my knowledge he will be the first African administrator on Wikipedia (not like that means anything). HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - seems competent enough to use the tools well. Thanks for volunteering. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support based on Worm's recommendation. Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support After reading all of this, as well as the answered questions I am convinced Ammarpad will make a great admin as well as an admin who will make hard but needed actions. We need admins like that here.. I have read enough to see this is an obvious decision. My vote is yours. Wikiemirati (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support- nothing in the oppose section concerns me enough to oppose, and I appreciate the answer to my question. Reyk YO! 06:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. We need more diversity among our admins. For example, we need more content writers. For the rest, the best way to learn is practice. Arguments like "we need a twisted way to recruit" because "our way to oust is twisted" are simply wrong. In fact, twice wrong. Pldx1 (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support There are several sitting admins with far worse behaviour than Ammarpad, still I don't see proposals calling for their desysopping. I am not concerned by the candidate's comments at CUOS elections - that is a place that sees mainly pile-on support votes and where opposes are rather hard to make. I think Ammarpad is a fine candidate for the tools, and will make for a bold editor who is willing to call out mistakes. SD0001 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I’m happy to support. While I share the concerns of the lack of BEFORE in afd discussions that those opposing this nomination have raised, they seem to all be a long time (more than half a year) ago. I am satisifed with the answers to my questions. If this nomination is successful I would advise you to not take those concerns lightly and be sure that we don’t unnecessarily lose articles merely because editors were negligent in checking for sources and did not care to assess notability on the correct basis. —Zingarese talk · contribs 16:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support an experienced candidate with an adequate knowledge of policy. Some of the Oppose votes raise interesting points, but nothing that seems enough to be disqualifying. Ralbegen (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per above. Seems like he is a net positive.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support resonable candidate. Qualitist (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support per nom. Nobody is perfect and this candidate is better than most. Good experience and patience under pressure. ♟♙ (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I've read through all of the Supports and Opposes and am coming down on supporting this editor. Not a perfect candidate but no one is and no current admin is perfect either. Every editor and admin has strengths and weaknesses and I think if you consider the objections of some editors and take them to heart, you be a perfectly fine admin. I know from experience that in some RfAs, Opposers predict the end of the world but in this case, I think you will be a net positive. If this RfA doesn't succeed, I hope you will try again in a year. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I share the view of having concerns for Ammarpad's voting at AfD. I also feel that this user is not nearly as experienced as I'd like an admin on Wikipedia to be. With more contributions, I would reconsider. At this time, I find this candidate unfit for adminship. Snowycats (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose In place of waiting for 7 days, Ammarpad closed the RM on Talk:Emirati passport in just 7 hours after it was  relisted on 18 November. This close was out of procedure and it was appropriately reverted by an editor who explained his revert in edit summary[4] however Ammarpad reverted the edit and ignored the reason provided in the edit summary.[5] Ammarpad then left a note on the user's talk page,[6]  and told the user that "I will not be reminding you, but rather report the cumulative behavior". This incident makes me think that the user is not ready for adminship yet. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely no requirement to wait 7 days after a relist for a close (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Relisting: there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.). Considering the reopening was by the proposer of the RM and thus completely inappropriate - irregardless of whether the close violated procedure - Ammarpad's actions seem perfectly appropriate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining it. I agree and have struck my comment accordingly. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose While Ammarpad is clearly a prolific contributor, I cannot support this Rfa for several reasons. I reviewed the content dispute to which they linked, and their comments do not suggest that they have the demeanor that I look for in an Admin. Instead of productive and constructive, they were largely defensive and combative. I looked through their contributions, and while I see MANY discussion closes, I see very few substantive contributions to those discussions. I see few votes. I found this one, and, like the comments from the content dispute above, it gives me pause. They've only been involved for 2 years, and I also see a lot of typos in their edits, While that might seem petty, for an admin, precision in language is critical. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another comment from the same discussion that concerns me, as well as this one-word edit summary: "nonsense" :-( Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I try to avoid commenting on opposes generally, because I do think this tends to devolve into hounding. However, I find this specific comment to be direct and probably pointed, but not really combative or uncivil. Insofar as the edit summary, without knowing what cara1.gif was, I'm not too scandalized by an edit summary of "nonsense" as — for all I know — the edit request may very well have been nonsensical. In the course of pending changes reviewing I sometimes run across completely nonsensical edits that don't really necessitate a nuanced rationale for rejection. In those cases I have, on a couple of occasions, blasted out a quick summary like "huh?" or "que?", either of which may be as bad as "nonsense". Now, I usually catch myself and avoid doing that as one can never know the intent of an editor and short words can deject a GF attempt at contributing, but I sort-of feel if this is among Ammar's worst transgressions in 30,000+ edits we're probably safe from them going insane post-RfA. All that said, I do appreciate your (Informata) excellent diligence in researching the candidate prior to registering a !vote. Chetsford (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chetsford: thanks so much for participating, and I see the wisdom in your comments about hounding. I think what makes the "nonsense" edit summary worse, is the editor had gone through the trouble to submit an edit request, this was not a revert. While the connotation of "huh?" or "que?" might be the same ("I don't understand what you're saying"), nonsense has a more disparaging tone. "huh?" could mean that the misunderstanding is on either parties part. But "nonsense" blames the misunderstanding on the other party. Coupled with that interaction on List of Casualty episodes, it evinces a pattern of an editor who doesn't value his fellow community members adequately to be an administrator. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would invite !voters to view the edit in question, which actually was the removal of nonsense (an empty file, nothing else). Jonathunder (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudos to the neutral vote of @Alex Shih: for bringing this to my attention. It gives me no joy to find yet another reason to oppose. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per lack of content creation, see User:GregJackP/Admin criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 08:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I was on the fence between sitting it out and opposing, but I find the answers to my questions underwhelming especially given the areas they want to contribute in. UPOL/UAA is one of the most Byzantine areas of Wikipedia, and understanding nuance and when IAR is best applied is key to that area, otherwise we end up with good faith contributors lost for no reason. Combined with the answer to my second question, which was fairly formulaic and cited policy when asking when they wouldn’t act on policy, I’m not confident that they quite get that one of the most important things about being an admin is knowing when not to act even more so than when to act. While usernames are an area I highlighted because of their interests in it, the broader mindset is an issue that I think would make Ammarpad a net-negative as an administrator on this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni:-What makes you feel that Ammarpad won't apply nuance in UAA-stuff? Reading his answer, my feeling is exactly to the contrary.∯WBGconverse 07:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure: I found the answer as a whole pretty formulaic and it came off to me as someone who would be going by a checklist and blocking based off of that. I also find is answer about not blocking 331comma to reinforce this idea: 331comma is a pretty obvious troll username and giving the benefit of the doubt to it because that’s just how things are done at UAA until it’s too obvious is lacking nuance and common sense in the other direction, which is also something that is needed. I understand reasonable people can read the same answers in different lights than me, and don’t mind it, but I’m not comfortable supporting this RfA at this time because the impression I get is that Ammarpad lacks a solid appreciation for nuance and IAR to the point where it could have a negative impact on the project as a sysop. I’ve always been pretty clear that I vote off of temperment, not individual actions, and this is basically the long way of my saying that Ammarpad fails the “has a clue” part of my criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    #:::Hi, Where is the ruleset, policy, report, essay, comment within Wikipedia that defines the name 331comma as an obvious troll username? scope_creepTalk 19:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Not correct as experience would enable an admin to identify a potential troll. scope_creepTalk 20:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Per User:TonyBallioni, does highlight a issue in this. Can be a negative asset, for the project. Rekonedth (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Ammarpad's English is pretty good – certainly way better than anything that I can manage in a language other than English. However, looking at the answers to the RfA questions, I don't think it's quite good enough for me to be able to !vote support. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose -- per answer to Question #5. WP:CSDWP:CFD, to me at least, appears to be similar in many respects to AFD -- and something that Ammarpad is anticipating to be active. -- Dolotta (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dolotta: Ammarpad said that his weakest area is Categories for discussion (CFD), not CSD. CFD, as far as I know, is quite different from AfD. :-)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with SkyGazer 512. CSD != CFD, and the candidate clearly has experience with CSD as seen here and here. EclipseDude (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for calling me on my typo. The point I'm trying to make is that CFD and AFD both involve administrative judgement of consensus and the possible deletion, merger, etc. of pages. -- Dolotta (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Both do involve administrative judgement of consensus, etc. (although I admit I'm not a CFD regular) but I'm not quite clear on why one would need to have experience in both in order to participate in one. Just because someone doesn't have experience in CfD doesn't mean that they can't be an admin who works in AfD, as long as they have demonstrated good judgement as far as AfD goes.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    CfD and AfD are quite different processes. Yes, both involving determining consensus - but that is true of closing every discussion. But determining WP:CONSENSUS is not vote counting, and because of that one has to be very familiar with the guidelines relevant in each process (For CfD, that'd be WP:CAT, WP:OVERCAT, WP:COP, WP:EGRS, etc) and in general would have to have enough participation to understand how CfDs work. That Ammarpad says he isn't familiar with CfD and so wouldn't work there would seem a plus - recognizing weaknesses and avoiding areas where one doesn't know how things work as an admin is very important. I myself regularly close discussions in four areas - AfD, TfD, MfD, and RfD - which is more than most admins - yet wouldn't know enough about file copyright/NFCC or the cat guidelines to be a good closer at FfD or CfD, and would list that as a weakness. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose -- I share the concerns expressed by TonyBallioni and Deacon Vorbis, but additionally his claim that a new one-line stub on an apparent species of animal ending in '...they feed on pizza and they are known for smoking weed using a bong' is 'not vandalism', and not recognizing such spam as Modernpaper.co as a blatant advert give me pause. Failure to identify inappropriate content is just as serious as a wrongful deletion. I am also concerned about the acerbic tones employed in various places including near-PA in his comments on candidates in this last year's CU election. The account was registered in early 2015 but they did not start editing until September 2017. They edit almost daily round the clock and although this demonstrates someone who suddenly has a lot of time to dedicate to the project, and in that short period they've racked up a staggering 39,000 edits, only a fraction of these constitute significant contributions of new content. In this short time, 92.2% of their votes on nearly 700 AfD's where vote matched result which on the surface looks good (my own are 'only' in the high 80s), but the high number of AfDs and the late voting are not uncommon in users who are deliberately working towards becoming an admin as soon as possible. I regret I am unable to support at this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kudpung:Can you please link to the article/discussion about the stub and the spam? Apologies, if I am missing something obvious. I also note entries 165 and 167 at User:Ammarpad/CSD_log which supposedly indicates that he has identified some version of Modernpaper.co as a blatant advert.∯WBGconverse 07:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The only obvious thing you're missing Godric, is the set of admin tools to be able to see them ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung, Yep, that's a point:-) But, some more clarifications (a timeline of events; maybe?) on the aspects of non-recognition as spam and/or assertion of non-vandalism would be helpful for us, non-admins in analyzing the candidate. There are a variety of open possibilities including but not limited to that he used his NPR flag to pass the supposed-spams (without tagging for deletion) or that he started a t/p discussion with the deleting-sysop where he disagreed with the CSD-deletion. Thanks, ∯WBGconverse 09:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't do pile-ons, Godric, I spent 2 hours researching this. Voters can do their own homework. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the point, in entirety for I did never accuse you of piling on and/or fly-by-!voting. It was a simple request for a more detailed description of the incidents that you mention. At any case I dislike pestering and ta, ∯WBGconverse 09:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my friend, you missed the point - I'm not doing my homework so that others can use it to pile on with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have dropped the article in Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ammarpad/Modernpaper.co so Godric can evaluate it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I merged in the history of the draft including Ammarpad draftifying the page (which is what I believe Kudpung considers to be the "not recognizing" spam) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I've checked random AfD !votes, and it is as others have indicated, but worse. Ammarpad does not make even the slightest effort to discover sources or coverage for the nominated subject, even though the links to do so are at the top of the AfD and require only a single click. Nor does he do WP:BEFORE when nominating articles; see [7] which has a large amount of significant coverage in reliable sources and even had a charting album [8] (and the AfD was unfortunately closed as delete against consensus). This is completely unacceptable, especially for someone who wants to be an administrator. This sloppiness and lack of due diligence is also a reason Wikipedia loses new good contributors, since their good-faith article creations are deleted despite obvious notability, simply because the newbie does not know the ropes. This, particularly in combination with issues raised by Kudpung and TonyBallioni, make this an unacceptable candidacy for me. I would counsel the candidate to slow way way way down (Wikipedia is not about edit count), learn more, look into things more, and also take heed of all of the issues that are brought up in this RfA. I would also absolutely expect him to do due diligence at AfD from now on, rather than parroting others' opinions as the very last !vote in a discussion. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Edited to add: As Kudpung notes, the candidate has only 15 months' experience on Wikipedia. This is insufficient to understand the full depth and scope of the project, and its policies, guidelines, and best practices, as required for adminship – especially not when editing at such great speed. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  10. Oppose per Tony and Kudpung. I'm not too keen on the race to become an admin either. Nihlus 09:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Nihlus why are you casting aspersions?? There is no proof there is a race. Your vote should be stricken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC7V7DC5768 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You will win no one over with your rude comments and bludgeoning of the opposes. Nihlus 23:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no race to become an admin. That is nothing to oppose an RFA over because you have no proof there is a race. JC7V (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:JC7V7DC5768, I actually agree that the time based opposes aren't ideal (I became an admin after ~14 months of active editing, and I just nominated someone with about the same timeframe), but Nihlus has a right to his views on this, and I say this as someone who somewhat regularly disagrees with Nihlus on RfA and other election type processes both on en.wiki and on meta. You'll note that Nihlus also opposed per Kudpung and myself: my oppose being that Ammarpad seems prone to formulaic thought which I don't really think would help the admin corps as a whole and would likely lead to conflicts with other administrators (didn't raise that point before, but it is a major part of the concern there) and Kudpung's was amongst other things that he doesn't seem particularly helpful at AfD, he's been racing through PERMS without really using them, and the elephant in the room since other people have brought it up, his comments at my request to become a CU would have had a reasonable chance of getting him blocked if he was a new user and they were said outside of the context of that process (this is actually not the reason I opposed: I had planned on sitting it out because of the possibility of that association, but I had concerns, which is why I asked my questions, which later caused me to oppose.) All of these are valid reasons to oppose an RfA. Nihlus may or not agree with all of them, but he was saying he generally found our opposes valid, and they count as affirmation of them to the closing crat. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. The tenure is a little too short for my liking, and things like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fat_Nick where a seemingly notable topic got deleted because the candidate couldn't bother doing a BEFORE search worry me (Editor's not searching before !voting at AfD also worry me). I see a lot of 'voting with the pack', and the few examples where Ammapad !votes against the grain is usually where one of the subject specific guidelines come in. Examples like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Water_access_and_gender indicate that Ammarpad is comfortable !voting without having a look for sources, as a simple search would have indicated notability of the topic, but instead just !voted delete with the pack until another editor came to the rescue with sources. Softlavender makes good points, as do Tony and Kudpung. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 10:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop nitpicking one AFD. How many of our star admins had bad AFD noms or bad AFDs before they were admins?? Seriously. UGH.JC7V (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Never mind, ICP has a right to their opinion. JC7V (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Kudpung and Softlavender. I also noticed AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMACC, where Ammarpad mistook a coastal current for a "Non notable, unvetted student's assigment" and said things like "Don't let googling or using Duck-Duckgo fool us". That implies he didn't read the article or look at any of the sources before casting his !vote. The creator, JulianoDani (talk · contribs) has not been welcomed and has not edited since Ammarpad put the stock Twinkle template on their talk page six hours after the article was created. This doesn't give me any confidence in his judgment and I just can't trust him to have the delete button at this time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What if Ammarpad agrees to not work in AFD? Would that change your mind Ritchie333?? Would IT???JC7V (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Never mind, everyone has a right to their opinion. JC7V (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, regretfully. I do get a sense of hat-collecting from the candidate's permission progression versus actual use, and within a rather compressed time frame. I'm unhappy with a number of AfD cases - the one noted by Ritchie333 directly above is particularly in my memory as doubling-down on bad (or neglected) judgement. (Not that I'm a sparkly gem in that regard, but then I'm not running for admin) I feel that there's a rush to adminship here that's not sufficiently borne out by demonstration of good sense, and I'm uneasy with the notion of bestowing more authority at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. weak oppose this timeI am uncomfortable to read answers, sorry Hhkohh (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Insufficient content contributions, answers to questions, other factors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Per the concerns raised above. Sorry! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 18:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per above. The candidate has not convinced me that they will be a net positive, and I'm especially concerned by the lack of BEFOREing at AfD. I hope the candidate uses the feedback to improve, and if they need the tools to do another RfA in a year or so. Catrìona (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. (edit conflict) Oppose per Kudpung. See in particular the candidate's comments at the CU election: describing a candidate as Seems to be obsessed with power and authority vaunting and chiding their supposed overconfidence and know-it-all comportment. He then doubled down: Truth is always bitter and hard to say; that's why some who tried to say it and at the same time want remain politically correct ended up with more than what they bargained for. I find these remarks unacceptable. My first instinct was to support, but further consideration has put me here. GABgab 21:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per all of above (moved from support). Iseult Δx parlez moi 22:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose There is no one incident which would compel me to oppose, but I cannot ignore the cumulative effect of the numerous comments and behavioural flaws which have occurred across the project, and which have been presented by numerous editors above. I'm also significantly concerned at the low level of content contributions and how that is likely to impact on their ability to effectively administer the project. Nick (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, in what ways do you personally feel that never having made more than 52 edits to a single article, and having made less than 2,000 edits in mainspace over the past ten years has impacted your ability to effectively administer the project? GMGtalk 22:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenMeansGo: This is a really inappropriate comment. I urge you to withdraw it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect both you and Nick as individuals, but I also feel that it's fair comment to point out when someone who has basically non-existant content contribution is calling someone else out for not having enough content contribution. GMGtalk 23:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    After discussion on IRC, I retract. GMGtalk 01:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Per Kudpung, Ritchie, Softlavender and others. I have too many concerns about their AfD record, short tenure and hat collecting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Lack of experience and too many issues. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. The AFD track record is concerning, like others have mentioned, as are the temperament issues. I also found the answers to some of the questions underwhelming. Calidum 03:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per Softlavender, Kudpung, and GAB, and others. I'm also uncertain after reading through the responses how the project will be improved by granting access to the mop at this time. I'd support after more time passes if some of these issues were fixed or if there was a clear benefit to extending the mop. SportingFlyer talk 05:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I have seen the candidate around. I have to agree with oppose #2. I have often seen the candidate getting a little defensive/combative. As admin, one will be asked a lot questions, explainations, and stuff including "what is notability", and "why on earth you deleted the page i created". An admin should be patient, and friendly. Looking at AfD participation, I feel Kudpung's observations are right. Seems to be in a race for adminship. There are many issues raised above that are reasons for concern to me. I am currently not comfortable with candidate getting the tools. Maybe next time. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - very sorry, looks to be a good editor but insufficient experience. GiantSnowman 11:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Regretful oppose, due to concerns about temperament. Adminship requires keeping one's head when others around them are losing theirs, and what I've seen from the candidate is combativeness and apparent grudge-holding. Sorry. Miniapolis 14:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose on grounds of experience, being only active for roughly 18 months wont cut it with myself. Temperament could do with improving too, having read most of other editor's votes. Apologies Nightfury 15:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. I see several issues, mostly within the discussion above per User:Kudpung,User:Softlavender and User:TonyBallioni. Pawnkingthree summed it up well. I see hat collecting, lack of clear understanding, and temperament issues. Perhaps another year of seasoning will prepare them properly. Jacona (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose, per Kudpung, Tony, and not now. While Ammarpad shows potential, as of this RfA, Ammarpad seems to lack the necessary experience with policy and user behaviours to make an effective admin. The WP community also needs more time to assess whether Ammarpad can develop the necessary temperament to handle the extra stress that comes with being an admin. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose, only 47 pages created on Main (of which 7 deleted). I strongly believe that the administrators shall be chosen among us contributors, someone temporally lent to the administrative tasks, not a cast of specialized people.A ntv (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose regretfully at the moment per the sum of the points made in the above opposes. In particular the highlighted AFDs where the candidate failed to do apparently routine checks that would establish notability immediately, the temperament concerns in disputes, the short tenure (with a suggestion of trying to fast-track through the hats), and the relatively sparse experience in the main space. Any one of these, with impeccable credentials elsewhere, I could accept, but taken together I think will have to put me in the WP:NOTYET camp. Ammarpad is clearly here for the right reasons, and committed to the project, so I recommend they spend the coming months working on a few more articles (preferably getting one up to GA level as a solo effort), work on the judgement issues by providing independent reasoned nominations and early !votes at AFDs, then come back in 6 months to a year with evidence that the above points are no longer valid.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. I've been wavering on this RfA since it started. I really respect WTT's nomination, and was initially planning to support. I've later considered just sitting this one out, so as not to pile on. And I am not bothered by late commenting in AfDs, but the BEFORE issues are significant to me. What pushed me to oppose are the temperamental (and communication) issues pointed out by Kudpung and GAB. There is too much of a pattern of problems there that I feel the need to oppose at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Maybe this is petty, but I didn't appreciate, as a former steward, being told what stewards can and cannot do. [9] This is not the only discussion where I've been ... not so impressed by their questionable understanding of policy and borderline combativeness. --Rschen7754 00:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. While it's fairly obvious that this nominee probably qualifies as an administrator on one of the tiny associated Wikipedias with very little administrative structure as we know it here, a lack of readiness for adminship on this Wikipedia is equally obvious. – Athaenara ✉ 01:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose per all and question 16. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose per above. Concerns with temperament and policy knowledge -FASTILY 01:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. Unfortunately, I think this RfA came too soon. Like GAB, I was also put off by Ammarpad's comments at the CUOS nominations thread, and Softlavender and Ritchie333 have pointed out valid concerns about AfD participation. As a much smaller point that I'll explain more fully in the general comments section below, Ammarpad's answer to my question (Q14+followup) recommended the correct action, but the reasoning was slightly off. Mz7 (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. While I see Ammarpad as a prolific and earnest contributor with the interests of the project foremost, I am still concerned about a combative temperament as was illustrated in the comments above. Although he has welcomed many new users, I was concerned that he bit a newbie with this edit without AGF or giving him sufficient time to respond to my initial question on the sources he had used. Coincidentally, that new user never edited on Wikipedia again after that blunt warning. Loopy30 (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the tone here was problematic, but I would just like to point out that this diff was from October 2017, which was in Ammarpad's second month of active editing. Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Too many red flags for me, so I can't support at this time. Maybe some of these could be overcome with another 12 months of solid editing experience. Good luck Ammarpad, and thanks for putting yourself forward! — sparklism hey! 07:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral per AfD stat-padding concerns; notice how often Ammarpad is the latest person to !vote and also notice the lack of AfD nominations in the past 6 months. wumbolo ^^^ 23:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I like Ammarpad and their contributions, and I'd like to think the feeling is mutual. A fantastic editor presumably coming from somewhat underrepresented areas with tireless works across different spaces in the past while. At this very moment however I just cannot help to recall this post on my talk page, now that adminship is being taken into consideration. Given that the candidate has developed into a different editor now, I will try to articulate my concern into a question tomorrow. Good luck in any case. Alex Shih (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - for now. My instinct tells me I must spend a bit more time on this before I commit to one of the other sections.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to 'oppose'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not, but your edit conflict prevented me from striking my 'neutral' quickly ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudz, I think we should install a wiki compatible equivalent to this handy tool as a preventative measure. All we need is someone to write the code. 🙃 Atsme✍🏻📧 04:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - for the moment. Will come back. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Temporarily moved from Support to Neutral to more fully read the discussion others have posted. Chetsford (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - This should be an easy support. The candidate is impeccably qualified, the answers to the questions are good, and I really don't share the concerns with most of the opposes. UAA is pretty straightforward; it requires a basic level of common sense, and I see no indication that the candidate is lacking in that department. Their answer to Tony's question appears to check all the boxes, they'd go based on the policy criteria, they wouldn't rush to block, and they'd employ a nuanced guide written by an experienced admin. The second part, regarding their personal view on username blocks, also strikes me as almost annoyingly-nuanced, factoring in details that most admins don't even consider, like whether it's a global account based on another wiki in which the username is fine. I see nothing wrong with that. The lack of content objections just have me scratching my head; the user has created plenty of articles and even has a GA to their name, which is more than I'll ever contribute to the content space. What else? Non-CFD participation? Really? Imperfect non-native English speaker? Now that's just wrong. With Modernpaper.co, I don't see what the big deal is with this. It wasn't umambiguous spam, and there's nothing wrong with giving an article a WP:CHANCE. They did subsequently spam-tag it once it became obvious.[10] Some lazy !voting at AfD is a legitimate complaint, but that's really not the most severe offense I've ever seen. I really think many of these concerns are overstated; this is a strong candidate and users should really consider supporting. That said, what knocks me out of the "easy support" camp are Alex's neutral comment, combined with GAB's oppose. You have Ammarpad attacking Tony's motivations for this perfectly reasonable, polite declined request for permissions. That's unacceptable, but I'd like to believe that he has "grown as an editor" since then, but then we see more shockingly-brazen personal attacks and aspersions against Tony a year later at WP:CUOS2018. I give Tony credit for not opposing based on that incident, but in my opinion, that conduct alone would justifiably sink any RfA.  Swarm  {talk}  00:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I can still be swayed, in either direction. Waiting primarily for the candidate to answer my question, which is to respond to my behavioral concerns.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  00:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral--Echo Swarm in entirety. Whilst I do not find the specific concerns of Tony and K and/or the concerns of low-main-space-activity to be much relevant, his behavior with Tony (ranging from his response to the decline at PERM to his subsequent comments at Alex's t/p followed by his borderline-PA(s) over the CU-elections) was quite off the mark. As much as I may believe (from our general interactions), that he always has the best interests of the project in mind and is competent-enough, I do not feel confident enough to enter the camp of supporters and will request him to come back to RFA2, after about a year:-) ∯WBGconverse 05:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral (leaning support) - his AfD actions, coupled with (IMHO) a poor answer to the question about it, seems a significant weakness. That said, his answers have otherwise been good, his UAA credentials flawless. I specifically disagree with concerns of "he doesn't know when to use IAR and when to use policy" - the answers actually navigated that very nicely. I'd actually be happier if he had no AfD experience, since then I could assume the candidate wouldn't try AfD closing. Within his primary remit I am positive he would be a major addition to the mop-corps. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral (moved from support) - Unfortunately, given experiences I had pre-registration, I am kind of a stickler for temperament-related issues when it comes to potential admins. I can look past one or two isolated incidents that are distant enough in the past to be overshadowed by more recent work, and I should note that the candidate's work in the Teahouse is not without merit, but I have sufficient concern from what I have seen in the oppose section to be unable to continue supporting this candidacy at this time (though not enough concern to outright oppose). I hope you are able to walk away from the RfA with a better idea of both your strengths and weaknesses as a member of this community Ammarpad, and I would not hesitate to support a future run at RfA. Regards, EclipseDude (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral support. The nominee seems to have the drive, but not the temperament. Given the current status of this RfA, I recommend the nominee withdraw this nomination, take the opposers’ comments to heart, and consider running again after at least a year. Steel1943 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • @Nosebagbear: What process did you use to generate a random selection of AfD's to check? There are quite a few where Ammarpad was the nominator; did you exclude those from your selection? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deacon Vorbis: - the first six were just picked as I scrolled down. After that gave a hint of an issue, I started using a die roll and moved x AfDs down. The last one was picked by my dog (unintentionally). I excluded 1 nominated AfD (the reasoning for that seemed solid). While I was aware that 1 was fewer than the proportion should have allocated, the nominations risk apples and oranges comparisons. Obviously they require being the first person to set out a justification, but they all have to be delete/redirect, so they aren't the same as a usual AfD !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does AfD participation really portend how an admin would act in judging consensus at AfD? Or do we have particular signs that this candidate might WP:SUPERVOTE making their AfD track record particularly important to how they would use the sysop buttons? CSD trackrecord seems to me to be a clear indication of how they would use tools and the evidence suggesting that he comes in late to pad stats does help shape something about who they'd be as an admin but I've frequently found AfD match rate a more puzzling criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: - some editors do use it purely in that sense, which you correctly note does not make complete sense. However AfD participation remains a key component because knowing the policies is necessary both to judge which votes are actually supported !votes (before making consensus consideration). It also is a fairly easy way to demonstrate policy knowledge in general, which is involved in a bunch of different spheres. A similar comparison could be made with counter-vandal experience and enacting ANI judgements/blocks. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Question 15

I was hoping to get some other people's suggestions before I took up the question author's offer to remove the question. This question seems, wildly, out of order. Un-answered questions always look bad, but the candidate's only other option is to engage in self-enforced doxxing, coupled with an indication that we are imposing an additional degree of vetting strictness on non-Anglosphere admins. This seems wildly inappropriate to me. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd agree that it's inappropriate, but as nominator I shouldn't be touching it. WormTT(talk) 15:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned and Nosebagbear:-Concur about inappropriateness and removed. Weird question; to say the least.∯WBGconverse 15:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm being pedantic, but Nigeria is very much an English-speaking nation. English is its sole official language. feminist (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Official language" isn't a particularly helpful term, it's the language used by a government, not by it's people. Due to their colonial histories, many African nations have official languages of French or English, despite the fact that they are not the majority languages in the country. I believe less than a 1/3 of Nigerians speak English as a second language, rising to under half when including "Pidgin" WormTT(talk) 16:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For so many persons to have issues with my question, I must have worded it wrongly, I wanted to provide broader context. I honestly asked it in good faith, I was hoping to expand my support based on the answer to my question. But I'm very fine with the removal. At least, very great support and just great support is still equal to support. When I look at question 16, I think the editor asked a part of what I intended to ask. I'll appreciate if no further comment is made with respect to my question. Thanks.HandsomeBoy (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a fairly minor point that alone isn't enough for an oppose vote. In his answers to my questions (Q14+followup), Ammarpad recommended WP:RFCN because he wasn't sure due to its rarity. This is the correct action, but the reasoning behind it is very slightly off. What I was looking for was the understanding that WP:NOEMOJI requires administrators to discuss all emoji usernames at WP:RFCN before blocking in the case of disagreements: Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/User names. This was a rather obscure point that frankly not all admins may be aware of (since not all admins work with usernames regularly), so I wouldn't oppose Ammarpad solely on this basis. It's a good thing that he recommended caution and would have done the right thing anyway. Mz7 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ammarpad&oldid=1230123538"