Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nima Baghaei 2

Nima Baghaei

Voice your opinion (1/2/0); Scheduled to end 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nima Baghaei (talk · contribs) - YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Hey you guys, this is my second attempt for adminship. I have been a member of Wikipedia for quite some time now. I have uploaded many images, created a userbox, I have helped produce and even fix templates and infoboxes, and I have created and updated many articles. My main area of interest in Wikipedia has been in the exopolotics section (UFOs, extraterrestrials, etc...). I have followed guidelines, and I have tried my best to moderate as many pages as I can. (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?

A: I would no doubt be doing Wikipedia:Requested moves (there are UFO articles everywhere that can be merged into one main article... its just really messy). I would also be doing Wikipedia:Copyright problems especially with pictures and copy/paste descriptions of events, organizations, and people. Also Wikipedia:Untagged images, I always notice images that don't have tags here and there with no warnings on them to get tags on them. I would also work with Wikipedia:Abuse reports, this has been a big problem in Ufologist articles. Since I am a big fan of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal articles I do my best and will do my best to make sure they are uptopar with wiki standards.

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

A: Steven M. Greer - this is my favorite ... I basically rewrote this entire article, updated, added all the pictures, improved the links, etc... It initially was very poorly written and biased, so I aligned it towards a neutral tone. Template:UFOs - this is also another one of my favorites because I put so much time into it, and it really helps make the UFO section in Wikipedia much easier to browse and update.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have had an issue with another user over Topics in ufology. We did our best to talk it out, I even asked for a third opinion, but now we are going through Mediation. You just have to be calm, thats all. Try to figure out what the problem is, and get other admin to help out to if needed, but there is no need to worsen a problem because it may lead to article vandalism in the future.

General comments

• See Nima Baghaei's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• The first request for adminship is present at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nima Baghaei. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/USERNAME before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support: Looks good! No red flags and adminship is no big deal. :O .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support This is just terrible, that people cannot trust you because you don't know the RfA procedure like the back of your hand! Edit summaries are nice, but they aren't policy. Good luck, I hope you pass, and don't take the opposes too personally :) Majorly (hot!) 16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
   1. True, but good communication is important in adminship. --kingboyk 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

2. Oppose Doesn't use edit summaries, was unable to get their own nomination right, and doesn't have much involvement in project space. Sorry. --kingboyk 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose I fully agree with YechielMan, your edit summary usage is very bad, you have simply copy and pasted everything in your first RfA into this one, you still cant seem to get the progress right as the top is malformed, however good edit count but I dont trust you with the tools, Creating userboxes etc seems irrelevant to an RfA to me personally, you could be an administrator in the future just wait about 3-4 months and make improvements, Thanks - Tellyaddict 16:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Malformed RFA. Naconkantari 16:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

   Dear Naconkantari, may I ask how you cannot trust a user simply because they aren't familiar with the RfA procedure? Have you looked beyond this page? Kind regards, Majorly (hot!) 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

   If an editor can not follow the directions to post an RFA, how can I expect them to follow directions when working with xFD? Naconkantari 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral It bothers me that (1) the candidate botched the nomination format (thanks to User:Black Falcon for fixing it), and (2) the candidate's edit summary usage for major edits is only 11%. I will not formally oppose for reasons like this, but I do not trust the candidate with administrative tools. YechielMan 16:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)