[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Al Ameer son

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Al Ameer son

edit

Nomination

edit

Final: (85/1/3); closed by bibliomaniac15 on 05:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer son (talk · contribs) – I've been an active user on Wikipedia since March 2007, mainly editing articles related to the Middle East, particularly those within the scope of WP Palestine, but also in WP Israel and WP Syria. I admit that in the first few months, I had a rocky start, mostly because of my lack of understanding of Wikipedia's guidlelines such as NPOV, reliable sources, and MoS. It's been a long time since then and now I find myself cooperating with nearly all editors, including those whom I've disagreed, even verbally clashed with in the past. I generally do not take sides with users in heated discussions for the sake of an article's health, accuracy, and neutrality, instead I play somewhat of a "middle man" in arguments in order to find solutions to a particular problem. I have started 316 articles, and significantly expanded nearly 30. I brought Yasser Arafat to featured article status (with the help of others of course), and have started or significantly contributed to 13 Good articles, and I believe Gaza is on it's way to become one soon. If you glance at some of the articles I've started, you will notice I take NPOV, MoS, and Reliable sources seriously. I've never been an admin before, was never blocked, and there has not been a complaint about me for a long while. Al Ameer son (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2009 (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: All of it. I'm not afraid to get in the middle of a heated discussion on the talk page of an article in order to find a fair, but truthful solution to the argument. I'm not very active in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict subject area, but if I feel a problem just won't be solved by the editors of a particular article, then I will step in.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:Everything within the scope of WP Palestine, from small towns (Jifna, Bani Zeid, Bani Na'im) to the big cities (Nablus, Bethlehem, Gaza), the no longer existing towns (Lajjun and Bayt Jibrin) and everything in between. I do drift from geography often, however, such as Palestinian cuisine which is now a good article, Yasser Arafat-a featured article, the al-Aqsa Mosque and Great Mosque of Gaza-both GAs. In total I have started or significantly contributed to 13 GAs and one FA, as well as 27 DYKs. Lately, I've been editing Syria-related articles like Hims which just passed its GA review.
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 rarely stress, but as stated above, I have gotten into conflict with another editor in the beginning of my "wiki career". Today, however, that editor and I collaborate on a number of articles and we help each other out mostly. Lately, I can't remember getting into a heated dispute, although I have gotten into a few arguments with someone but both of us were civil and we found a solution to the issue by ourselves.

Optional question from User:Valley2city:

4. You mentioned in #1 your roles in attempting to resolve heated discussions and single out that you would get involved if need be in Israeli-Palestinian articles. If there is a dispute happening in Arab-Israeli conflict related articles what would your administrative role be? Would you consider acting in an administrative capacity on such articles as it might be construed that you may have a conflict of interest?
A. As I stated down below, and on my user page, for the sake of an article, I will not allow any of my personal views get in the way of NPOV. Thankfully, I've departed from that stage over a year ago. Al Ameer son (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Keepscases:

5. Can you explain the difference between "Al Ameer son" and "Ameer-al-Ameer"? What do you like to be called here?
A.Initially, when I started my account, I intended for my user name to Al Ameer son of Rasheed, but I just stopped short for a reason I can't seem to remember. There's no real relation between the two names. Ameer is my first name. In Arabic, Ameer usually means prince, so Ameer al-Ameer means "Ameer the Prince". I'm almost always called Al Ameer son on wikipedia, so I prefer being called that.


Optional question from User:Carlossuarez46
6a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
A: Typically, I'd wait no more than two days. First, however, I'd contact the user who started the article and warn that if in two days no other context is added to the article, I would have to delete it.
6b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?
A: I would feel obligated to delete the article after a few hours. Again, I'd contact the user who started the article prior to making any decision and request from him/her to add context immediately or the article would have to be deleted. Generally, if an article with absolutely no context except for an external link to the subject of the article, I'd treat it as spam and delete it pronto, but the "underconstruction" template would compel me to inquire from the starter how soon information would be added to the article.
6c. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?
A:My views are generally the same. Majority rule or not, if an article in question is in total, or partial violation of the Wikipedia guidelines it must be deleted or possibly merged (depending on the subject), except in cases where the article subject itself is viable, but its context doesn't follow the pillars and guidelines of Wikipedia. In this case, it would be better to rewrite or alter the context with reliable, preferably unbiased, sources. Same with article writing. If the context for instance is accurate, but written in an inflammatory way, it must be altered to present itself neutrally—no matter what majority rule happens to be, although I assume most users participating in the consensus would vote for neutrality.
6d. What is your philosophy about admin involvement in content disputes?
A:I think admins should stay neutral in these disputes, despite their personal beliefs, and find a way to mediate user to find a solution. If things get out of hand and edit wars erupt then I feel obligated to temporarily lock an article until a viable solution is found. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:RayAYang
7. What particular activities do you intend to undertake as an admin? Do you intend to use admin tools with respect to Palestine/Israel edit conflicts?
A: It depends on the case. If say, particular users start edit warring over a line, passage, section, etc. of an article, I (admin or not) would try hard to find a solution that abides by Wikipedia guidelines (accurate, written in a neutral matter, backed by a reliable source). If they still cannot agree and resort to edit warring (3RRs in particular), I would have to temporarily block only the users involved from editing that article. Hopefully, mediation will do the trick, but if necessary, I will use the administrative tools to get the job done. If an article on a recent event is being vandalized by IPs or new users, I would temporarily protect the page with a semi-lock. I plan to become active in the speedy (and regular) deletion logs and will take advantage of being able to revert vandalism quicker and more efficiently. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from JustGettingItRight (talk):

8. This is a "case study" question. I am a newly registered editor and I attempt to refute the theory of Evolution by editing the Evolution article. My sources come from Answers in Genesis, which I believe to be rock-solid sources on par with your secular "peer-reviewed" journals, which I personally view to have a closed shop bias. Immediately after I make my first edit, my edit is reverted in a very impersonal way. Not knowing the 3RR rule, I edit again in an attempt to insert what is factual information showing scientific dispute against evolution (this is what I believe anyways). After my fourth revert, I get a message from one editor on my talk page to quit disrupting Wikipedia by adding pseudoscientific information and I'm in violation of 3RR. I now perceive Wikipedia to be a bullying cabal of meanies and you get some sense of my frustration in my responses to complaints. You receive a complaint about my behavior, specifically I'm disrupting the Evolution page and I violated 3RR. How would you handle this situation? JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd explain to you what a 3RR is in a more understandable way (I too didn't really understand the wiki jargon when I was a new user). After this, I'd proceed to explain to you that any substantial additions to a highly-contentious article like Evolution should be discussed on the talk page beforehand. Since you are a new user (and even though you were already warned), I wouldn't resort to blocking you this time 'round, but to keep in mind that if you were to violate 3RR once more, I'd be forced to block you. Lastly, I would tell you not to be discouraged from editing despite a not-so-favorable start, because I had a rough time when I started editing articles on Wikipedia as well. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

edit

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

Discussion

edit


Support
edit
  1. Strong support - anyone who can write about Middle Eastern while not getting into serious editing disputes and get a controversial article like Arafat to be featured has my respect. According to him, he has kept his cool in any conflicts whether they directly involved him or he was just a "middleman"; this leads me to think that he can be a capable admin and survive in this wacky drama-filled world we have. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per Ed. Soap Talk/Contributions 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as a strong candidate with a level head already working in sensitive areas with a degree of skill and diplomacy. - Dravecky (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Not my fault Editcounter's screwing up xD Cheers. I'mperator 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support One of the (very) few editors involved in Israeli/Palestinian articles who knows how to stick to NPOV. If he can manage that, anything else is a doddle. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Very encouraging and productive talk page correspondence, impressive experience, no red flags, will make a good administrator. Townlake (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support; no reason to assume he wouldn't be a capable admin. Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support Impressed by the candidate's excellent contribution to Yasser Arafat, Palestinian cuisine and many others. You seem to be able to remain civil and keep cool with logical approach in any circumstance[1][2], and get respect from colleague editors. Although you are not that active in Gnome areas, I don't have any doubt that you misuse the tool. So why not? --Caspian blue 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Well-qualified candidate. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Seems like a good, well qualified candidate with clue. — neuro(talk)(review) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - miranda 19:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per the_ed17's excellent almost nom. :-) --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Has made many good contributions. GT5162 (我的对话页) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support -having seen a few thousand of Al Ameer son´s edits, and having worked with him for several GAs, I cannot in my wildest imagination imagine that he will ever misuse the tools. Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Candidate made outstanding contributions to Wikipedia (while sticking to NPOV, and extensively references his work). He takes extra care not to be involved in edit warring, and calmly and rationally debates if an issue arises. He's taken on mediation roles. Al Ameer son is very active on Wikipedia. --Fjmustak (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Over 18,000 edits, a clean block log despite working in a contentious area and a civil talk page - an excellent candidate. WereSpielChequers 20:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I've had excellent experiences with Al Ameer son, and I found him to be helpful and friendly. SpencerT♦Nominate! 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Looks good. LittleMountain5 Happy St. Patrick's Day! 22:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support based on answer to my question and exemplary recent contributions. I've seen a lot of great responses to many heated issues, specifically in relation to the Talk Page of Yasser Arafat. Valley2city‽ 22:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Very impressive! Able to walk a tightrope - neutral articles on contentious topics. Royalbroil 22:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Suport User is very qualified and has done great work. We also need more admins from different parts and cultures of the world. -download | sign! 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support No problems. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No problems here LetsdrinkTea 23:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support more inclusionist than many, but knows his stuff. And of course having another admin with geography interests is always a plus. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Keepscases (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support — Has a good head on his shoulders and is well qualified for adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per above. - Fastily (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support — Trustworthy. Williamborg (Bill) 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Per the_ed17.--Giants27 T/C 02:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support - per Ed 17. AdjustShift (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support He's a very pleasant, sensible and hardworking editor. — Roger Davies talk 07:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Not finding anything to oppose on, and editors in whom I have placed much trust vouch for you, so I will add my support. Good luck. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Ed17 hits the nail on the head in support 1; To be able to work in one of the most sensitive areas on WP shows the necessary inter-personal skills needed to be an admin. --GedUK  07:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Over 67% of edits on articles, I can't possibly oppose. :) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, we desperately need more admins who can not only keep a cool head in articles related to the Middle East, but who have a good knowledge of the topic as well. The candidate here seems to be both. No evidence that they will abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  37. Strong support Wizardman 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. zOMG support The most impressive candidate I've seen in a long time. henrik•talk 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Royalbroil and many others above sum my thoughts up perfectly. Very impressive indeed. GlassCobra 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support A knowledgeable and productive editor that understands neutrality, who helps preserve calm in a fractious area and could help more with administrative tools.John Z (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, reading through your contributions really was a pleasant surprise - my previous experience with Israel/Palestine related articles has always been with various degrees of PoV-pushing editor: it is very nice to see someone as well-versed and dedicated to real article neutrality. Clear dispute resolution skills, abilities to deal with new and/or angry editors, and thoughtful question answers lead me to believe you'd make an even better contribution with admin tools, even if direct contributions in "admin areas" seem a little sparse. Best of luck. ~ mazca t|c 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Good user, no reason not to trust them. Xclamation point 23:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I've seen Al Ameer son's work and trust his judgement. Majoreditor (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I am impressed! You are a good editor and will make a great admin! Basket of Puppies 03:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Sure. Long-term experience, good contributions, healthy namespace mix. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Good user, working in a difficult area. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support A good, level-headed editor. NSH001 (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per the ed17, Number 57 and my own experience appreciating his work. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support user deserving of trust. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - superb article work, keeps a cool head while working in a topic area that is often a nationalist edit-war just waiting to happen, strong blend of policy knowledge and common sense. Cam (Chat) 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Oh my goodness, yes. I've been highly inactive lately, and I wish there was a way that I could have known about this earlier. I definitely would have conommed. I've worked with Al Ammer son in the past, particularly on Bethlehem, Pied-Noir, Beirut, and Nablus. Throughout, he was always a pleasure to work with and his committment to research and encyclopedic style was evident. Al Ameer son works on areas that are not always highly visible; yet, he is willing to diligently research, take/give criticism, and sincerely improve the encyclopeida. I have absolutely no reservations in supporting his request for the tools. This is one of the best editors that I have run across during my time on Wikipedia. Best of luck to you. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support good 'pedia builder and net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 04:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Concerns allayed, looks good. RayTalk 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support No issues I see. America69 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support as candidate meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards by having never been blocked and by having contributed to good and featured articles and having received numerous barnstars. Good job on all three fronts! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Very level-headed editor who is able to write excellent articles without conflict on topics that could be controversial. Mature and sensible. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. We need more neutral and intelligent admins. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Fine contributions. Al Ameer son will undertake useful administrative tasks in this controversial area. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Looks great, and another person from a different background like me. — JoJo • Talk • 14:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support; from the contribs, is a mature, responsible editor who has the credibility and integrity to be a voice of reason in a difficult editing area. Best of luck ;) EyeSerenetalk 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support good candidate. Dean B (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I've been watching his edits for a while, and I beleive he would do a very good as an admin. Yamanam (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Keep up the good work. Steven Walling (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support w/ broadband Tried to do this a few days ago over a dial-up connection, couldn't get it through, but anyway, ed says it all.--Res2216firestar 04:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per above. It's all been said. Spinach Monster (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support User has been around since March 2007 and is a great editor and edits with npov in a area with a minefield of disputes.I also Assume good Faith that the user will not use his tools in Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute in his Middle East articles where he is editing and will use WP:UNINVOLVED in that area.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Impressive candidate, and the answear to q8 bodes well. Ceoil (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - sounds good, no good reason to oppose. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support -- Good editor who will not abuse the tools.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Good candidate. DiverseMentality 00:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I'm way late to this party, but nonetheless, hooray! It will be great to another admin so skilled at dealing with controversy in subjects prone to it. FlyingToaster 06:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support per Not enough administrators currently (plus I think this candidate would be a good admin) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 10:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Wandalstouring (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support rootology (C)(T) 13:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support: Think he will make a good admin and I'm impressed by the article work. Maedin\talk 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support While this user and I have disagreed over issues in the past, to the best of my knowledge (and refreshing my memory over the past 10-12 thousand edits) it has always been cordial and respectful, and in the spirit of wikipedia consensus building. Overall, I believe this user's editing method and interpersonal style is one that serves to benefit the project, and I believe the user will be a valued addition to the wikipedia sysop corps. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Seems like all the reasons have already been said, but any user who can edit in that subject area and gain the respect of those who disagree with him has the temperament and attitude that would make for an excellent admin. Nableezy (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Impressive editor. Acalamari 01:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support — Would make a fine administrator. — RyanCross (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong Support The overwhelming response of support to this candidacy definitely sways my opinion with a user that I haven't otherwise had enough interaction with to say. The articles are impressive, the tal page more so, and I'd be thrilled if this user eventually became an admin here. --Neskaya talk 05:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit

Regretful Oppose Arghh...Although the user in questions seems to be an exceptional user, he/she has no deleted edits. In addition, (s)he has little to no work in WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:AFD, or WP:CSD. Sorry; I really wanted to support, but the lack of work in the maintainance area restrains me. :/ Regretfully, I'mperator 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have several hundred deleted edits, actually. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to this. Cheers. I'mperator 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at Special:DeletedContributions/Al Ameer son. Trust me. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...is SoxRed screwing up? o_0 <will change if true> However, my other point stands. Cheers. I'mperator 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton is right; there are roughly 300 deleted edits listed there. - Dravecky (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the bug is that users who had edits before the user_editcount field in the database was created appeared to have negative edit counts, which was obviously wrong. Xclamation point 23:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we capping the number of admins? We need all the help we can get! Valley2city‽ 04:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See the current Discussion at WT:RFA, so we can centralize the discussion. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is one of the silliest oppose reasons ever. — JoJo • Talk • 14:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? We always need MORE. rootology (C)(T) 13:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
  1. Seems to be a great editor and reasonable fellow, but there is really scarce participation in activities related to adminship. The answerers to the questions do not reassure me either, but I can't pin the reason down right now.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral mostly per Tikiwont above. While this user has a few deleted contribs, I see no indication of CSD or XFD knowledge within those nor within the normal contribs I checked. I cannot determine whether this user has the necessary knowledge in those areas. Regards SoWhy 14:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Great user, and will switch to support if I can see evidence of desire/aptitude for admin work, as opposed to the nebulous status conferred by being an admin. Conversely, will regretfully switch to oppose if no such evidence materializes by closing. RayTalk 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What the above said, and a few notes. The answer to Q1 is what bothers me, because administrators are not a part of the dispute resolution process. Those that are mediating should have the editor hat on, not the admin one unless enforcing ArbCom decisions. These are simple tools for maintenance, and whilst I trust the user to engage in them wisely, I caution to not use them as a mediator. Keegantalk 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my reply to RayAyang addresses your concerns. I plan to mediate (admin or not), but if mediation fails to work and revert wars become a real problem, then instead of requesting the assistance of an admin, I myself, would temporarily block the involved editors from editing the page and if necessary temporarily protect the page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Al_Ameer_son&oldid=1091464242"