I wish to ask for adminship status, as it's a burden for me sometimes to find an admin at hand. I want the access to make two things easier for me: a) swapping the place of a redirect page and the main article, and b) reverting clear vandalism (or newbie-ism) easier. I can't find any certain reason for why I'll be a good admin, but I have good experience in Wikipedia adminship, since I started the Persian Wikipedia and have admin rights there. There, I usually follow the Recent Changes and fix everything necessary, but here I only do that for my watchlist. Roozbeh 15:18, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Stats: 700+ edits, been here since Dec 03. LUDRAMAN | T 01:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Hemayat kardan (support). Danny 16:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. BL 13:52, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
3. Tεx τ urε 14:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

   Give him a chance.-- Ryan524 20:56, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

4. Reviewed edit history, liked what I saw. Seems like a good candidate. Cribcage 06:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. We need more sysops from the Axis of Evil. -- Wik 06:53, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
6. Support. - Hephaestos| § 13:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. Support. Roozbeh has been amazingly calm considering the personal attacks 69.111.53.180 has made against him. Angela
8. GrazingshipIV 22:59, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
9. Support 172 00:11, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
10. Support. Morwen 17:58, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
11. Very much agreed with Angela. Jwrosenzweig 19:55, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
12. Tuf-Kat 21:17, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
13. Support! We need a sysop like him Comrade Nick

Oppose

1. IMHO, still needs more experience here. Kingturtle 02:45, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I have reservations, as I would lean more toward support if he has 1000-2000 edits since December. If somebody can persuade me to change my vote to support, I'd be more than willing to comply. -- Merovingian ↕ Talk 00:44, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

   I guess I may count as "somebody", since I have something to add! I consider the reason I didn't have more than 1000 edits was that I was busy with creating the Persian Wikipedia from scratch. I have about 500+ edits since January 30 there. Roozbeh 17:22, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

2. I concur with Merovingian, although Roozbeh's knowlegable and sedate handing of the anon's complaint below does him much credit. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:04, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I object to this person's gain of admin status for the following reason. In the Persian Wikipedia where he is the ONLY admin, he has consistently demonstrated a mentality of dictatorship and immediate banning of others who do not submit to his personal taste on matters. As an exmple, the word he has chosen for "Encyclopaedia" in Persian Wikipedia, is an old, 100% Arabic, and stupidly ostentatious word for encyclopaedia, lingering from the old times where showing off Arabic knowledge was sadly a common practice among the learned in Iran. At least 4 people asked him to please change the word (the word is so stupid that even Arabs themselves don't use this pompous word) and he simply refuses to respect other people's wishes. This is just one example. Every time someone makes a change to a page that he personally does not like, he reverts, and is quick to ban people. He banned me when I protested to him why he was altering my posts in a discussion area. He has also said (and I quote directly from his own post) "Wikipedia is not a democracy", yet in the same posting where a number of people had protested to his choice of Arabic words, he said let's vote on this. Yet, he didn't hold any voting process; and yet, he says that Wikipedia is not a democracy. So if Wikipedia is not a democracy, why vote? And how can others who like to participate get past such petty dictators? - 69.111.53.180, 14 April 2004

I suppose anonymous contributors don't have a vote here, but there are valid objections that I need to answer about the Persian wikipedia. My exact words "Wikipedia is not a democracy" was taken from the Polling guidelines page, and I mentioned we need a consensus or at least we need to have a proper poll. I guess it's apparent that it's not me that's required to hold a poll on the Persian wikipedia, everybody can start a poll. (That said, my count of users registered on the Persian wikipedia for or against the change the above user is asking for, was 1 for the change, and 2 against it. There is definitely no consensus.)

I have also asked on the Persian Wikipedia for other sysop candidates, and on the meta for bureaucrat status on the Persian wikipedia [1], so I can get rid of these kinds of annoying situations where people blame me personally for enforcing a policy of wikipedia's.

I also wish to add that the certain guy who has posted the previous comment is currently the only banned IP address on the Persian wikipedia, for continued harsh personal attacks and abuse even after being referred to the No_personal_attacks page ("You sh**-eater wish to discuss things with me?", "Do you have some sickness or what?", "You are so dishonest and stupid that..."). The "altering of my posts in a discussion area" he is referring to, were me censuring words like "sh**", or removing sentences like the above examples which had no factual value.

I have also never reverted this person's contributions, I have only reverted his "reverts" which were losing valuable edits (pronounciation guides for a poem and NPOVization). I wish to ask for an example of a single case where I have reverted a contribution by him or anyone else on the Persian Wikipedia. Roozbeh 13:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If everybody takes a quick look at the history of Tehran page you will see a good example of what I mean about this person. Besides the fact that the English Wikipedia is not a place to interject Persian or Arabic words in articles, he also includes wrong information, and when corrected, stubbornly insists on imposing his personal taste like an obnoxious little child. This is NOT the type of behaviour that an admin should have. His affliction is so severe that he could not even help restraining himself while his self-nomination for adminship is pending. - 69.111.53.180, 14 April 2004

I believe this is proof enough that the anonymous user above is in for a personal vandetta against me. My case on Tehran is definitely backed by many sources, as I just explained on Talk:Tehran. As of interjecting original spelling of the words in the original languages, I wish to bring the attention to articles like China, Muammar al-Qaddafi, or Duma, all of which contain original spellings. I definitely won't let my adminship request get in the way of me contributing facts to Wikipedia. Even if the request gets rejected, I will continue to behave the same way I have been behaving, specially for articles related to Iran, since I live in Iran, and I have valuable factual resources at my hand. Anyway, I'm getting tired of following this certain user's contributions and fixing his mangling or removal of information (or, ah, signing his posts for him). Roozbeh 22:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• You make a good case for self-nomination. Can I ask for an example of where you have needed to swap the article and redirect and not found an admin? Was there support for this action or was it independent on your part? - Tεx τ urε 16:11, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • It was independent on my part. But nobody had objected, or objected to the idea after I moved the page the non-sysop way (losing some history and all). It was for the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi article, which I did the wrong technical thing after all, and got a ticket. It wouldn't have happened if I had admin access. Roozbeh 13:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Reverting newbie-ism? Not really a good thing. Newbie contributions should be fixed if faulty, not reverted. LUDRAMAN | T 01:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • By newbie-ism I meant cases like somebody testing Wikipedia to see if he can add his name at the middle of the article, or remove the whole contents, to see if Wikipedia really does what it claims to. Like my recent revert of the Omar Khayyam article. Roozbeh 13:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)