Final: (1/18/1) Ended (early) 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Striver ( talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Striver for adminship. Striver is a civil, respectful, mature, level-headed and active wikipedian. He is a well established user in wikipedia who has contributed to many articles (He has amassed more than 15000 edits). He is also very good in finding academic sources. I believe he will be a helpful administrator-- Aminz 07:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Aminz, i am honored by your suggestion, and i would appreciate becoming an admin but i really think that there is no way that 80% will support my adminship. I engage in way to many heated topics, and there is to many people that outright hate my work here. Knowing that, i never bothered to edit in any way that is needed to becoming an admin. Yes, i know that there is people that want to be admin and also edit problematic areas, but those people never actually take a real hard-line stance and go hard to create extrem-controversial articles. I did that, and i put my energy in editing rather than reputation building. I did not bother to create edit summaries for my over 20 000k edits, i do not bother do pretend to assume good faith when i know there is none involved. I mean, i even have two admins
doing this].
I know that i could be a good admin if i wanted to, i have been admin on several other sites, for example, i am top level admin at Swedens biggest Internet community.
I will not reject the nomination, not because i think it will succeed, rather to see how i am doing. If it happens to be that there is only a few people that have a systematic bias against me, and the rest have valid complains, then ill try to fix it and then maybe go for a re-nomination. As stated previously, i know that i have blemishes, and that is since i did not figure it would be worth the effort being "nice" to people that are not genuinely interested in following protocol, but are rather motivated by other agenda.
So, lets see how the landscape looks like, and Aminez, thanks for the gesture.
Oh, and btw, i do know that i need to not use admin priviliges when i am engaged in issues that i myself are involved in. And i do know that i would need to spend more time on being "social" instead of just doing what i want to do, in order to deserve adminship.
One last thing for people voting. There will be to groups voting "oppose". One of the groups will not vote "support" unless hell frezes over. The other have genuine motives. For you that have genuine motives, give good argument of why you oppose it, so ill have the oppurtunity to take it to heart.
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
I am very well versed will all tasks, and as an admin, i would be able to contribute in a greater scale. And of course, i know that admin powers are not to be used on issues that oneself is involved in.
I dont know, take a look for yourself: User:Striver/Contributions. The list is not complete, i started to keep the list some while ago, and i have created articles prior to that. I am "pleased with" Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, Wikipedia:WikiProject Arabic names (and most entires), Wikipedia:WikiProject Hadith (and almost all entries), Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (one of many, many, many Sahaba articles i created), Sahih Bukhari (including the template), 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium (including the templa, both template and article are/have been afd'd for non-good faith motives), Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era (horribel title, but important article), Genealogy of Khadijah's Daughters (important article), and then i also created the list of Islamic scholars, many of the scholar articles, most of their book stub-articles that are important for navigation, adding pictures to articles... and a heap of other stuff that i cant be bothered writing here.
If? On a daily basis. What did you expect, i am a Shi'a and a " tin-foil nut-case". The Shi'a aspect have settled down, when i was new, most Shi'a views were not... lets say "beloved". They are more tolerated now, and i take much of the creidt for that. But still there is a large group of people hanging around and voting delete and blanking things on a procedural basis. For example, see how this was afd'd four times.
And that makes me furious. And not aiming at becoming an admin, i did not bother very much to temper my anger.
Username Striver Total edits 24778 Distinct pages edited 4592 Average edits/page 5.396 First edit 05:39, 28 January 2005 (main) 15160 Talk 3649 User 1552 User talk 1283 Image 210 Image talk 11 Template 200 Template talk 84 Category 24 Category talk 2 Wikipedia 1847 Wikipedia talk 756
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Final: (1/18/1) Ended (early) 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Striver ( talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Striver for adminship. Striver is a civil, respectful, mature, level-headed and active wikipedian. He is a well established user in wikipedia who has contributed to many articles (He has amassed more than 15000 edits). He is also very good in finding academic sources. I believe he will be a helpful administrator-- Aminz 07:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Aminz, i am honored by your suggestion, and i would appreciate becoming an admin but i really think that there is no way that 80% will support my adminship. I engage in way to many heated topics, and there is to many people that outright hate my work here. Knowing that, i never bothered to edit in any way that is needed to becoming an admin. Yes, i know that there is people that want to be admin and also edit problematic areas, but those people never actually take a real hard-line stance and go hard to create extrem-controversial articles. I did that, and i put my energy in editing rather than reputation building. I did not bother to create edit summaries for my over 20 000k edits, i do not bother do pretend to assume good faith when i know there is none involved. I mean, i even have two admins
doing this].
I know that i could be a good admin if i wanted to, i have been admin on several other sites, for example, i am top level admin at Swedens biggest Internet community.
I will not reject the nomination, not because i think it will succeed, rather to see how i am doing. If it happens to be that there is only a few people that have a systematic bias against me, and the rest have valid complains, then ill try to fix it and then maybe go for a re-nomination. As stated previously, i know that i have blemishes, and that is since i did not figure it would be worth the effort being "nice" to people that are not genuinely interested in following protocol, but are rather motivated by other agenda.
So, lets see how the landscape looks like, and Aminez, thanks for the gesture.
Oh, and btw, i do know that i need to not use admin priviliges when i am engaged in issues that i myself are involved in. And i do know that i would need to spend more time on being "social" instead of just doing what i want to do, in order to deserve adminship.
One last thing for people voting. There will be to groups voting "oppose". One of the groups will not vote "support" unless hell frezes over. The other have genuine motives. For you that have genuine motives, give good argument of why you oppose it, so ill have the oppurtunity to take it to heart.
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
I am very well versed will all tasks, and as an admin, i would be able to contribute in a greater scale. And of course, i know that admin powers are not to be used on issues that oneself is involved in.
I dont know, take a look for yourself: User:Striver/Contributions. The list is not complete, i started to keep the list some while ago, and i have created articles prior to that. I am "pleased with" Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, Wikipedia:WikiProject Arabic names (and most entires), Wikipedia:WikiProject Hadith (and almost all entries), Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (one of many, many, many Sahaba articles i created), Sahih Bukhari (including the template), 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium (including the templa, both template and article are/have been afd'd for non-good faith motives), Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era (horribel title, but important article), Genealogy of Khadijah's Daughters (important article), and then i also created the list of Islamic scholars, many of the scholar articles, most of their book stub-articles that are important for navigation, adding pictures to articles... and a heap of other stuff that i cant be bothered writing here.
If? On a daily basis. What did you expect, i am a Shi'a and a " tin-foil nut-case". The Shi'a aspect have settled down, when i was new, most Shi'a views were not... lets say "beloved". They are more tolerated now, and i take much of the creidt for that. But still there is a large group of people hanging around and voting delete and blanking things on a procedural basis. For example, see how this was afd'd four times.
And that makes me furious. And not aiming at becoming an admin, i did not bother very much to temper my anger.
Username Striver Total edits 24778 Distinct pages edited 4592 Average edits/page 5.396 First edit 05:39, 28 January 2005 (main) 15160 Talk 3649 User 1552 User talk 1283 Image 210 Image talk 11 Template 200 Template talk 84 Category 24 Category talk 2 Wikipedia 1847 Wikipedia talk 756
Support
Oppose
Neutral