Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Iwaqarhashmi

< Wikipedia:Administrator elections | October 2024 | Candidates
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Novem Linguae
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of an administrator election discussion that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Withdrawn by candidate, closed by –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

edit

Iwaqarhashmi (talk · contribs · he/him) – Hello everyone, I'm Iwaqarhashmi. I joined Wikipedia on November 18, 2022, and the English Wikipedia is my home wiki. At first, I was mostly contributing here, but now I'm active on other wiki projects as well. I've made more than 160,000 global edits. I'm mainly involved in anti-vadalism work from day one. I actively patrol recent changes here and on Wikimedia Commons. I've successfully reported many and many users to WP:AIV and WP:UAA. I'm an experienced user with lots of rights and positive contributions. I've never had any blocks, and I've never done paid editing on any Wikimedia projects. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions. Waqar💬 08:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I'm interested in becoming an administrator to be able to help with the backlogs at WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP. Also, I would try my best to consistently deal with the speedy deletion requests at CAT:CSD. Sometimes requests take days to be answered at WP:PERM, so I would be more than happy to help with that too.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd say my best contribution to Wikipedia, which I'm really proud of, is me participating in the September 2024 NPP backlog drive, where I reviewed lots of articles and redirects. My other best contributions would be the thousands of user pages and drafts I've patrolled so far.
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 don't think I have been involved in any serious conflicts, but generally anti-vandalism work tends to bring disagreements. These disagreements can sometimes be stressful, especially when they involve personal attacks. However, I've learned to approach these situations with patience and understanding.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from Thryduulf

4. Why did you choose to seek adminship via election rather than via a standard RFA?
A: Well, I'd been thinking about applying for adminship at the end of the year. But when these new elections came along, I thought it would be a great opportunity to try out this new experimental process. It seemed like a nice way to get involved and be a part of something different. Waqar💬 09:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Ganesha811

5. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?
A: At the moment, I don't plan to get involved in disputed XfDs, sockpuppetry, or COI cases due to my lack of experience in these areas. That being said, I'm open to new experiences and always looking to improve myself. If I decide to become active in any of these areas, I'll be sure to proceed carefully and seek help from experienced editors who have a strong understanding and knowledgeable. Waqar💬 09:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Novem Linguae

6. Can you talk about what is going on in this diff, where it looks like you removed 31 sections from User talk:Iwaqarhashmi/Archive 1?
A: Well, my talk page messages are always archived by ClueBot III to Archive 1, but a few months ago the page exceeded its size limit, and the bot created another page, Archive 2, for archiving messages. Since the discussions in Archive 1 were very old and stale, I decided to replace them by the new ones in Archive 2, so they don't get accidentally revived by any new users and only the latest relevant ones stay up front. All these old discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK only declined unblock requests and past warnings shouldn't be removed and there wasn't any at all. For the record, I've also replaced the old AfC, Draftify, and CSD logs with the new ones because sometimes the pages were taking a lot of time to load up. Waqar💬 13:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Trainsandotherthings

7. Have you made any substantial edits to create, improve, or expand articles?
A: I have created a lot of articles about Indian politics, and none of them was deleted. I would say I've been active in improving articles on a variety of topics, but most of the articles that I've improved are related to the film industry. Waqar💬 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Femke

8. What would you do if an editor requested the account creator user group at WP:PERM because they wanted to run an edit-a-thon?
A: The account creator user group is solely for those active in the WP:ACC process. It shouldn't be granted to those running an edit-a-thon. The eventcoordinator group is much better suited here as it allows to create multiple accounts just like the accountcreator group, but does not include some of the more sensitive overrides that the accountcreator group has. Eventcoordinators also have the ability to mark users as confirmed for up to 10 days, which can be quite useful when managing events (accountcreator does not allow this). Waqar💬 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
9. What steps would you take to assess somebody requesting autopatrolled?
A: In general users who regularly create articles, have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially those on biographies of living persons, copyrights, verifiability and notability. Have created 25 articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages. Have had an account for a reasonable amount of time and haven't had any copyright issues in the last 12 months. Whom article creations are nearly perfect, including use of correct MOS formatting, categories, defaultsort, etc. Waqar💬 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Saqib

10. You mentioned wanting to help at AIV and RFPP, but I haven’t seen much participation from you there, especially since you can report pages without admin tools. You also said you’re not comfortable with XfDs, sockpuppetry or COI cases due to a lack of experience but admins are expected to have some familiarity with these areas, especially AfDs and how WP:N works. I’m curious about what you hope to achieve with admin tools?
A: I've successfully reported more than 433 users to WP:AIV and WP:UAA collectively, and because of my impressive counter-vandalism work, I was granted rollbacker and pending changes reviewer. I've also opened a couple of sockpuppet investigations, so I am familiar with the concepts of XfDs, sockpuppetry and COI cases, but what I was trying to say was not the disputed and controversial ones and don't want to dive into more complex cases yet. I didn't say I wasn't familiar with AfDs and how WP:N works, because if you look at my records, I've made so many contributions to AFCs, I've reviewed over 1,373 articles so far. I've draftified more than 250 articles that either lacked reliable sources or needed additional sources. In the AFD discussions, I voted on 153 pages, without considering the no consensus results; 98.7% of my AfD's were matches. I was ranked fourth in the September 2024 NPP backlog drive last month where I earned 1,174 thousand points by reviewing thousands of articles and redirects. So what I hope to achieve with admin tools is a more efficient and effective way to contribute to the Wikipedia community, which includes blocking spammers, preventing vandalism, resolving disputes, etc. Waqar💬 15:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
11. I posted some messages on your talk page this year to express my concerns such as this, this, this, and this but it seems you’ve removed all of them, including from your archives. Could you share the reason behind that?
A: I've already answered this question above. I'd like to clarify something: I didn't remove your messages from the talk page; instead, they were archived by the bot. You posted those messages in May, and they were sitting in the archives for months. As I said above, what happened was I replaced the old and stale discussions with the new ones, and it had nothing to do with you. Thank you! Waqar💬 15:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Dclemens1971

12. You mentioned your NPP backlog drive work as a point of pride, but based on the logs I can review you appear not to have initiated any XfDs while reviewing 1,174 pages and redirects that month. Can you explain why your reviewing balanced out this way?
A: Well, I didn't initiate any XfDs during that specific month, I did contribute to the NPP backlog drive by reviewing a significant number of articles and redirects. Because given the volume of pages I was reviewing, it wasn't really possible to initiate XfDs for every potential candidate. However, I prioritized those that required immediate attention or were particularly problematic and tagged them for speedy deletion. My goal was to contribute to the overall effort of reducing the backlog while maintaining quality standards. Waqar💬 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
13. When I look at your AfD participation, I see primarily instances where you !voted relatively late in the discussion after a consensus had already formed, and I don't see a lot of references to relevant deletion policies and guidelines. Do you have examples of XfDs where you cast P&G-based !votes earlier in the discussion that helped persuade other editors about your position?
A: Honestly, I didn’t realize that my voting patterns were coming across that way. I just jumped into discussions and voted wherever I could, without really paying attention to whether I was early or late in the conversation. Waqar💬 16:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Mach61

14. When participating in AfD discussions, how often do you preform searches for sources that may show notability? If so, which resources do you use to conduct such sources (other than Google)?
A: Besides using Google, I sometimes check for notability by using sources like academic journals, reputable news articles, and books if available. Checking for mentions in established encyclopedias or reference works can also help assess notability as a last resort. Waqar💬 17:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Hey man im josh

15. Do you think that users with additional user groups are more trustworthy or better contributors?
A: None of the above. Trust is something you can't earn by gaining rights. You have to prove that you're trustworthy by editing positively and being helpful to others. While you can be a better contributor if you have additional user groups, such as Rollbacker, to help fight vandalism more effectively, but that's not always the case. There are many ways you can become a better contributor even if you don't have any additional rights at all. You can gain each and every additional user group common/uncommon by fulfilling the requirements, but it just means that you're more experienced in that specific right-related area and nothing more. Waqar💬 15:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
16. In looking at your article creation history, I noticed that you made 58 Indian poltiican articles (I think all for the Odisha Legislative Assembly) between September 23 and October 3. Before that you had created a total of three lists for Pakistani films and two disambiguation pages. Can you comment on why, aside from the one politician article created 42 minutes afterwards, you stopped creating articles after receiving autopatrolled on October 3?
A: I was patrolling new pages, editing templates, and making articles as well. That was a lot of work I was doing, and I couldn't do all of the things at the same time because it was so hard. So I stopped doing everything else and started concentrating on articles only and made lots of them. When I got the autopatrolled right, I decided it was time to take a short break from that for a while and focus on other less time-consuming areas like templates and edit filter reports. I was planning to start making articles again after a month or so. But then these admin elections came along, so I thought I'd give this experimental process a try and started preparing for it. Waqar💬 15:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from HouseBlaster

17. I think that Q14 was a two-part question, so I do not blame you for only answering one question. I am still interested in your response to the second part, so I will ask it separately: When commenting at AFD, how frequently do you look for sources that may show notability not already in either the article itself or AFD page? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
A: I try to be as thorough as possible. I often search for sources, and the frequency of my searches can vary depending on the topic and the complexity of the case. Waqar💬 15:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Bobby Cohn

18. Regardless as to how your candidacy here may result, how do you plan to continue improving the project without admin tools?
A: I'll focus on doing anti-vandalism work, reviewing articles, patrolling recent changes, participating in discussions, creating articles, and helping other users. Waqar💬 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
19. Follow up to my first question as it pertains to editing without administrator privledges: how would you adapt your editing to address some of the concerns other editors may have raised in previous questions or the discussion below?
A: I believe most of the concerns are related to my AFDs, so I'll be more careful about my AFD votes. I'll do my thorough research, talk to other editors, and think about each case on its own. I'll make sure my votes are fair and helpful. Waqar💬 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)


Discussion

edit

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

  • Content creation consists primarily of single line articles, averaging ~20 words, on politicians, generally consisting of the formula "X is an Indian politician. He was elected to the Y assembly as a member of the Z party". Combined with a 77% use of automated tools, there may be less demonstratable understanding of either the creation process or the policies underpinning it than the community would wish in its new admins. The user page might also read oddly; I guess the esoteric Wiki-dreamscaping is harmless, but polishing the page has taken up over 20% of their time, which is about the same as their entire articlespace contributions.
    The answer to Q6 is slightly unsatisfactory. SerialNumber54129 12:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    I would just note that, to the one concern that 20% of their edits are to the user space, this is a result of the candidate having logging on for their CSD and AFCH scripts, and may just be a symptom 77% of their edits coming from automated tools, as you've already identified. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure I had somewhere in the ballpark of 20,000 edits to my user space at the time of my RfA (which would have been about ~9-10% of my edits), mostly from CSD, AFC, and draftify logging. I don't see it as inherently problematic, but it should prompt follow up to see if what's logged was the proper course of action. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

AfD record: 98.60% match rate, n of 148. 25 keep !votes to 123 delete !votes. Mildly subjective comment: I'll keep it brief since the comments below this got to it first: this is clear vote-stacking. Disregard the stats and read the comments below. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  • This user's AfD participation history shows lots of examples of jumping in late with non-P&G-based !votes where consensus already existed. Take 14 July as an example. In !votes that came in some cases just a few minutes apart, this editor participated in 9 AfDs where a consensus had already formed. Comments included "With such prominent media coverage and award nominations, it's hard to argue against this artist's notability. The article needs improvement, for sure, but it seems unfair to delete the article." (here), "The article's a bit rough around the edges, but deleting it seems excessive." (here), and "This artist doesn't seem famous." (here). I am not sure these indicate an administrator-level understanding of the notability policies, and the participation record gives an appearance of trying to artificially boost one's AfD stats without high-quality participation. The candidate's answer to my questions about this above does not really grapple with the impression presented or offer evidence of more effective AfD participation. As for new page review, the curation log shows that the candidate marked this article as reviewed, which it really should not have been. It gives an impression of moving far too quickly. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Interesting... They've only participated in two AfDs since I noted the same concerns about pile on votes back in July after reviewing their 40 most recent votes when attempting to process their NPR permission request. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
After the NPP permission granted, there were no AfD major votes or nominations. Additionally, after receiving the AP flag, no articles were created. It seems that the votes are just meant to demonstrate participation in numbers. GrabUp - Talk 17:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Upon reviewing their AFD votes, I noticed that nearly all of their votes closely mirrored those of others who voted before them and this pattern suggests an attempt to artificially inflate their AFD stats while maintaining a 100% match rate, which raises concerns about the authenticity of their AFD participation. Also their sole AFD nom was unsuccessful as well. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • While Iwaqarhashmi has expressed a desire to help at AIV and RFPP, their activity in this area seems limited. For example, they have reported ~100 pages at AIV and have NOT made any report at WP:RFPP, which raises questions about their experience with pages flagged in these areas. They also mentioned wanting to handle requests at CSD, but their CSD log shows that out of approximately ~2,000 pages tagged, only about 1% were in the main NS which suggests they may lack experience with speedy deletion requests related to main NS. They stated, I don't plan to get involved in disputed XfDs, sockpuppetry, or COI cases due to my lack of experience in these areas while also claiming familiarity with these concepts which is very contradictory, especially given that they have only filed ~5 reports at SPI, no reports at COI/N, and participated in AfDs, which seems more geared toward gaining NPP rights than demonstrating true engagement in this area. Lastly, I am not fully convinced by their response to my question #11. All of this, along with their statement I'm an experienced user with lots of rights, implies they're WP:HATCOLLECT. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know if I'm allowed to participate in this conservation or not. That's why I wasn't commenting here and was just answering questions. I would reply to @Saqib's comment above but I must say, I'm so heartbroken after reading this sentence they're WP:HATCOLLECT. I really can't stand personal attacks and false allegations. Waqar💬 18:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see that as a personal attack. It's one editor's inference based on behavior. Being able to tell the difference is critical to being an effective admin. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, if there is evidence that this isn't hat-collecting, I'd like to see it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Iwaqarhashmi: I'm afraid I cannot disagree with Saqib. And that wasn't a personal attack by almost any metric. While an allegation can be supported with evidence and still be unfounded, it's rare and not the case here. Also note that accusing others of personal attacks without evidence is itself, ironically, an aspersion. SerialNumber54129 18:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'm just gonna avoid commenting further on Saqib's statements, and I'd prefer to focus on the topic instead. Thank you! Waqar💬 18:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    It’s surprising to see someone running for admin get upset so quickly over a critical comment. @Iwaqarhashmi, you mentioned in your nom that you haven't been involved in any serious conflicts, yet your reaction to my comment raises some concerns. I can’t help but wonder how you would handle serious conflicts, which all admins are bound to encounter sooner or later. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    Reminder that while candidates are allowed to response to comments in the comment section, they do not have to and they are well within their rights to let the conversations run their course. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    Answer to Q16: I decided it was time to take a short break from that for a while and focus on less time-consuming areas like templates and edit filter reports. Forgive me, but why does it give the impression that they stopped article creation after getting the AP flag and shifted to areas like templates and edit filters to obtain the template editor flag (which Primefac recently granted temporarily), and then started a discussion about why I didn’t receive it permanently? GrabUp - Talk 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Having recently reviewed Iwaqarhashmi's edits and trial NPP reviews in detail in August and September of this year, I believe they are an asset to Wikipedia and admire their enthusiasm, but I think that it is WP:NOTYET time for adminship. They are still learning the ropes at NPP, which was clear to me even before reading this discussion. I am concerned by WP:GAME-y AFD !vote pattern noted by others above, and also by the response Because given the volume of pages I was reviewing, it wasn't really possible to initiate XfDs for every potential candidate--if you feel like you don't have time to do due diligence for a review, you should slow down. CSD triage of the queue can be productive editing as well, but it is much less demonstrative of editing knowledge and it's not entirely clear that this is what Waqar is referring to in this context. signed, Rosguill talk 13:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I also believe it's a WP:NOTYET as opposed to a never, and obviously, as mentioned above, shared the concerns about game-y AfD votes. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

GAN & FAC notes. No activity at GAN or FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the candidate isn't here for the wrong reasons and they have the best intentions for the project, but reviewing their talk page archives (which I still have questions about, in regard to Q6 and Q11) shows that they may be looking for the fastest and easiest way to do the most amount of things (see their response to the way they patroll the NPP queue), which I think is inflating the HATCOLLECTOR concerns above. I think there's a pattern here that I don't feel was adaquetly addressed in their answer to my questions, Q18 and Q19. I'd like to see more thoughtfull contributions in the future. It's not so much the HATCOLLECTOR as it is the use of previous tools entrusted to this candidate, and their rushed nature in editing and using those tools, that gives me cause for concern with handing the mop.
This is a difficult discussion remark for me to leave. I've come across lots of the candidate's good work as well. And they have, as far as I can tell, incorporated previous suggestions that I've offered them to improve their editing when I've made suggestions. I would look forward being able to support them in the future, but I join my fellow reviewers above in thinking this request may be NOTYET. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
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:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Candidates/Iwaqarhashmi&oldid=1263427798"