Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MathXplore

Support

Oppose

Comments

Please allow me to write the things that I have noticed.

• The nomination reason may be a violation of WP:NPOV

The nominator only focuses on the good points, simply pushing specific points of views, and does not try to respect or give answers to those who may oppose/disagree.

• The RFA itself is a violation of community consensus

We already discussed this topic in a radically different format, that can be checked by user rights change log. As a result of the former discussion, the only one user right I'm allowed to have at here is the rollbacker. The agreement was formed by several experienced editors including admins with reasonable comments, and the nominator does not explain why the former agreement must be dismissed and/or does not tell how things have changed since the last discussion. Not a year has passed since that day, so time cannot be used as an excuse.

• The nominator did not introduce and explain themselves
  • The nominator did not explain what he/she knows about adminship. In other words, the nominator has not proved that he/she really understands what he/she is going to discuss about. In addition, the nominator refuses to explain the enwiki checkuser block.
  • The nominator fails to answer about the concerns after the unilateral RFA activation (see my user talk page). If the nominator is not trusted, then the candidate has no chance.
• The nomination reason is poorly explained
  • The nominator claims as a newcomer, but does not explain how they understand policies and guidelines, or does not explain how the evaluations were made.
  • The nomination reason includes possible exaggeration and/or sensational statements ("hopefully", "respectful" etc.). In other words, it looks too good to be true.
  • "Being active for over 5 years" is the count since I made my global account at enwiki (which I refer at my userpage, you may refer to this when discussing about global user rights), my first edit at here was in early 2020. The nomination statement does not explain the candidate's editorial background, and shows the possibility that the nominator may not have enough understanding about the subject of discussion.
  • The nomination reason does not provide helpful discussion materials to others. It ends up in extremely ambiguate claims that can fit to any random rollbacker that we have. In other words, the nominator does not explain the differences between me and others.

Due to the obvious quality issues that we have seen at here, the community has nothing to discuss and I have nothing to accept. Nomination declined. I would like to have admins to save this page as a non-plausible example of RFA. MathXplore (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2022 (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.