Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vishnava

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Closed at (26/5/2) 12 October 2008 (UTC) [1] Candidate withdrew.--LAAFan^sign _review 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnava (talk · contribs) - I present myself, Vishnava, to you to request adminship. After 6 months on Wikipedia, 4.5 months of active work and 10,600 edits, I am ready for the additional responsibility. I want to become an administrator because I find it important to add to the ranks of the +1,600 administrators who watch the backs of +8 million full-time editors and safeguard the quality of more than 2 million articles and other content. I pride myself for my integrity, resolve, open-mindedness and productivity. The purpose of this statement is to let you know exactly why I am qualified and prepared. I know I have limitations but I will work hard and never hesitate to ask advice or seek help if I find myself lacking in some regard.

I love working on DYKs and my chief contribution is authoring 59 DYKs (and 5 pending nominations) in the area of international relations and South Asia-related topics. I love working on DYKs and have actively helped out on maintaining the DYK template and cross-checking nominations. I pride myself on personally letting the nominators know immediately of any concern on their article and help keeping the updates on time (and felt frustration at not being able to do so myself). I plan to diversify over time and hopefully write a featured article soon.

I am an avid and active RC patroller and "Huggler" - I travel fast and wide tirelessly, and as a result, have at least 8,000 anti-vandalism reverts to my credit. I have been moderately active at AfDs - one example worth noting is when I nominated "Mecca Time", an article I had created as there were some serious concerns about its noteworthiness. I chose to go to AfD because I wanted the community to have a proper discussion and decide what should be done. I always backed my work on the article but I was conscious of my responsibility to keep out articles that violate policy and I respected the views of others and knew the limitations to my own knowledge in those early months.

I have worked well with others to resolve any issues with my work - [2], [3], [4]. I have respected criticism and have worked to address it without hesitation. I have never hesitated to ask questions or simply advice on improving my performance - [5], [6]. My only disappointment is the few times I have mistakenly reverted a legitimate edit (mainly while pressing the revert button 1 sec after someone else has removed vandalism). While these mistakes are few and infrequent, I make it a point to apologize to the person, registered users and IPs and promptly restore their edit - [7], [8]. I have also immediately retracted warnings and encouraged editors who demonstrate a positive attitude.

I have not hesitated to give my thoughts during policy discussions - I am pleased that one suggestion of mine was near to what another editor recently proposed in order to reform RfA and is being tested by others - [9]. I also tried to shoot some ideas to solve the issue of timely updates to DYK and I hope that did some good - [10]. I have studied policy, discussions at ANI and other forums and observed the work and views of more experienced editors, so I believe that I will be ready to tackle any kind of problem.

I would like to thank PeterSymonds and Royalbroil and for being terrific mentors and role-models. There are several other people like Johnbod, D.Trebbien, J.delanoy and SchfiftyThree, who have given valuable advice and support during my time here. I would like you to note that I had initially joined Wikipedia as User:V i s n a v a in December 2007 and authored 1 DYK but was forced to leave Wikipedia at the time due to some real-life commitments.

Thank you for considering me - to anybody to feels I am not yet ready, I request you to let me know precisely what your concern is and how I can improve. Vishnava _talk 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am ready. Vishnava _talk 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WITHDRAWN Vishnava _talk 23:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: I would like to regularly help maintain and update T:DYK and fight vandals both via WP:AIV and during RC patrols. I will also actively work on CSD backlogs, attend to requests for page protection,protected edit requests and WP:3RR. I will also keep watch on WP:ANI and WP:PNB and help out there. Importantly, I would like to be in a position to help any other editor who may need an admin's assistance.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am very proud of all my contributions. My record speaks of how fond I am of writing DYKs - it is a simple yet skilled task that enables one to quickly and substantially learn a particular subject and produce quality work that benefits others. It has often taken me only 5-10 minutes to write a properly composed, summary article from scratch, with all references and citations given. In addition, helping to cross-check articles and maintain DYK in general has been very rewarding. I am also proud of being an alert, effective and responsible RC patroller.

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 am proud to say that I have not had any stressful encounters or conflicts with anyone. I am always open to criticism and frank but respectful in expressing my views - I don't expect others to agree and I don't like to argue and fire off ripostes too much. When tempers get noticeably high, I don't have a problem walking away. I want to enjoy working here and I choose to reserve my energy and time for real-life battles of importance. Taking a route I don't agree with is better than stopping the train by arguing too much; if I am proven wrong, I will happily learn from it; if I am proven correct and the route taken is flawed, I will help correct it.

Optional questions from Editorofthewiki

# Will your mainspace (such as DYKs, not including huggling) contributions be hindered by the granting of the tools?

A: Absolutely not. I love writing DYKs and I actually hope to write a FA soon. Adminship is being able to help out a bit more, but it cannot change my raison d'etre, which is to help build an encyclopedia and learn a bit.

Additional Question from RockManQ

5. How much experience do you think you have in areas such as XfD?

A. I have gained much valuable experience through participating in some key discussions on how a policy is to be applied in deciding the question, how to address the issue through valuable criticism and to value wider consensus over personal belief. I point out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecca Time, because it shows that I understood from the very beginning of my time here - (1) how to resolve questions over compliance to policy through wider discussion and seek consensus, (2) that I know my limitations and won't make any arbitrary, hasty judgments. I nominated an article I created myself without hesitation because I respected the views and knowledge of others on deletion policy and that I would not put ego before the good of Wikipedia. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal (my first AfD), I made some good arguments to point out that the article in question did not violate WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE. In both cases I used the opinions expressed in the debates to remove any data of concern or questionable nature and make the articles better. In any future case, I would work obtain a wider consensus on case in which WP:CSD does not apply, improve the article in question by listening to critics and keep an open mind. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism (2nd nomination), I felt I gave a constructive suggestion to resolve an issue that took up 2 AfDs. I was impressed by Sandstein's closing statement, which chided the conduct of some editors - this showed his ability not only to balance the scale but to carefully examine each statement and speak with authority as to how arguments should be made properly - I will incorporate the same discretion and attitude. I admit that I do not have experience on WP:IFD, but my answer in this regard is summed up pretty well by what Pedro gave to Stifle in regards to the IfD experience of Jac16888 - I will learn and act responsibly, I will ask questions, seek help and not act arbitrarily.

6. Is there any Wikipedia policies or guidelines that you disagree with? If so please give an example and tell why.

A. No, I don't disagree with anything particular. However, I can answer the question in another way - that I feel that Wikipedia is "lacking" in being able to protect its editors from invasion of privacy and harassment. I've been around a few months and I've seen a few editors having to leave because there was a breach of their privacy, revelation of identity, off-wiki harassment. I don't know what exactly can be done, what kind of measures are necessary, but its my opinion that Wikipedia has a responsibility towards the people who build it and can't avoid that by saying that its not responsible for anything that doesn't happen on space owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. People who give so much time and energy for no compensation save knowledge deserve some level of protection as a mark of respect.

Optional question from Blooded Edge

7:: As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I wanted to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?

A. I don't feel that "cool down" blocks are a good idea for 3 reasons: (1) In essence, each block aside from an indefinite one or a ban are to enable the particular user and the situation to "cool down." If we did not expect the user to cool down and improve his/her behavior over a given period of time, why wouldn't we just perma-ban them outright at the first offense? A ban is given when a user has had enough opportunities, warnings and blocks, continues disruption and exhausts the community's patience. Even a sockpuppeter is not necessarily blocked indefinitely. (2) A block is not a punitive measure and is meant to be a last resort to protect the content and other editors. Therefore, all personal efforts/clear warnings should have been made to cool a person done before applying the technical solution according to blocking policy. (3) Looking at it from the blocked person's point of view, it is largely taken as an insult. As you say, "there is still the small chance" - well, blocks are serious and not to be made based on an administrator may hope of a "small chance," but on the policy designed to let the person and situation "cool down" in situation where personal efforts/clear warnings have failed. To add, no administrator should use his tools if he/she is somehow personally involved in the situation. The only time I've seen a block removed before time is in cases of WP:3RR violation, where the editor pledges not to violate it ever again. However, WP:3RR is an explicit policy and is a lot more straightforward to enforce than most other situations.

8:: This isn't really to do with your work on Wikipedia, but is important if you indeed gain the requested status. Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in thhttp://geodsoft.com/howto/password/common.htm weakest password list]? A hiijacked admin account can do widespread damage across the site, it is important to confirm the security of your account.

A. Yes it is formed by at least 8 characters, no dictionary words but I can adjust it right now to satisfy other requirements.

Optional question from Sumoeagle179

9:: Lots of DYK experience. Do you have any experience in GAs or FAs?

A. Well sadly very little. I have so far preferred DYKs because you can achieve the same quality and learn by summarizing in a short period of time. I did participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kazi Nazrul Islam because I had seen it on the main page many months ago and liked it very much; there the debate centered around WP:RS and I helped copyedit the article to satisfy FA criteria and the criticism of others, although it was decided in the end to remove the featured status. I definitely want to write a featured article this December when I will have a little more time in my hands - the WP:RS, WP:NPOV standards of DYK are pretty high and have helped me prepare for the bigger task of writing an FA.

Optional questions from LAAFan

10: If you see an established user start to vandalize, what steps would you make to insure it stops?

A. To an "established" user, one may give a direct message asking why he/she is doing it, and that they should be aware what they are doing and what will happen if they continue. If they have a block history or some clear evidence that they are aware of policies on WP:VANDAL, one may issue 1-2 strict warnings and 1 final warning before blocking for 24-36 hrs. If they have rollback privileges, these must immediately be removed if the user has more than 1-2 offenses, does not respond to 1 strict warning or has actually used it once to restore his/her vandalized page version.

11:: If you see one IP address repeatedly vandalizing one page, but none other recent vandalism has occurred, would you protect the page? Why or why not?

A. Well one would directly engage the IP with the 4-stage warning process and then a block. Semi-protection in cases of vandalism may be applied if the page is under attack from multiple IPs or is on the main page or in a situation where it is not possible to go after individual IPs.

• See Vishnava's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Vishnava: Vishnava (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

• • Issue of automated edits OK now the vast majority of my edit tally comes from Huggling, no doubt. But Huggle was designed to make anti-vandalism faster and more efficient - it does not mean a user doesn't know the proper steps, knowledge or ability to deal with vandalism. In fact, with Huggle one has to be scrupulously careful. A good Huggler should be respected for the work. In terms of my total contributions to mainspace or encyclopedia-building, I have written 59 DYKs - at most I have had to make 60 edits to an article I wrote and nowadays it is 5-10 because I draft the article off-wiki. So I can understand that some people may think my contribution is skewed, but I request them to understand that my contributions to content are more in value than Huggling, which also indicates that I've used a powerful software with effectivity and responsibility. Writing 59 DYKs is no small or usual achievement; I recently fired-off 5 articles in space of 2 days. Wikipedia is a cleaner place due to Hugglers like me, I am proud to say. Vishnava _talk 21:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support Pleased to be first, per excellent and persuasive self-nom. Excellent work with Did You Know articles. I do believe his mainspace edit count does not reflect the work he does. Well qualified in other areas - thought he was one! Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 03:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I've had several interactions with the candidate, and they have been nothing but positive. I've always looked up to how you wrote so many DYKs in such short a time--and on thirld world countries to boot! While I'm not a fan of massive huggling, you are certainly a qualified candidate. Good luck on that FA! (P.S. Your answer to my qustion was awesome). ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 03:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support per my RfA criteria this candidate seems to have a clean bill of RfA health, good DYK contributions, vandalfighting is not a crime, although I don't have editcountis the count seems good, keep up the good work, and if you branch into other areas, make sure to read up on how to do things. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. 50+ DYK entries should be enough to convince anyone that this user is valuable in the mainspace. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
5. Support - as I've said before, and I'm sure I'll say again, you can never have too many anti-vandal admins.   jj137 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - I have no doubts about this user. Xclamation point 04:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Per above. Dlohcierekim 05:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. I thought you already were an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Naturally. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - In response to Wisdom's oppose, what we are voting on here is not whether this user meets a set of criteria or whatever, or at least we shouldn't be. RfA should be all about who is going to abuse the tools, and whether we trust the user in question to be a net gain to the project. Automated tools do not suggest that the candidate will abuse the tools, and thus I must default to support. — neuro^(talk) 11:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support per Wisdom89 in the oppose section... xD. macy 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support 6 months and 12000+ edits, I believe this editor is ready! Good luck! America69 (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. Looked through almost all contribs, no reasons not to trust editor. Tan | 39 15:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support per all above and my questions. I see no other reasons to oppose. RockManQ ^(talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. naerii 16:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. I'm sure Vish can deal with the highs and lows of being an admin with a suitable level of maturity and responsibility. Blooded Edge (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Why the hell not, its no big deal.--Theoneintraining (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support good contributor. The text on your talk page is tiny though. An admins talk page should be easier to read than that. I urge you to change it. RMHED (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. A committed editor. However I would like to see more active article creation such as a GA article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. No negative interactions. Please utilise the tools wisely. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Opposition commentary offers no significant reason why giving Vishnava would be detrimental to the project, whilst the nomination and experience suggest quite the opposite, that Vishnava will be a significant benefit to the project with additional tools available to him. Nick (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support I've seen Vishnava around before, and his words and deeds have always been positive in my book. Definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support the magical word of RfA is "trust." This is a candidate who is inarguably trustworthy - and the opposes don't say anything to assert that she's not. In fact, the only consistent argument is that she doesn't focus enough on article building - which is odd considering she made 59 DYK's during her time here. Additionally, regardless of whether or not mechanical edits are preferred, vandal fighters are valuable assets to the community, and one of the areas where administrative attention is needed. I have no doubts about her understanding of policy and see no reason to oppose. Valtoras (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Nothing really worth opposing for. The oppose column hasn't got me convinced. —Ceran (Strike!) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Strong SupportAfter careful consideration.Editor has over 10500 edits of which only about 1600 edits are Huggle edits or Automated or script-assisted edits.Editor has done considerable work even without these.Further after checking the track find nothing that the user will misuse the tools.A commited editor and vandal fighter Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support I'm impressed by your work and our interactions, godspeed. -FlyingToaster (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - Most edits to the mainspace are mechanical reversions - no evidence of experience in 3RR or RFPP, or the other noticeboards that you indicate you will monitor. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, no collaborative effort as per your talk page contributions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   With respect, I don't understand 2 things - (1) I have written 59 DYKs, so why are mainspace contributions in question? (2) I have worked extensively at T:DYK in evaluating, promoting noms and maintaining the template and I've provided some diffs on how I've worked with others on article problems, the AfDs and policy discussions. All that is collaborative in nature. Vishnava _talk 03:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand that you have work with DYK, which is pretty good, but I've never been impressed with that area of Wikipedia alone (just a personal opinion of mine). I've examined your template DYK contributions, and the last time you worked on it (from what I can see) was back in late June..yet you claim to love it. AFD participation was short-lived and back in April. It seems that huggling has become your forte/primary focus, and I'm just not comfortable with that. Besides, you simply do not possess/have not demonstrated the necessary experience in the other areas where you wish to work. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I was travelling abroad from July to September, which is why I stopped contributing pretty much during that period. Since I have returned, I have authored 3 DYKs (+ 5 pending noms). Vishnava _talk 03:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Noted, I will take that into consideration. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Seems good but a little too inexperienced in general and in the edits I like to see in administrators. DYK is nice and all but, as also stated by Wisdom89, it doesn't factor too highly in my decision. Too little experience with GA/FAs, and only 6 months of work in general. I'm sure you'll be a great candidate in another few months! I just have those reservations for now. --Banime (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   See, each article in DYK must be at least 1,500 bytes of content. Since Vishnava has had 60+ of these, that equals out to about 90,000 bytes of new content. And that's the bare minimum--quite a few of Vish's DYKs are in the 10,000+ range. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Wasn't trying to knock any of the contributions, sorry if it came out that way! --Banime (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Weak Oppose I would expect a user with 10000 edits to have more than 370 wikipedia space edits, and lack of mainspace talk edits shows little effort to build articles collaboratively. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) It should be noted that I am not opposing because of Huggle work. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Or not tagging talk pages like bots. I guess that's because Vish's contribs are in a third world country, which doesn't see too many contributors to collaborate with. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I have over 300 talk edits, and I don't tag talk pages like a bot. Collaboration is key for an admin regardless of what subject area they work in, because ANI sure has a lot of contributors with which to collaborate. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   With due respect, I am beginning to feel that there is a serious miscommunication here and I hope I can clarify it. Writing DYKs is a huge contribution to Wikipedia content - and writing 59 DYKs in space of 3-4 months is not usually or easily done by most. As to Wikipedia space edits, I have given examples of how I contributed to AfDs with great thought and policy discussions. The examples are clearly given in my statement. Collaboration is the key element in working at T:TDYK where I've reviewed and promoted noms, cross-checking nominations and working with the nominators and other reviewers to clear the articles. Vishnava _talk 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge, and deleted contributions indicate little or no work with speedy deletion. I'm also not a fan of every oppose being challenged and argued. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It should be noted that it is EOTW doing the badgering for the most part. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose I'm sorry that I have to oppose in the end, as Vishnava is clearly working hard to improve Wikipedia and is a good vandal fighter. But in reviewing some of the recent successful DYK articles, various small (and one large) referencing problems turned up, leading to the thought that Vishnava needs more experience at interpreting references before being an admin intending to work in DYK. The minor ones were a tendency to slightly misrepresent articles "hoping to" became "planning to" in the article, "intends to invest" becomes "did invest". As one example, a source for Kazakhstan-Turkey relations stated "the mass importation of textiles—both second-hand from Europe and new garments, mostly from China—has led to the closing of 65 Nigerian textile mills" was interpreted as "cheap Chinese goods ... led to closure of 65 textile mills ..." While they are common mistakes, and not overly serious, Vishnava is writing in politically sensitive areas (bilateral relations), so I'd rather see a tad more care. Of more concern was a big chunk of what appears to be copyvio: in Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict the section starting with "The agreement recognised the special status of the hill people" is identical to a section in Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord, 1997. It is referenced to it, which is good, but given the low number of article writing edits, it stands out as a bigger problem. Finally, just looking at the last few vandal reverts, I've noticed two mistakes - both quickly fixed by Vishnava, and the sort of thing that can happen on Huggle, but a tad more care might be warranted. Overall, a good editor, who's definitely improving and I'm sure will become a good admin in the future, but who I feel needs more experience interpreting references and a bit more care in identifying vandalism before becoming an admin who intends to work in DYK and anti-vandalism. - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral leaning towards support Seems like a net positive, but I'm a little concerned about the number of mechanical edits.--LAAFan^sign _review 17:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral This is a tough RfA for me. On one hand, I am pleased by the candidate's rate of activity over the amount of time that they have been here. That shows me that the candidate is committed to the project. On the other hand, however, I am a bit concerned over the perecentage of this candidate's edits that are mechanical in nature. I believe this candidate would be a net positive to the project, if given the tools, but I can not - for reasons that I can't quite put my finger on - offer a support vote. So, we'll call this a neutral vote with a moral support. Best of luck! --Winger84 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]