Wikipedia:Editor review/S h i v a (Visnu)

S h i v a (Visnu)

S h i v a (Visnu) (talk · contribs · count) Hi - I've been around for just about two years as a Wikipedian, although I was unable to contribute for many months in 2009-10 due to personal commitments. My interest and enthusiasm were revived in July, and I've since assembled 3,000 edits, bringing my total past 6,000. I am interested in adminship, so I request some feedback and constructive criticism on how I can make sure I am worthy of the trust I will request to be placed in me. I plan to wait at least one month more to assuage any concerns about being a consistent contributor, which gives me good time to work on any advice you may offer. Thank you! Shiva (Visnu) 14:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My User talk:S h i v a (Visnu)/Archive (One). Shiva (Visnu) 15:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   The moment I discovered them, I fell in love with DYKs. I've written 46 DYKs, with 5 noms pending. In my first months I worked on Geography of India, hoping to regain its FA status. I also worked on Janata Party, which I plan to bring to FA or at least GA status by November (I will restart work on it later this week). Last month I proposed an approach to get more access to reliable sources. I was happy that it garnered much support with constructive criticism - I think the best way to follow up on it is to write a letter direct to WMF.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   While I have been tested with some difficult situations, I made sure I never lost my cool on anything. Like any human being, I get irritated when some people take undue liberties, but I don't take things personally, prefer to walk away than to engage in witty ripostes. I was tested during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Bangladesh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243 - at times I felt others were not behaving properly, so I just chose to walk away and watch for any useful points. I make it clear that I didn't have any problems learning from any misinterpretation of policy. There have been a couple of occasions when I mistook another user's edits for vandalism (while working with Huggle), but I was prompt in apologizing and restoring their edits. I haven't ever had a problem in accepting criticism - I try to dig out the constructive criticism from any remarks covered in nastiness. On the whole, I have always sought to encourage anonymous IP editors, young Wikipedians and advised others to keep their cool. When faced with a deadlock on a legit debate, I have sought WP:3O and requested help if an editor was refusing to cool down.

4. Why are you so keen to become an administrator? Do you think becoming an admin is more important than contributing to and improving the encyclopedia? How would you make wikipedia a better place by possessing admin tools?

   Adminship is not more important, but also not that less important - it doesn't really build an encyclopedia, but it is definitely a part of improving the encyclopedia. There are a host of areas where I can work to reduce backlogs. I've noticed many times now that a vandal reported to WP:AIV continues to vandalize 3-4 more times before he/she is finally blocked. Also, there are thousands of articles on contentious topics (especially in South Asia-related articles) where biased info is littered around. I have seen honest, competent editors who tried to start cleaning up the mess end up discouraged and drained from the fierce resistance of editors and IPs who have added the biased info. As an administrator, I'd like to watch the backs of all editors - while you don't need to be an admin to work on resolving disputes, you can stop edit wars by page protection, and if necessary, blocking. You can stop tendentious editors from draining the spirits of honest editors by needling incivility and personal attacks. Also, I think I can make a difference by being there for other admins - in the sense that people become busy or tired and may take long breaks or are unable to cover as much ground as they used to; I can cover for them, help them out with tricky situations (not claiming that I am not busy myself, but I am a committed Wikipedian).

Finally, I am not "so keen" - I am confident, that I can make a positive contribution as an admin. I am confident that I can preserve my level-headedness and objectivity in tough situations - that is an asset that makes me useful in several admin-related areas. At the end of the day, it does not really make a difference to me personally - adminship will never become my only focus or activity here, but I am confident that it will help Wikipedia and my fellow workers here.

1. While article creation is important, I have two questions: 1) do you have any GAs or featured items to your credit and 2) what admin related areas have you worked in? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

   I haven't written any GAs/FAs yet, but I plan to start work in a couple of days on getting Janata Party to FA status (or at least GA). I have been active on RC patrol (WP:AIV through Huggle), CSD tagging while on new page patrol (59 deleted edits) and weighing in on AfDs with increasing regularity.

Reviews

1. Sure, you have the capability to be an Admn. However, having a few GAs (it can also be a difficult process without support from other helpful users) to begin with would be an advantage as FA is a very taxing and unnerving process. As regards, South Asian articles, the amount of unreferenced inputs are humungous. It would be propor if wiki administration evolves a policy to unilaterlaly and automatically delete all stubs and winding articles remaining unreferenced and unattended (may be about 90% of all articles in English wiki)for more than one year. My signature User:Nvvchar is not registering inspite of my repeated logging. I don't know why. --59.178.180.55 (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be extremely harsh and probably the dummest thing anybody could do to wikipedia as a developing resource. The vast majority of our existing good articles are the product of stubs/unsourced poor content as the originally began. All stubs have potential to develop and the vast majority can be expanded instantly and sourced. The major. overwhelming problem is that the vast majority simply are not being improved. Whilst it is very important that articles are sourced and are developed there is no time limit and we rely on volunteers. I agree there should be some sort of mechanism to make editors improve existing stubs/unsourced articles but deleting 90% of wikipedia would be insane. You're forgetting that a lot of stubs and unsourced articles are accurate and contain some useful information but just need elaborating/verifying. I believe the best way to make people improve content is to raise enough funds by fundraising and offer editors incentives to improve articles. If Jimbo and co are serious about quality that is. If advertisting was introduced to wikipedia as a source to fund incentives to editors to improve article quality across the site and would definately mean that quality would dramatically imporve I'd accept it, even if I would rather than wikipedia was kept advert free. Shiva you are 100% correct though than Indian. Pakistani and Bangladeshi artticles are the worst for POV on wikipedia, especially local villages and more localised "famous" persons which are not watched by fluent/capable editors. I definately think something should be done to eradicate this ongoing problem in South Asian articles as many thousands of articles are indeed an embarrassement. This is what I gather you are referring to Nvvchar when you say it would be better to delete them all. I'd support any adminstrator who is intent on using his/her tools to improve this situation in south asian articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• The context was for South Asian articles. User:Nvvchar --59.178.186.28 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Before I review - and as I wish you be an administrator sooner than later - write down the following details for me (in case you'd not wish to write them down here, email them to me and then ping me on my talk page, but I'd rather you write them here)

• What are the administration areas of Wikipedia in which you have some experience? Kindly show the summary of such experience, with statistics/numbers to provide a better view (e.g. so many csds, so many prods, so many notices at uaa and stuff).

So far, I have had 64 deleted edits from CSDs, 40 reports at WP:AIV (through Huggle), more than 60 edits to AfDs, and I'm sure more than 2,000 edits on RC patrol through Huggle. I've reported/commented on WP:ANI. Its not really "admin-related", but I've contributed with an an approach to get more access to reliable sources at the Pump. Shiva (Visnu) 14:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• What's your total contribution as of date to DYKs/GAs/FAs?

I have written 50 DYKs (3 pending noms). No experience in GAs/FAs yet. I will take a break from DYKs shortly to work on Janata Party, get it to GA or FA. Shiva (Visnu) 13:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• List down at least three of your worst incidents/performances/actions on Wikipedia, and at the most all.

None, actually. None where I let myself down - I've always been firm and self-controlled. When I first started here, there was a dispute between me and GPPande about some questionable remarks he made about me. I was tested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Bangladesh, but I felt I handled it well - actually, please have a look at it to see if you find anything that I said that was unfitting. Recently, it was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243, but that was more of MickNacNee insulting me rather than anything I did. I only really get bothered when people misrepresent something I said or did. Personal attacks don't affect me because its a reflection on them, not me. Shiva (Visnu) 13:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• What is the strongest reason you believe editors could vote against you in your RfA?

Right now, its prolly that I've been back full-time only 2 months after a long wikibreak. That will be prolly connect with lack of sufficient activity/experience in admin-related areas. Both are legit criticisms. Noting concerns on a recent RfA about CSD tagging (not just yours :), its possible that someone may disagree with 1-2 tags I may have made; my defense is that there are cases where several criteria overlap in interpretation. I remember a recent tag I made on an article (I forget the name) - I tagged it A7 first, but I soon realized it was more likely an attack page. Just as I was about to add the template, I noted another editor had beat me to it. Its just part of learning through experience. Some may disagree with an opinion I expressed at an AfD, but that's what its about anyway - if you don't explore all avenues, including playing devil's advocate, there is no point in having anything for discussion. Finally, I note the recommendation of several reviewers here that I try my hand at GAs/FAs - of course, aside from going to fully develop an article, it is about working in collaboration with others. Shiva (Visnu) 13:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

ShivaVisnu, do realise that if you want an honest editor review from me - who's supporting your RfA - then do be brutally honest. And if you feel being brutally honest will act against you in your RfA, then email me the details. But like I said, there's nothing better than brutal honesty here. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)