Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vishwin60

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

Vishwin60

[edit]

Final (18/10/0); Ended Tues, 10 July 2007 17:02 UTC

Vishwin60 (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you...Vishwin60! With over 8,200 edits, Vishwin has contributed beginning in September 2006. His 3,120+ edits to the mainspace include 2 Good Articles. Regularly participating in XfD's, Vishwin is level headed, knowledgeable on policy, and very helpful. He contributes at WP:FAC as well as WP:RfC. Vish has been instrumental in road articles around the United States. Involved in wiktionary, meta, and commons, Vish also participates actively in many WikiProjects. Running a bot, he writes and delivers newsletters. Vishwin60 does work everywhere, which is great in a administrator. This user continues to improve every time I see him, he needs the mop, and wikipedia needs him.—treyjay–jay 03:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you; I accept. (→zelzany - review) 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
withdrawal by candidate

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are lots of tasks an admin can, wants, and needs to do. I will mainly be active in intervention areas such as UAA and AIV, the deletion department, AN and its associated subpages, CSD categories like Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, protecting, unprotecting and editing protected pages by request, and deleting expired prods. In addition to what has been mentioned, I will continue to fight vandalism (patrol recentchanges), improve articles to good status or better, and make the Internet not suck.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am proud of the articles that I've helped get GA status; see my userpage for details on those. However, I am most pleased with U.S. Route 322 in New Jersey making it into DYK, since this was the first complete article I've written in a single edit, and that it had an interesting fact in it (...that it used to be concurrent with state highways its entire route). DYK, as I've witnessed, is pretty hard to make, since (1) it has to be a decent article (doesn't have to be GA yet), (2) it has to have an interesting fact that readers will go, "Wow!", and (3) it has to be new. Everyone, including myself, is trying to become better editors, which is probably why I haven't gotten an article to FA yet. I'm pretty close to getting it though.
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: If you were a Wikipedia for as long as I have, you are bound to run into conflicts while editing. Some might get lucky and run into no conflicts. For me, it was early on, so I used the conventional way of dealing with it—talking it out on talk pages to gain consensus. This basic principle followed me all through my time here, as [should] with every other Wikipedian. I will regret how I discussed in January-February, since that was a time when lots of U.S. Road articles were getting sent to AFD for mainly a notability concern. Back then, the main WikiProject I was participating in (USRD) was in a huge turmoil, IRC was just getting started, and users started screaming in the talk pages. I, unfortunately, had to get a little kick out of that, but after all that, I never behaved like that again. Right now and in the future, I will give as thorough of a response as possible, stay civil and keep a cool head at all times, and tell other users to do the same when they are not being civil and/or keeping a cool head.
4. Optional question from G1ggy
Can you explain why your user talk page was semi protected for over 5 months?[1] Can you also explain why your userpage is still protected?[2] Giggy UCP 23:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The reason my user and talk pages were protected was mainly because a blatant sockpuppet vandal and troll (hidden in one of the ANI archives somewhere, ask on my talk or IRC to find out who that was) kept vandalising them. It is also because vandals whom I revert during RC patrol vandalise my user, talk, and subpages. I did not pay attention to how long the protection was, but the administrator responsible for semi-protecting the page(s) could've set an expire date/time for when it was going to be unprotected.
Could you post the name here, for the sake of transparency? There would be uproar if we discussed any aspect of this RfA on IRC. Giggy UCP 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the protection can be found here. —treyjay–jay 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bolstering that, it's the above user plus some socks. (→zelzany - review) 00:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Gracenotes (talk · contribs)
5. What is the importance of using an explanatory edit summary for editorial actions? Why is this importance amplified for admin actions?
A: This is very important because if a normal revert summary is used, nobody knows why the editor is reverting. Admins need to take special care about this, not only because (1) of my explanation above, and (2) admins set the example for other users who may want to become admins in the future.
Why then did you use a standard, rather then explanatory, edit summary in removing a prod? Giggy UCP 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because that was a mistake that I won't be committing again. (→vishwin60 - review) 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. When should admin rollback be used? When should it not be used, and a manual revert or undo be used instead?
A: Admin rollback should be used for reverting vandalism on the spot, reverting a banned user, or if spam is inserted. A manual revert/undo should be used for editorial actions, contesting a prod, and for other miscellaneous actions that do not warrant an admin rollback.
Optional question from Krimpet
7.What role should IRC play in performing and discussing administrative tasks?
A: If you are talking about the admins channel, it is for dealing with controversial stuff that is not safe to discourse on-wiki. Admin work, decisions, checkusers, and questions are also discoursed, since the other users there are at least admins of one Wikimedia project. IRC, however, should not be used for trolling, spamming, criticizing of others, and worst of all, canvassing. If you did not mean the admins channel and meant IRC in general, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Optional questions from Nick
8. BLP - How would you deal with an article where there is an accusation from an IP address on the talk page claiming the article is libellous and should be deleted or significantly altered to their own view ?
A: If that were to happen (and it probably happens a lot), I'd post it to the noticeboard to get a consensus on what to do. IRC is also an option, and the article stays as-is until a consensus has been reached. The talk page and the IP would be notified of the discussion.
9. BLP again - If you found an article which has been blanked or deleted quoting an OTRS ticket number, and the person who created the article would like it restored as they contend there is no problem with the article. How would you deal with this situation ?
A: First of all, I'd find that OTRS member and tell him/her to explicitly explain why he/she did what they did. Then I'd ask other OTRS members and the the admin community to see if that action was a reasonable measure to prevent libelous material from appearing on Wikipedia, on the BLP noticeboard. While the discussion is in progress, I would leave a note on the person who would like the article to restored's talk page, informing him about thie relevant discussion.
On another note, in this most recent case (I know about this from the mailing list), it was because of a new OTRS member just learning the ropes of OTRS. Every case is different, therefore slight alterations of what I've outlined are warranted to fit each situation.
Which mailing list, if you don't mind me asking ? Nick 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Signatures - What constitutes an acceptable or unacceptable signature. How does the Username and Wikipedia is not censored policies impact on what is or is not an acceptable signature ?
A: Now that I've even got some time to think about that...the two policies conflict with each other. Generally, the censoring part of NOT generally applies to articles, however the scope can be expanded to cover anything else in Wikipedia if another policy doesn't conflict with it. Here, the username policy conflicts with NOT, and therefore, the username policy takes precedence. Signatures are a part of the username, and therefore they are in the scope of that policy.
Optional question from TREYWiki
11. I believe the question above is due to the sex in my signature. If you were an admin, what would you have said do me different that what Nick did, to get me to change it?
A: Based on the previous question, I would have to ask you to change it, in a polite manner. The signatures page does say to remain polite. If I were an admin at that time and was not under pressure like I was, I would've never threatened to block (unless ArbCom intervened), and work together to find a mutually acceptable solution so that everyone doesn't end up getting offended.
Very good answer. Nick, you might want to consider doing this instead. —treyjay–jay 01:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Jreferee
12. Does this June 8, 2007 post by you violate Wikipedia's policy on copyright? -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Optional question from Jreferee
13. Your user page contains a Userpage Vandalism section and a Talk page Vandalism section. In what ways are these sections consistent with Wikipedia:Deny recognition?
A:

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Vishwin60 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Support. Definate support, I even offered to nominate. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom. —treyjay–jay 23:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Support. I am willing to support. Your edit count is good, and I have seen no major non-civility toward other user's. I would like to see your answer to G1ggy's question before I switch from Weak Support to Support. Politics rule 23:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Excellent editor; clearly shows a desire to improve based on his various editor reviews :P. I see a large number of constructive AWB edits in the user's contribs, and these are complemented (or balanced, depending on your view of AWB :P) by some civil and thoughtful responses to RFAs - and very nice to see some CFD discussions too. I am assuming that your response to G1ggy is not passing blame onto the admin, but demonstrating knowledge of policy :). ck lostsword•T•C 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got that fact right :-) (→zelzany - review) 00:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support I reviewed Vishwin in May and advised him to wait before trying RFA. He has waited long enough. He is a highly active editor, managing the difficult task to keep track of thousands of U.S. road articles, and doing it with dignity, civility, and valor. Checking his last 100 or so contribs, I saw a distribution across namespaces, from a new user welcome to an MFD to a subject-specific cleanup tag. Everything about this editor looks perfect. I don't know what was bothering people several months ago, but whatever it was, it is no longer a concern in my mind. I am already labeling Vishwin as my tenth editor review subject who will receive sysop rights after I've reviewed him. I wish him continued success. Shalom Hello 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support I've been working with Vish in USRD and the subprojects, and have come to him on a few occasions for help outside of the roads; I believe he's an excellent editor and highly active as well. I think that he deserves to be sysopped, and would be a great admin. --myselfalso 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Seems a well and scapable editor will make a good admin. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 02:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I see no problems here. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - I know this user's work across wikis, I have no concerns with trusting them with the tools --Herby talk thyme 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strongest Possible Support - What for the last 8 months I though you were an admin!! ..--Cometstyles 11:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Concerns raised by opposers aren't sufficient to merit an oppose, IMO. I urge Vishwin to be more careful in reverting, but otherwise, seems like a good candidate. Waltontalk 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do that; thank you everyone else for bringing that issue up. (→vishwin60 - review) 16:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - good candidate. Addhoc 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - user made a mistake, appears to have learned from it. I recall the way that Vishwin60 carried himself in a TfD debate a while ago (in which I took a position contrary to his); his conduct was admin-like. GracenotesT § 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Former Oppose, now Support. I hold Your nom in high regard. I trust xem to nominate a good candidate. J-stan Talk 19:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support unlikely to abuse the tools. —Anas talk? 19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I see no major issues to oppose here. Jmlk17 20:50, 9 7July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support -- I have seen this user around. He seems to be a good editor. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Vishwin has been an extremely prolific contributor, with plenty of experience in maintenance tasks, and the admin tools will help him in his work. While he has made some small slip-ups as noted by the opposers below, he's shown an ability to learn from these mistakes and others in the past, and I am confident he'll be careful with his extra privileges. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose. Vishwin60 is a good editor, but I have some concerns about his capabilities. I don't like the fact that vishwin may not accept that users will inevitably make mistakes ([3]). I believe an administrator should be willing to give users a second chance, and to understand that nobody is perfect. I don't like the fact that he accused of editor of WP:POINT because they seemed to disagree with him on an article's layout.[4] Another thing that bothers me is his discussion with TREYWiki (Here and here). I think that to request that users do NOT create an article because you are (or you will one day) is like forgetting the purpose of our project. We are an encyclopedia, not a race to see who can get the most DYK entries. Giggy UCP 01:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is true that Vishwin is a good editor, but there's too much that concerns me personally. When Vishwin60 performs a revert on a page, he never uses a custom summary, choosing to use a generic summary, even on something as important as removing a prod[5] [6]. This is fine for reverting vandalism, but when reverting good-faith edits, it is poor form to not explain why the edit was reverted. My conversations with him on IRC have been pleasant, but there have been instances where I question his line of thinking. [7] outlines a logged discussion, posted by Vishwin, in which he unilaterally removed hundreds of links to Portal:U.S. Roads from articles, citing WP:SELF even though this policy does not apply to links to portals. Additionally, WP:PORTAL states that ""The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas", and removing links to the portal defeats that purpose. I also am wary of Vishwin's ability to wear his emotions on his sleeve, something that has been shown on IRC and a dangerous trait around Wikipedia, especially for someone with the added admin tools. Another issue that concerns me is his tendency to confront conflicts on an article by reverting than by discussing on the talk page. This was evident on New York State Route 52, where NE2 made several changes to the page. Instead of posting concerns on the design changes, Vishwin reverted, again using a generic summary [8]. To Vishwin's credit, after NE2 reverted the revert, Vishwin used a custom summary on two subsequent reverts to explain his motive for reverting. Am I innocent on that page? No, I reverted once as well; however, I also posted a lengthy comment section on the talk page that ultimately helped to reach a compromise and end the conflict. Vishwin, who was now an interested party in the page, interestingly did not post to the discussion, other than one comment not relevant to the dispute over the junction table. My last comment addresses a recent situation that developed on the WP:USRD newsletter. In the introduction, Vishwin added a comment alluding to an unnamed controversy, later revealed to be an RFC for another editor. [9] [10] This statement spawned the aforementioned discussion on WT:USRD as well as on Rschen7754's talk page. I question why this comment was added in the first place and what Vishwin was trying to accomplish by including the statement. My hope is that Wikipedia admins are capable of making better decisions than this. Do not misunderstand me; Vishwin is an excellent editor - however, only time and added experience will help to correct the issues addressed above. For all the reasons I've cited, I must oppose this nomination at this time. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to point out that Vishwin used TwinsMetsFan's presence in his defence in one of the incidents I pointed out earlier: "erm, never mind about that. An admin comes to my page regularly and never complained once. (→zelzany - review) 23:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)" Giggy UCP 04:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - good editor, however use of automated revert in removing a prod isn't good practice. Also, no explanation to why his signature differs from his user name. Addhoc 10:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although both of these are valid criticisms, they seem like fairly minor points to me, and (even taken together) don't look like adequate reasons to oppose an RfA. Waltontalk 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that he's modified his sig and indicated he'll be more careful in using automated reverts, I agree. Addhoc 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: Although you have made a lot of great contributions to the project, one of the key components of administration is clear communication. So reverting a prod tag without commenting why is troubling. Giving the reasons for its removal can help prevent the article from going from AFD, and in best case scenarios you can even encourage the editor to help on the article! Along the same lines, you have a banner on your talk page promoting IRC over talk pages -- IRC has its place, but transparency is always preferred. Also, a username that differs completely from your signature is confusing, especially to newcomers. The good news is that all of these things can easily be remedied. -- MisterHand 12:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The banner (a Qxz ad, to be more specific) doesn't really promote it over talk pages, it just says it's useful for certain things, like having a conversation. It doesn't say it should be used instead of talk pages on issues related to an article. --Rory096 15:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Rory096. (→vishwin60 - review) 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Giggy. just because we need more sysops doesn't mean we should lower standards. I don't think you'd be a capable admin. J-stan Talk 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Change to support. See above[reply]
  4. Per Q9. In many cases, OTRS volunteers won't tell you why they did something, because they have an obligation to maintain confidentiality of conference. I'm quite sure people who have been given a trusted position and are doing a difficult job won't like you "tell[ing] him/her to explicitly explain why he/she did what they did". You don't tell anyone what to do, let alone people who are actually bound by WMF policy not to. Even this kind of mentality is what makes bad administrators when dealing with newer users who they can "boss around". "Asking the admin community to see if that action was a reasonable measure" won't achieve anything either, because they (like you) don't have access to the information (and in many cases, for good reasons too). OTRS is not only "to prevent libelous material from appearing on Wikipedia", and any person who thinks that is what they do shouldn't be an administrator - potentially-damaging information or information which isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia isn't always libellious. "It was because of a new OTRS member just learning the ropes of OTRS" - what the hell? The decision to protect Lava lamp was done by a legal intern of the Wikimedia Foundation who knows far more than you about the situation (you don't know anything about the situation, for that matter, despite what you think), so how can you say it was "because of a new OTRS member just learning the ropes"? Unbelievable, and this is exactly the type of administrators OTRS volunteers hate - the ones who make their jobs protecting and improving Wikipedia for both readers generally and, in particualr, subjects of articles difficult. Strong oppose. Daniel 07:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Daniel. That sort of assumption of bad faith is uncalled-for in a potential administrator. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Oppose Daniels Oppose worries me greatly, but I see a lot of good here as well. I would suggest that whatever the outcome of this RFA you take Daniel's comments to heart and learn from them. On the positive side, your work here is excellent but RFA is, at some fundamental level, a discussion on whether a user is trustworthy with the tools, and at present I really can't give that trust. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  07:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose Oppose (Changes per my comment at the end of my post.) This RfA lists Vishwin60, but the user posts as zelzany. A minor point, but I want to be clear on who I support to elevate to admin before giving such support. Also, June 22, 2007 misuse of the term Point and July 7, 2007 (3 days ago!) misuse of Revert. The answers to the questions leave something to be desired. His answer to Q6 shows a failure to understand that an edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?". Answer to Q7 shows a failure to understand that IRC is not Wikipedia and that Admin's actions need to be transparent so that Admins can be held accountable for their actions. Answer to Q8 shows that he is not ready to deal with BLP problems on his own. Answer to Q9 shows that he does not know what OTRS is. Answer to Q10 shows that he is unable to work with two policies that compliment each other. Answer to Q11 shows that he does not know when to step aside from people he has a personal relationship with to let other admins handle the matter. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed to strong oppose because of the answer to Q9 - the OTRS ticket. I cannot get past the idea of your using idle gossip from a source outside of Wikipedia to make a conclusion about someone's Wikipedia actions and to reduce the trust of confidentiality that OTRS works hard to maintain in those who request OTRS help by posting such baseless conclusions in your RfA. However, given your responses to the other answers, I think your actions were based on an immature recklessness rather than an intentional spite so I would be willing to take another look at your RfA in three months. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May I point out that he has since changed his sig to say vishwin60. Giggy UCP 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Daniel and sketchy answers to BLP questions. Neil ╦ 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose - Per Daniel. You need to remember that OTRS volunteers have more information on the situation than you do. Also, the candidate's use of "trolling" when describing Nick's actions on IRC was wholly inappropriate. (Yes, I have logs, and am willing to e-mail them.) Sean William @ 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Daniel. WjBscribe 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.