Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shyamal

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shyamal (talk | contribs) at 03:28, 10 June 2007 (→Questions for the candidate: concerns for expert editors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shyamal

Voice your opinion (20/7/5); Scheduled to end 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Shyamal (talk · contribs) - I am nominating myself for administrative privileges. Joined wikipeda at the end of 2002 but real interest came only on seeing the situation in 2004. My subject interests are restricted primarily to those areas in which I can see myself competent enough. Shyamal 05:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: My area of interest is primarily within the context of WP:TOL and may be geographically confined to the vicinity of India. I currently have about 4300 articles on my watch list but this is going to go up with more biodiversity related material starting under Fauna of India#Taxonomic lists and indices (megabiodiversity is a term used here).

Questions for the candidate

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: I would be most interested in articles that are not on anybody's watchlist, article moves, merges and in protection of good articles and a little vandal blocking. I am also concerned about expert editors and would want to offer to protect their pages and work from vandalism. I am not aware of all the tools available. Merge with history is an especially useful tool in the context of WP:TOL entries where we frequently run into taxon merges. (This is as much as I can honestly and minimally commit myself to at this moment.)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have worked on several biographical articles such as Allan Octavian Hume and this is probably the most comprehensive material on the man at least on the Internet. I also work on (higher level taxa) popular faunal groups such as ant, bird, insect, butterfly etc. I also contribute photographs and illustrations.
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 have not been in any major conflicts, and if there is any point that is reverted I make sure that I put across my position on the talk page and leave it at that. I have seen enough life and deaths to not take any of these seriously. I have always tried to use rational and civil approaches to dealing with any topic and do not see any difference in future approaches. I am however a big proponent of policies that are people independent, if there is a policy the system should enforce it. I am sure more conflict will help wikimedia evolve into better social software.

Optional question from TwoOars

4. Under what circumstances would you A) semi-protect B) fully protect an article?
If I saw persistent vandalism on good articles and featured articles from multiple anons, I would think of a semi-protect. I would also consider it if the article was currently under collaboration of a project. I would probably avoid full protection, being recently frustrated myself at being unable to work on Elephant. Shyamal 07:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4a.Do you think there are circumstances that call for full protection? What would you do if you encountered them?DGG 18:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, WP:PROTECT has not much contentions regarding full protection. High visibility and vandal-targetted articles and high server load templates articles deserve protection. An admin would obviously be able to continue editing an article, but my earlier encounter with a blocked article resulted only in my leaving a note on the talk page and a loss of momentary impetus to improve an article. If I encountered the circumstance, I doubt I would have to apply the full protect myself given the long discussions that follow in getting consensus. Shyamal 01:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Sr13

5. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). As an administrator, how rigorously would you enforce this?
Only as rigorously as I would enforce WP:RS and WP:CITE, would depend on the content. I do not deal with many biographies of living persons. I suspect that there is currently more action when negative information is being added. If occasion should arise I would probably do the same for positive info lest the article look like a hagiography. Shyamal 10:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from icewedge

6. In your opinion which rule on Wikipedia is the least important?
I am essentially abstaining from this question, but some comments - although I follow all the basic rules, I do not intend to take too much time on enforcing all the policies on all the articles that I might encounter. My wish as already stated would be that the system reduces the administrative burden as much as possible. Shyamal 01:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

  1. Have often come across his name while browsing articles on butterflies and similar topics. He may not use the tools a great deal but is just the sort of specialist editor who could use the tools to work unobtrusively in his area without bothering others. Passes the "can be trusted with tools" criteria hands down. Tintin 06:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right in the sense that he can be trusted with the tools. I would not be willing to support a candidate that has the tools, but is not using them to the level that is expected of an administrator. The amounts of backlogs are increasing daily, and giving the tools out to those who won't use them seems a bit wasteful to me. –Sebi ~ 06:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The counter-argument is that rejecting him does not do anything to improve the backlog status. If anything, if he becomes an admin, he will be able to take care of the admin issues in his area (handling vandals, CSDs, deleting categories and stuff like that) and free up a little time from the external admins who may be doing that at the moment. (PS : Shyamal hasn't said anything about not working in other areas. It was may (possibly erroneous) assumption) Tintin 07:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If he is interested in doing those things, then he should put that in his answer. If he does not show the need for the tools, then I won't feel the need to support him. Even if he does intend to take on those things should this RFA pass, he has not specified this in his answer. –Sebi ~ 07:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for Spebi: How exactly is it a waste? What resources are being wasted when tools are given to those who won't use them often?- TwoOars 07:(edit conflict) Bad wording - what I was trying to say was why give the tools to someone whose answer to Q1 seems very bland and shows no need for the tools, when we could be giving the tools to someone who would use them to help with backlogs, and other administrative tasks. Technically giving users the tools really isn't wasting any resources, but rather pointless if they aren't going to be doing anything with them. –Sebi ~ 07:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    when we could be giving the tools to someone who would use them : Of course; giving the tools to this user does not mean we can not give them to some other user. It is not like there is a limited set of these "tools" available. Besides, what need for tools is being assessed when users create new accounts? In fact no one needs to do anything on wikipedia. - TwoOars 08:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support A fine editor making a significant contribution. Will not abuse the tools or be a problem admin. The comments about "wasting" adminship made above seem off the mark...I just don't see adminship that way. —Gaff ταλκ 07:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support You are a great editor, I will not deny that. I have a few concerns, but I am sure that you should be able to smooth those over should you your request be approved. –Sebi ~ 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, good contributor, who would unlikely abuse admin tools. You have my vote. --Tone 10:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Thi is a very experienced editor who has no evidence of abuse in his background. Surely we can trust him with the tools even if he doesn't plan on using the tools constantly. JodyB talk 13:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I have worked with Shyamal in the context of the Indian butterfly endeavour and found him to be a reliable, dependable and quiet worker who has taken much trouble to find valuable facts and images, and in some cases, create diagrams of great usefulness for articles. I feel that if he is made an administrator he will be a responsible and valuable contributor through these kind of activities also. I disagree with the arguments put forth in oppose for denying adminship based on an opinion or point of view about policy or vandalism. I feel this acceptance or rejection should be based on track record and performance.AshLin 17:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support I am going to support him because I have faith he will be a reliable user but I can not offer him strong support because of his fairly low edit count. Good luck!:)--James, La gloria è a dio 16:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What does editcount have to do with adminship? Quality > Quantity. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Has 12,588 edits right now. How many do you want to see?--Anthony.bradbury 19:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - No need for tools is a crap reason to oppose. Adminship is "no big deal" and only giving it to rabid vandalfighters is the wrong mentality. No one 'needs' the tools until they get them anyway. This is a good science writer, he has been around for a long time and has always been trustworthy. There isn't a better reason to give him adminship in the world. pschemp | talk 18:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's trustworthy, alright, but don't you think it is a bit troubling to see that he doesn't have complete knowledge over the capabilities of administrator tools? Nishkid64 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is alright. (I assume) it is not rocket science and that Shyamal will learn fast enough. I may be wrong of course. - TwoOars 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah, *nobody* has a complete understanding of the tools until they start using them. I certainly didn't. Many people think they do, but they don't. Shyamal is not an idiot, and I'm confident he can learn whatever he needs too. pschemp | talk 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I should have rephrased. I meant complete knowledge of the basic tools (protect, delete, block). In any case, I have reconsidered and switched from neutral to support. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I am a little concerned though with your answer to Q4. I think it would do you good to read up WP:PROTECT again. And your statement "I am not aware of all the tools available" does not inspire confidence; since you say you had already read up WP:ADMIN, I am assuming that you do know something about adminship. But really, you need to work more on your answers. In spite of all this I support because I believe trustworthiness is more important than policy knowledge and your contributions show that you have done consistently good work for ~10 months now and I have not seen any other issues like incivility and I am confident that you will not misuse admin privileges. I hope you will read up all the proper policies and be very sure before you fire up the rockets. :) Good luck. - TwoOars 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support This user may not intend to be as active a vandal fighter as some admins; but there is more to adminship than vandal fighting. Obviously will not abuse the tools, so as it's no big deal, should have them.--Anthony.bradbury 19:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Plenty of experience. Lack of "need for the tools" is not a good enough reason to oppose, given that we need more admins, and any help is appreciated. WaltonAssistance! 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry? Lack of need for the tools is not a good enough reason to oppose... So, exactly what is the point of being an admin except getting some tools / buttons? If the candidate doesn't need the tools why give them the tools? I'm sorry but your argument is nonsensical. You cite WP:CSD and then say the editor doesn't need any tools - what's the candidate going to do then? Watch the backlog build? Pedro |  Chat  20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Walton said any help is appreciated. Meaning, if Shyamal blocks one vandal in a month (or even a year) or deletes one nonsense page or protects one page from vandalism, it is good enough. Besides, no one is losing anything by his getting the admin privileges. - TwoOars 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    TwoOars has said exactly what I meant; sorry if I didn't explain myself properly. I was basically trying to counteract the argument that because someone doesn't "need" the tools in their day-to-day work and/or has not shown that they will use them regularly, we should give them the tools anyway. Even if a user will only use the tools occasionally, giving them the tools will not necessarily be harmful to Wikipedia. There are only three criteria that count in evaluating an RfA: whether the user understands what an admin does; whether the user is experienced enough to use the tools properly; and whether the user can be trusted. This candidate satisfies all three criteria. WaltonAssistance! 20:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to both Walton and TwoOars- it clarifies the intent and meaning, as much to me as to other editors who may be intending to jon this RfA. I hope you understand my reasons for trying to generate this clarification.Pedro |  Chat  20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. A need for the tools and will do something with them.Pedro |  Chat  20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Experienced, reasonable, willing to help. Is there anything I'm missing here? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per Anetode. This is getting a little insane. User's trustworthy + user wants the tools = give user the tools. 12,000+ edits and STILL people are grumbling about too few? I need a drink. Philippe 21:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Looks good except I wish he had more WP space edits. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I was originally neutral on this, but I have changed my mind. As Carom mentioned, I am a little worried by your apparent lack of knowledge about the Wikipedia administrative processes. In Q1, you stated you weren't totally knowledgeable of all administrative processes, so I suggest you read WP:ADMIN, which should tell you what admins can and cannot do. Also, in Q4, you said you would avoid full protection. I don't think you understand when to use full protection (it's used primarily for edit wars, or temporary cleanup of vandalism). Since you said you wanted to do article protection, it may best that you read protection policy and familiarize yourself with semi-protection and full-protection. I hope that after reading Wikipedia policies, you will be able to understand protection, blocking, deleting, etc. Do that, and then you'll be fine as an admin. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I've seen him around the biology-related articles from time to time and he always seems to be doing something constructive and useful to them. Humility in answering the questions shouldn't be working against him; just try to find any admin who's familiar with every administrative tool and process. Possession of common sense dramatically outweighs familiarity with the dots and tittles of policy documents. The opposition currently appears to be incoherent. Opabinia regalis 22:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Need admins to help in specialist areas. Can be trusted with the tools. Will use them as needed. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support in defiance of obsession over dots and tittles. This is a solid user. ~ Infrangible 23:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, a good editor i've had the pleasure of working with for a while. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I currently don't see a need for the tools. Your article work is fine, but your last message in an XfD was 5 days ago, whilst your second last participation in XfD was on May 11. 117 Wikipedia space edits, mainly WikiProjects, just isn't enough experience. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 06:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know about all the tools available, but the one that I do know about is one that I know I can use. I am not sure if XfD is the primary criteria needed for admins. I am sure that we need people for a variety of tasks. I also have some philosophical objections to the current RFAs requiring one to be a vandal fighter. It appears that by making the system susceptible to vandalism, we obtain an army of vandal fighters with a great sense of ingroup-ism. I would as above consider vandalism as a symptom to be cured at a root cause level rather than at symptom level. (I see now that the AfD nominator for the article in question was you and note that my response may have upset you. Sorry if so, but I do keep a lookout for deletion cases that need more competence on the parts of editors/delete nominators) Shyamal 07:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for tools is a crap reason to oppose. Adminship is "no big deal" and only giving it to rabid vandalfighters is the wrong mentality. No one 'needs' the tools until they get them anyway. Neither is experience measured in pure edit counts, but in quality and time spent. I'm shocked at the pettiness going on here. Does anyone have an actual valid reason to oppose? pschemp | talk 18:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Do not see need for tools. Also I would like to say that the main reason that vandal fighters and people who help out on AFD is because these are the people who need the tools. Vandal fighters are not the most important people on the encyclopedia everyone knows that. The most important people are article creators and maintainers. But Vandal fighting and deleting articles are both very important tasks as well and your apparent disdain for them alarms me. To be honest I was probably going to answer neutral until I saw your response to G1ggy's vote. --St.daniel Talk 11:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I use twinkle and popups for reverting these days. Disdain is not the way I would word it, but I am sure most of the older editors here are not so enthusiastic about vandal fighting, especially when stopping anonymous editing saves so much of the trouble in most cases. It is time to focus on article improvement and stability and that is not an easy task if there is so much easily prevented vandalism. Prevention is so much better. Shyamal 11:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. I see you are having fun with your sport of vandal fighting ! :) Semiprotection of articles might be like banning firearms ! Well, regarding deletion, I am only watching out for the growing new trend of editors who apply proposed-deletions to apparently prod the article into better shape and then others who apply AfDs because nobody touched an article for a long time or arguments such as need community opinion. There are articles which should be referred to a relevant wikiproject if an editor needs comments. These should not be solved by putting AfDs or prods(like this for instance). Shyamal 12:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose regretfully, however editor does not demonstrate any need for the tools, and answer to Q4 makes me wonder if any of the editor's decisions as an admin would be based on his or her personal like or dislike for a policy rather then the actual policy or community consensus thereof. Also, answer to Q1 makes me wonder if editor has visited WP:ADMIN to see what the tools are, or gain more information about being an administrator. PGWG 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indeed spent time looking at WP:ADMIN. I would not consider the documentation there as very comprehensive. I understand that you can do moves to non-empty targets while retaining edit history. The page for instance does not mention it. I see it is called merge with history. I also see that interiot's page mentions many interesting tools that are accessible only to administrators. Shyamal 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose User is a spammer. --66.249.19.19 16:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please log in before voting. Also, provide proofs for your statments. --Tone 16:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    :) this one looks interesting ! Shyamal 16:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose your answer to question one makes me wonder if you know enough about being an admin to become one. And question four is a little concerning to me too. Hopefully you will take some time to read up on being an admin, and come back then. BH (T|C) 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per BH. "Becoming aware" of the tools doesn't take that much time, just a thorough reading of the provided documents. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 00:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Lack of a coherent reason for needing the tools, coupled with a general feeling that this user does not have a good understanding of the policies relevant to the use of the tools. Also a little concerned by the impression that this user thinks that restricting editing privileges is the best way to stop vandalism [1]. I would hesitate to give the blocking and protection tools to a user with that apparent philosophy. TigerShark 01:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral A good editor, but not really seeing a need for tools. Watching over pages that "that are not on anybody's watchlist" isn't really an admin thing in my opinion. I suggest working on the answers. Jmlk17 06:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what they means is, they want access to Unwatched Pages to see if there's anything in their field that should be added to their own watchlist — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Agreeing with Giggy's comments, but I must say your mainspace edits are impressive. I advise you to be more involved with the Wikipedia community. This means, participate in XfDs, etc. Plus, your answer to Q1 doesn't really show much of a need for administrator tools. Fix these things and in a couple of months you should be ready for adminship. Take care, –Sebi ~ 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Changed to support, per comments by other users. –Sebi ~ 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral seeing as I'm editing this box anyway; as all you edits are in a specialist field I'm not competent to judge, I don't feel qualified to comment on their (and hence, your) validity. I'm concerned at your "I am not aware of all the tools available" in Q1 - if you don't know what the tools are, how do you know you need them? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even a normal editor runs through a learning curve getting all the ways to navigate around. I use AWB sometimes and each time I need to go through some trials to recollect the procedure and I am sure I use less than 1% of its features :) So you may have a point there ! Shyamal 17:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I'm a little concerned about the answer to the first question, which doesn't seem to demonstrate proper knowledge of what, exactly, an administrator does. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with the tools a little more and expand your answer? Carom 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wow, over 12,000 edits and been around for quite a while (account registered in 2002). The answers however, especially to Q1, are really weak, making me uncomfortable to support just now. —AldeBaer 18:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I believe this user has made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia. However, I'm a little concerned about his rather low count in the project namespace. Also, due to the answer to question 1, I am worried I doesn't really know what admins will be doing. Gutworth 20:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shyamal&oldid=137172980"