Wikipedia:Editor review/Siva1979 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Siva1979

Siva1979 (talk · contribs) The main reason why I am requesting for a second review is that I am thinking of self-nominating myself for adminship in the near future. I have previously experienced three failed RfAs. The first RfA was on April 2006. The second one was in June 2006 and the third one was in August 2006. All of these RfAs were NOT self-nominations. Based on my edits from August 2006, I need critical comments on the quality of my edits. If I am able to gain a significant analysis of my edits, I would be better prepared to decide whether I should run for adminship again after about three months. I would like my fellow editors to point out their concerns and tell me whether I am likely to finally pass a fourth RfA. I have to admit that a fourth failure in this harsh process would be quite difficult to take! This is the main reason why I have to make sure that the concerns of my fellow editors are addressed first before nominating myself. Thank you for your time and kind understanding in this matter. Siva1979Talk to me 05:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I have no major knowledge of your edits; however, I guarantee you that you won't succeed unless you hold it off until December or so. People will frown upon four RFAs in six months. Wish I could be of more help to you. Ral315 (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur with Ral315 that 4 RFAs in such a short time, a self-nomination further more so, will be used to oppose you. Other than that, you might want to look at your contributions to "vote" discussions to see if they may be misconstrued, and try to change them. Otherwise, I can't find anything. – Chacor 08:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I recommend going through the oppose votes in your most recent (and maybe the older) RFA. For instance, an editor brought this article up, noting that you started and didn't expand it: 1989-90 in Scottish football. It seems the article is still in that state. In repeat nominations I often go back and check what the problem areas were and if the nominee addressed them. The issue of AfDs was clearly on a lot of editors' minds, so make sure this is settled to everybody's satisfaction. And I concur, I wouldn't consider another run until early next year. (And it's ok to turn down offers for nomination until then. It's your call to decide when you're ready.) ~ trialsanderrors 09:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of your edits outside the main namespace seem to serve only the purpose of increasing your namespace edit count. Many of these are not useful at all, like this insertion of an unhelpful link or this linking to an inactive project. Your mass edits to image talk pages like Image talk:Epsomandewellfc.jpg are also completely redundant with the edit they explain and its edit summary. Also, I don't see what you need administrator tools for, as I don't see deletion nominations, listings of copyvios or serious vandal-fighting. Your apparently strong wish to become an admin and to fit into RfA standards also do not inspire much confidence - I would prefer if you could just use (and show) your own common sense and judgment instead of trying to be how others want you to be. Kusma (討論) 09:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All good feedback to date. i agree that given your frequent trips to RfA you need to hold off in this one. The longer the better. There is definitely a negative vibe against those returning to RfA after the minimum period. Much better to err on the side of caution and hold off until new year, at least. Second, you should not be tailoring edits for adminship. It stands out. Working on your own projects will cause you to go where you need. You need to have enough edits in the bag to allow users to see how you work with others. Your football projects are going pretty well. i noticed your attempt to get the logos all up todate with the correct tags. However, it is a concern that you have left some pages untouched, re: 1989-90 in Scottish football. Definitely do not self nom, if you are not getting offer for nomination then it is defintiely too early. But you need to use your jedgement here because quite a few people jump on the first nomination that turns up without considering if they are really ready. or should I say do not consider if the community is really ready. For your upcoming RfA you need to have a strong nominator that is going to do a lot more than just say "here's Silva, a good chap with tons of edits, been around for a while and definitely deserves the mop". That kind of nom would make me lean to oppose. You need some one that is going to present your case in the strongest fashion. Someone who takes the time to reserch your contributions and present them to the community. Yourself, you need to consider how your work on the encyclopedia could be made more efficient with the tools, as well as how you can use the tools to the benefit of the enccylopedia. It is so easy to just list off the usual stuff, block vandals, speedy delete etc. But you need to do more than that. Outline a situation where you had to request help from an admin to either block or delete a page. Feel free to ask more questions if you feel this is not helpful. David D. (Talk) 21:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's Tool (Firefox only).
  • I haven't reviewed the contribution. You give an impression of a person who is pursuing adminship very much. As a result your next RfA will probably fail as well, unless lots of time elapses and you make some excellent contributions in the interim. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Siva, thanks for asking. I do agree it's way to soon for another RfA. Of course, now is the time to look at what needs fixing to have things straightened out for later. I would say at least January. I think some !voters are harder on repeat RfA's than on the 1st one. Another problem with repeat RfA's, as the Russion points out, is "longing for adminship". I will go through your edits and see what I see. It may take a while, I'm working more than I prefer to. I've noticed you voting "oppose" on RfA's, so hopefully that matter is cleared up. We don't always agree on AfD, you're more of an inclusionist than I am. That's OK, we need to look at AfD from more than one angle. Some of the opposers on your last RfA were more stringent than I am. For instance, I don't know how you will deal with Kusma's critique. Good luck. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi, Siva-- A quick survey of your edits makes me think you need to take part in more XfD discussions and vandalism fighting/reporting. You might want to ask one of the admins about the possibilty of closing AfD's as a non-admin. I see you've started welcoming visitors. I think it's important to let people know what the rules are form the start. Welcoming is also an opportunity to review new pages and nip problems in the bud as well as making small, meaningful edits. I would also recommend tackling articles for clean-up. There are thousands of them. If you shape some of them up, you may meet some critics' desire for more substantial edits. Hope this helps. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Siva: you're a valuable, committed editor who clearly desires to be as involved in the project as possible. Balance your edits between technical stuff and content creation, keep your eyes and ears open to all the feedback you get and (you won't like this part) wait until February for your next RfA. You're not the first to have got caught in this situation, nobody wants to see you get knocked back again and lose faith in the project. Deizio talk 00:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have essentially the same issues with you that I did on the original vote. You rarely, if ever, actually make substantive contributions to the encyclopedia, apart from making automated vandal reversions, minor project edits and making votes on RfA, and it seems that your entire presence here is aimed towards the goal of adminship. Should I see some genuine (and not insignificant) work on the encyclopedia, I will think about changing my vote, or at least lessening it from a strong oppose. Rebecca 01:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with the above. Give it some time and make some quality contributions to Wikipedia articles. All of your actions point to a desperate attempt at attaining adminship status. After some time, and a lot of substantial article edits and a less zealous persuit of adminship, I would be happy to support. Wikipediarules2221 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello Siva1949. Out of respect I am telling you that, due both the huge backlog there still is here (up to now, 10 review needed), and the amount of reviews you have had, I will be skipping you. If the backlock lessens, I may come back and do the review later. I thought it would be good to mention this, in case you wonder why I am skipping you. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I voted against you because of your actions in afds. I recall after that Striver incident that you went to every afd of his articles and seemed to systematically vote keep regardless of the content of the article. That to me seemed in bad form and that is why I voted the way I did.--Jersey Devil 18:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You should forget about edit counts, and you should forget about wanting to be an administrator and doing things specifically in order to become an administrator. Instead, you should make substantive, productive contributions to the content of the encyclopedia and become involved in policy matters where it specifically interests you. If in the course of that you have demonstrated an understanding of policy you will naturally become an administrator. Right now, it just looks like you are doing everything just so you can become an administrator; the goal instead is to help improve an encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 21:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer: I am pleased to be able to remove all the red-links of English soccer clubs in the English football league system from step 1 to 6. I have also created links for all the English soccer leagues from step 1 to 7. Although most of the articles I have created are just stubs, I have recently began to add images to these articles. I have also incresed the content for some of these articles. I also wish to give credit to other users who were able to expand some of these articles into having a more encyclopedic content. I also welcome new IP addresses and users and added signatures for comments that lack proper signatures. I have also taken the initiative to start articles on all the football seasons within the English football league and Scottish football league. Lately, I have fixed some of the older portal pages and directed them to the correct Portal namespaces. I have also more accurately categorized and added more defined licensing logos to most of the the football images of the various non-league teams. However, this has yet to be completed. I am also pleased in helping out to categorize uncategorized articles within this project as well.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts 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?
    Answer: Yes, I have been through a few minor conflicts but I always maintain a personal policy of one-revert rule. In this mannar, by discussing with the other users of their conflicts with mine, I am able to more clearly understand their point of view. This causes me to feel more at ease with their reversions and in this manner, stress is removed from my mind and editing on Wikipedia begins to be more enjoyable after the initial conflict. I will most likely follow this course of action in any potential future conflicts as well.