Wikipedia:Editor review/Vishwin60 2

Vishwin60[edit]

Vishwin60 (talk · contribs) I want to be an admin sometime in the future. I want to know when would be a good time to apply for RFA and that if I have been making quality contributions. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Very high edit summary usage, which is very good. Your leadership role at WP:USRD is much appreciated, and you've come a long way since your first ER. You're also one of the few highways editors who doesn't have the WP:SRNC black eye. In regards to RFA... I'm getting the feeling that at least 5K edits and 6+ months are needed for adminship, and some vandal fighting and some good contribs. You definitely have the last two, but you're a bit short on the numbers. (Unfortunately, since I got RFA'ed, the standards have gone up...) But in a month or two I'd imagine that you would be ready. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

First ER: Wikipedia:Editor review/Vishwin60
View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
Don't admin him. He has wrongly accused persons of vandalism, rather than accepting Wikipedia's good faith policy. See his reversions to the [College Republican National Committee] article, which restored inaccurate information (her name IS Moffett). He also needlessly warned a user ("thank you for experimenting with wikipedia, sandbox etc) who had posted accurate information into the article, just is propping his edit count to meet your criteria at all costs basically. 69.249.195.232 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC) See the IP's talk page; IPs really don't have a voice in ERs and such. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IPs have as much of a right as anyone else. I think you're somewhat out of order striking a comment on your own editor review, instead of leaving it up to another editor. Computerjoe 's talk 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this comes off as overly critical, but you should read a bit more on policy before running for admin, based on your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Know More Media, Inc.. WP:CITE is "a style guide, describing how to create citations in articles" and says nothing about article deletion, even indirectly. Perhaps you meant WP:N, but it's still important to be very precise when referring to guidelines and policy if you're an admin. --W.marsh 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I just don't see it. In a lot of my dealings with you – direct and indirect – you seem to have a tendency to follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit. That's fine, Wikipedia needs a balance of admins on each side. But you also have a tendency to take this beyond policy to guidelines, which are meant to be broken for reasonable exceptions. Comments like this and this poll closure show a clear lack of understanding of the way Wikipedia works. -- NORTH ^talk 08:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I would have to say that my reverting of vandalism are some of the contributions that I am very pleased with. The reason for that is because it drives lots of edits into my edit count, and when I revert vandalism on somebody's user, user talk, or user subpage, I sometimes get a little thank you note posted on my talk page.
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?
Not right now I do not have any conflicts with anyone else. I would keep my cool when that ever happens.

Not true. He has become a bully regarding Indiana State Road 912, insisting that others have verifiable sources when he has none to support his "corrections," insisted that there is a sole source for information, inconsistent with the use of that source as described in the INSR project page merely to establish the highway's length, and threatened the privileges of persons who revert his inaccurate information. I fail to see how a student in the Philadelphia area became an authority on Indiana highways. See his User Talk. Busjack 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to a post on the User Talk, the statement that is untrue is "I would keep my cool when that ever happens." It may not be fraud (a false statement of present fact), but a promise that was quickly broken.

I don't know what power an administrator has, but as a person who has edited real legal encyclopedias for 30 years (and there are ways to verify that, if you have access to paid legal databases), I can say that this person does not have the temperament to be an editor. He or she arbitrarily interprets guidelines (some only to cryptic references to WP: that are incomprehensible to people who are not members of those groups), and defines what is an acceptable source, without conforming to those polices him or herself, and without any concern whether the presentation is factually correct. (Are statements such as "if you can find a USGS map depicting the location of SR 912, I'll leave it there" appropriate?) From what is posted in the user talk by others, she or he also doesn't abide by the consensus procedure in those projects. Because we are dealing with someone who says on the user page that the person will be unavailable at certain times "because of school on weekdays," I fear that we have someone whose sense of purpose exceeds her or his experience, knowledge, or discernment. Maybe this person should read Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Busjack 14:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]