User:Deeptrivia/q

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

I'm planning to be almost overcautious with disputes in the beginning, focussing attention on janitor's work. I'm already using godmode-lite for rollback. Sysop privilege will help me get involved in WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, WP:RM and WP:CV. Once I gain confidence and good experience with responsible usage of these powers, and a good reputation as an admin, I'll participate in more areas, like closing debates, WP:PP, WP:RFP and content dispute mediation.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

Malwa, which was my first FA. History of the rupee, on which I worked non-stop for several hours one night, Indian cuisine, which got me my first barnstar, Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi, which I'm working on right now. I am also happy with my contributions towards the revival of the History of India wikiproject, which was created by some anon IPs, but which no Indian editors knew about. I consider the responsibility of managing Portal:Buddhism | Portal:Hinduism to be a great privilege.

3. 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?

After getting serious with wikipedia, I've experienced stress on one occasion last December. I had proposed a name change for the Arabic numerals article, which was changed to Hindu-Arabic numerals by consensus, though, perhaps a bit hastily. The move, however, was confused by some new participants to be a bad-faith part of the revert war already going on there. Thus, another round of voting was carried out. Over 60% editors opposed the change to "Arabic numerals" (requirement was 40%), but the article was still moved by the admin, due to some confusion. In the end, however, with the intervention of a bureaucrat, the article name was changed back to Hindu-Arabic numerals by the same adminstrator. Later, the name was changed back to "Arabic numerals" by another editor, apparently unaware of the previous consensus. I've discussed the issue with him, and hopefully, at some point the move will be reverted. What disturbed me the most in this process was that many users who voted on either side thought this was a nationalistic issue/POV-pushing/religious or ethnic sentiment, etc; while it's purely a WP:MoS issue. My reasons for the proposal are here. I think all this confusion could have been avoided if I had just better timed my proposal. I am glad that I stayed calm during this process, which was, at times, a bit frustrating. I decided not to pursue the matter further for the time because I thought it surely wasn't the most productive usage of my wiki-time.

In the past two months, I've observed myself and other users, trying to analyse what exactly is the source of conflicts on wikipedia. I feel that a significant number of conflicts on wikipedia are rooted in different manifestations of ego-clashes. Looking at interactions on wikipedia as a Zen practice, and trying to be Mettāful at all time, I think I have succeeded in avoiding many conflicts, not only between me and other editors, but between other editors. I intend to further strengthen this Mettā practice in future.

4. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do? I think an allegation of sockpuppetry is quite serious and I would never base in simply on my perception. After getting fully convinced by filing a request at Requests for CheckUser, I would discuss the results of the request with the editor. A well-known and respected editor would most likely accept his/her fault, and accept not to continue with sockpuppetry, in which case, I would not disclose the matter to more editors, since such a scandalization can be highly demotivating.

5. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

In this case I would first try my best to convince the admin about why the article should not have been deleted, possibly involve a few more admins, and then respect whatever the consensus is.

6. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

I think this depends a good deal on the article. If it is patent nonsense, and my interest in deleting them is purely to keep wikipedia free of nonsense, I think it would be appropriate for me to block the user. If it's an article that's not completely nonsense, but something I think is POV, then I would rather involve other admins.

7. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

I would probably spend a good deal of time discussing this with the other admin.

I joined wikipedia in May 2005, but didn't take it seriously enough for the first five months, using it as a stress reliever in the midst of the personal problems I was going through, as a means to vent off my frustrations and get over depression. I think I did too many stupid things, including vandalism and sockpuppetry, on wikipedia during this 5 month period, apart from some good work. In November, though, after getting banned for sockpuppetry, I've completely transformed not only my wiki-life, but my real life too. Since then, I've developed a new relationship with wikipedia, which I plan to continue forever.