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

Siva1979

Final (66/32/9) ended 14:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Siva1979 (talk · contribs) – An excellent contributor who has now been here for the magic six months that many people require, with approaching 10 000 edits. Siva is tenacious and has casued an explosion in the number of articles on soccer clubs; Siva has also developed the English football league system with impressive depth and dedication. I think this editor would make a great admin; the many barnstars on Siva's user page help show this more than anything else! As an English football fan I thought I'd step in front of the others who wanted to nominate and get in there first!

Siva has one previous RfA, from April 2006. This was nomianted by User:Tdxiang largely thanks to Siva's work on the SGpedian's noticed board. The nomination failed mainly due to Siva's inexperience. Robdurbar 10:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I co-nominate. Raichu 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, as his former nominator, co-nominate too.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Hand the mop over already I supported first --Mahogany 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support He's gained much experience since the last RfA. I think he can be more than trusted with the buttons -- Samir धर्म 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - a lot more experience and could use the tools (having just come from a 150 page CSD backlog... we need people ... badly...) -- Tawker 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support looks like a comptetent and trustworthy editor - will be the same as an admin. --Bachrach44 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support ForestH2
  6. Support. I have seen Siva do a lot of good work of football-related topics, I have absolutely no reason to believe the tools will be misused. Rje 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Looks like a great and constructive editor. --digital_me(t/c) 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support Amazing editor & great guy. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - wonderful editor. Timing's a bit of a non-issue for me: he's (in my opinion) certainly worthy of the mop. --Celestianpower háblame 16:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I voted support last time, so I'll vote support this time too. Also, has plenty of portal talk edits. Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to oppose. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support good editor, will not abuse his power, and a kind person. The Gerg 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. A RadioKirk cliché support. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support ON WHEELS!! Helpful editor, constructive criticism. --Sunholm(talk) 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Can't think of a reason why not. Clearly a good user who will use the tools for the good of the project. Redux 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --W.marsh 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. No reason to think powers will be poorly used.Voice-of-AllTalk 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose.Voice-of-AllTalk 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support will use the tools well. Rama's Arrow 18:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Jaranda wat's sup 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support despite the negative response to question 6, this user can easily be trusted. People shouldn't be expected to know absolutely everything there is to know as a new administrator, and new administrators have learning to do as well. This user can definitely be trusted and has made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. It is also my opinion that lately administrator standards have become much too high, but that's another issue. I say hand him the mop. Cowman109Talk 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support - A superb user. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Siva1979 has been pitching in for a while now. After gaining more experience since his first RfA, I believe that Siva is now better prepared and suited for a mop. --Jay(Reply) 20:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support. Great user and would centainly make good use of the new tools. G.He 21:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. DVD+ R/W 21:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support good reliable editor with significant contributions to Wikipedia in his fields of interest. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strongest Possible Super Ultra Mega Support He is the friendliest user I have ever seen, although he doesn't meet my usual nine months. Raichu 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support "useless" edits like the one found by Kusma shouldn't be a reason to oppose. At least the other user now knows that there are people in the Wikipedia community who are willing to help him out! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...one year later, when the issue had been fixed ages ago. Kusma (討論) 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support "a good user". ;) —Khoikhoi 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Yeh, this user should be admin :) --Osbus 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - very good editor abakharev 03:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support. Definitely. DarthVader 04:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, friendly and great user. --Terence Ong 04:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - A very good editor Bharatveer 06:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Good Editor. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Not really convinced by any of the oppose reasons. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 09:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. A dedicated, committed user across many areas of the project. Zaxem 10:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support as nominator --Robdurbar 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per all above and nom. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 12:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Absolutely Support. How's that for a vote of confidence? :) RandyWang (raves/rants) 13:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Really Weak SupportI'll vote support, but the canidate better be good or I go to oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangsta-Easter-Bunny (talk • contribs)
  41. Support per nom. Good user, nice work. --Tone 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support seems like a great candidate hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Everything indicates he would be a great admin.--Aldux 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Pepsidrinka 01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support this time. I have some reservations about beliefs regarding Adminship but that's not enough for me to oppose. I've seen a lot of Siva and all communication seems positive and enthusiastic. That's more than the min requirement of civil and gets a support from me now. MLA 08:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. I am a little concerned that Siva may not be fully up to speed in some important areas; but that is far outweighed by his willingness to listen and to be reasonable. I'd much rather have admins who made a few mistakes and learnt from them, than admins who only make one mistake but refuse to admit they are wrong. Good luck Siva. Captainj 10:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Good user. -- Shizane talkcontribs 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. No significant problems with this candidate—sure, there's more to learn, but we all should be able to say that. RadioKirk talk to me 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support because this user supported me in a previous nomination. Axiomm 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Would help WP with the tools. GizzaChat © 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Mostly Rainy 02:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Despite some slightly controversial answers to the below questions, this user is excellent and will make a fine administrator. --Firsfron of Ronchester 09:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support as per nominator. E Asterion u talking to me? 16:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support Good Editor, will become excellent admin. - Holy Ganga talk 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I have interacted with this user on FAC before, and have had nothing but a positive experience. RyanGerbil10 05:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - great editor, will be an asset with the mop. --james(lets talk) 10:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Many excellent contributions. ImpuMozhi 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Adminship is not a big deal. I find some administrators whose contributions to articles have dropped significantly, I do believe that Shiva shall maintain a balance. I also believe that he shall not misuse the tools like some of the existing administrators have been doing to silence the voice and kill the new wikipedians before their take-off. --Bhadani 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, excellent candidate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. All experiences have been positive. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Forceful support as co-nominator.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, active and helpful. PJM 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Geo.plrd 22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. -Hanuman Das 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose - Too soon since last RFA. Otherwise, should be okay, and would support a future, well-timed RFA. NSLE (T+C) at 15:17 UTC (2006-06-01)
    Wait, so you mean if this was threee months later, you'll support? --Osbus 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose, I am also a bit turned off by completely useless edits such as this one. Kusma (討論) 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with that edit? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 08:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably nothing, except that it shows he didn't check the post dates. There is a 2 month interlude between those posts. --tjstrf 09:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is a 1 year and 2 month difference. AndyZ t 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose- Overall a wonderful editor and good potential admin, but as one who would block vandals, would be hampered by scarcity (total lack?) of vandal revisions and reports to AIV. Otherwise someone I would gladly support. :) Dlohcierekim 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose due to Siva's answer to question 6. I can't see any justification for dodging process in this way. It is perfectly possible that on day 4 or 5 of an AfD nomination that has received nothing but 'delete' votes (at which point Siva says he would close the nomination and delete the article), someone may turn up new evidence or rewrite the article in a way that turns the nomination around. For example, Alice Barnham (AfD) was nominated on April 27 when it was a tiny stub. 3 editors opined for delete, 2 for merge and none for keeping. Another editor found evidence of notability on May 2nd (day 7), then massively expanded the article on May 3rd (day 8), and the article was kept. This is why we hold our fire on non-CSD articles for at least five days, even when consensus looks overwhelming. The sky is not going to fall tomorrow. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I wish to thank you for pointing this out to me. I acknowledge that your opposing comments on this matter is totally justified. I will definitely take your comments under strong consideration if I am involved in an AfD process under the capacity of an admin. You are also right that it is possible that someone may turn up new evidence in the last minute to justify the existence of the article on Wikipedia. I have to admit that up till now, I did not consider this possibility. Thank You once again for pointing this out to me. It would only make me a better editor (or an admin if my nomination is a success) in the future. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose responses to questions 4,5 & 6 don't convince me that policies and guidelines will take precedence over the editor's gut impressions. Also past RFA voting pattern concerns me. Pete.Hurd 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. The answer to Cyde's question about AfD appears to me to be wrong on approximately 4 seperate counts. -Splashtalk 20:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. He seems to be a good, maybe even great contributor, and we should all appreciate his presence here, but I wouldn't trust him as an admin. He seems a bit too hasty on his decision making. Also, he seems to think anyone nominated should become an admin unless they are an incorrigable vandal. --tjstrf 20:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Pete.Hurd and Cyde's questions. Ral315 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Ral315 - although I do acknowledge he definitely is a friendly editor! That's not enough for me though, sorry. --JoanneB 22:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose A good user, but perhaps not quite ready to be an admin, per Ral315's reasoning above. --Wisden17 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per above. A good and dedicated editor, but I think he needs a bit more time to understand some of the principles of Wikipedia. FreplySpang 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Too soon after last RfA which was not a close call. Lack of discrimination (or excess desire to please) shown by numerous supports in other RfAs. Nice guy, but needs to develop strength of individual judgement. Tyrenius 03:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I was disappointed by his responses to my question, particularly how he emphasized policy, process, and guidelines as more important than goals, when, of course, the goals are the most important things and the other three just help us get closer to those goals. Policy, process, and guidelines are meaningless if we aren't making progress towards our goal of building an encyclopedia. Also, he seems to think that Afd is a vote and that Afds can be closed at around three or four days time. I don't think this is a good idea ... either the Afd is closed within the first day because it meets or nearly meets a speedy deletion criteria or it should run for the full five days. And finally, this user's blanket supports of so many other requests for adminship leave me to question his motives; does he honestly believe that >90% of the candidates at Rfa would make good admins? All of these faults can be fixed in time as Siva gains a greater understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia's inner workings and starts to more critically evaluate Rfa candidates, but for now, I must oppose. --Cyde↔Weys 03:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment First of all, I wish to thank you deeply for the reasons you gave on why you are disappointed to the answers I gave. Your comments would be taken into serious consideration. However, I wish to point out that I never view AfD as vote counting. If 10 incompetent users vote for an excellent article to be deleted and 2 excellent editors (based on the history and number of edits) vote to keep the article, I would most probably not delete it. The nature and type of users would be taken into consideration. Of course, if 10 excellent editors were to voice out their support for an article to be deleted, I would delete it as their voice carries much weight compared to newer editors in the project. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. If 10 excellent editors vote to delete an article, and then one new editor comes and claims that he can verify the article's notability, and then makes edits to reflect this, which do you trust? Even if the other editors have much better edit histories, that doesn't mean they would necessarily know about every subject, and many new editors make geniune efforts to salvage articles, but due to their lack of "insider" knowledge (e.g. proper policies to appeal to) may be unsuccesful at convincing other voters to support them. Your personal judgment can still be a major factor, and there may be cases where even a supermajority of well intentioned editors turns out wrong. To compound the problem, the chance of a new editor knowing of the existance of the Deletion Review process is lower, and he may be marked as a vandal for recreating the page afterwards when he was editing in good faith. --tjstrf 08:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Per all of above. Answers below and past RfA voting patterns reveal herd mentality. Two RfAs in five months since first edit is a sign of desperation. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Herd mentality? On the contrary, Siva1979 often votes support when no one else (or only a small number) of people do. DarthVader 07:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    His voting yes in the face of everyone else is itself a concern. Plus, the herd mentality referenced may be refering to the "yes" votes he has recieved, many of which seem to be some sort of fanclub he has. "He's a nice guy" is not really a valid criteria for adminship. --tjstrf 07:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, genuinely nice guys are highly unlikely to abuse tools, for one thing. It's a better indicater that edit counts, really, given how edit counts can be gamed easilly but many people simply can't pull off being friendly and helpful over a long period of time. But it takes meeting more than just one criteria, at least for my vote. --W.marsh 14:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose a nice person would be more likely to err on the side of caution in disputes, but nice is only a secondary characteristic that you should have. People who are nice and helpful already get rewarded by being more respected by other editors anyway, what we want for admins are people who can take responsibility and make accurate decisions. --tjstrf 08:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, don't feel comfortable giving adminship to someone who trots around Wikipedia talk:Did you know making out-of-date comments. Gives the appearance that he's trying to inflate his Wikipedia namespace editcount. That, plus the answer to Cyde's question 1. Kimchi.sg 09:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per above; policy understanding should be well underway when applying for adminship. Shell babelfish 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per AfD answer. 5 rather than 3-4, unless it is a speedy; never delete if there is no consensus.Voice-of-AllTalk 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, I don't care about featured articles (User:Stifle/No featured articles), but the lack of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates to me a probable shortage of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I agree with the supporters: he seems like a nice guy, and extraordinarily unlikely to abuse the tools. However, there are several indications of a lack of policy knowledge and lack of preparation for the difficult choices and strong stances sometimes required of admins. Answers to 4, 5, and 6 all concern me. Although I am impressed by his response to Sam Blanning's oppose above, I worry that there may be other critical issues that he hasn't thought of yet; thus it's best to take more time and learn more, I think. -- SCZenz 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Discussion about closing AfD above (per Sam Blanning) concern me. Nephron  T|C 04:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose for discussion about closing AfD above (per Sam Blanning). If an article is nominated for non-speedy deletion, why be so eager to delete any earlier? Without this impatience, I would have considered supporting.--Jusjih 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Cyde and Siva's answer to Q4. He's a very good editor, I would probably support him later, but not now. --Zoz (t) 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose: answer to question 4 and practice of supporting nearly every RfA show an attitude toward adminship I cannot share or support, sorry. Jonathunder 02:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, great contributor but recent love-fest for all RfA nominees either shows excessive politicing or poor judgement + big enough mop and trigger finger concerns. Deizio talk 14:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per above. Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per answers to Cyde questions. — GT 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. He needs more edits to actual articles. I went back more than a month before I could find an actual edit that wasn't to user space, Wikipedia space or a formatting edit in main space. Rebecca 07:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per above. -lethe talk + 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose, shaky grasp of policy. Proto||type 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. The answers to the questions show an arbitrary approach, rather than a thoughtful approach that understands consensus and policy. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose, just like last time, it seems like just yesterday in fact. — Jun. 7, '06 [06:47] <freak|talk>
  32. Oppose. Per Pete.Hurd. —Ruud 09:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, pending answer to question below. Dragons flight 15:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral has too low standards for sysopship. Computerjoe's talk 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What? This isn't an RfB, how are RfA "voting" patterns relevant to whether or not he will abuse or not use the mop? --Rory096 20:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It speaks to judgement. Behaviour in such contexts may be more relevant than mainspace edits quality, use of edit summaries, edit counts etc in judging whether to endorse. Do I trust this editor with admin powers? Or has their behaviour lead me to think that their future decisions are something I ought to keep an eye on? Pete.Hurd 00:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply More specifically, you could say it shows lack of respect for the office. If he thinks that everyone who is ever nominated should become an admin, then he probably won't take the position very seriously. Adminship may not exactly be a "sacred duty," but it is a power and authority grant that should be given to the exeptional. --tjstrf 01:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My belief is that adminship is a technical position. I fully agree with the way that Siva1979 supports most candidates (as I do myself). At the end of the day, if a user won't abuse their greater technical abilities then they should be accepted by the community to become an admin. Adminship is no big deal. DarthVader 04:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than that. Endorsing a candidate for admin is also endorsing that candidate as an accurate judge in cases of conflict and requires that they have a valid understanding of the rules and standards.--tjstrf 09:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed. I have no real reason for voting oppose yet, but something doesn't quite feel right. I'll go with neutral. DS 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and, of course, now I just noticed that Siva has me listed on his userpage as someone he has "high regard for". Now I feel all awkward. I'll probably vote support in his next RfA. DS 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I am concerned also about this editor's apparently reflexive support voting style on RFA. I get the impression that there isn't really much thought invested when it ought to be. Pete.Hurd 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)changed to oppose.[reply]
  4. Neutral – good editor, but I agree with some of the concerns raised above, including answers to the questions below – Gurch 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - can't cite specific reasons for an oppose, but a lot of the answers leave me uneasy. Not enough thought about process, about who makes a good admin, and other things.. perhaps in a while. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - Per Tyrenius, I am worried Siva won't be able to make difficult decisions, per his RfA voting pattern. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with supporting candidates, but I'm afraid Siva is shying away from controversy. However, as I don't want to predict Siva's motives incorrectly, I won't oppose on those grounds. joturner 03:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. This is one of liking someone and thinking he does a good job on many cases, and being uneasy enough about some aspects as policy and the AfD question , that I can not decide. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. Answers convince me to support, but this is too soon since the last RfA. Royboycrashfan 17:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral contribution history looks great but answers to questions below are a little off-putting. I would be happy if enough users disagreed with me and this nomination succeeded, but I can't support at this time. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Siva1979 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 109 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 01, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 14, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.83% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 37.54 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 201 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.62% (181)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 1.02% (51)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 11.64% (582)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3790 | Average edits per page: 1.32 | Edits on top: 37.76%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 74.48% (3724 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 25.16% (1258 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 0.28% (14 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.08% (4 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 16.34% (817) | Article talk: 7.3% (365)
User: 3% (150) | User talk: 37.66% (1883)
Wikipedia: 24.34% (1217) | Wikipedia talk: 6.18% (309)
Image: 1.16% (58)
Template: 0.84% (42)
Category: 0.36% (18)
Portal: 0.22% (11)
Help: 0.42% (21)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 2.18% (109)
Username Siva1979
Total edits 7944
Distinct pages edited 5808
Average edits/page 1.368
First edit 23:14, January 6, 2006
 
(main) 2767
Talk 382
User 211
User talk 2323
Image 59
Image talk 22
MediaWiki talk 22
Template 56
Template talk 25
Help 22
Help talk 23
Category 19
Category talk 13
Wikipedia 1653
Wikipedia talk 321
Portal 13
Portal talk 13

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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.
A: I would like to have the additional tools of an admin to speedy delete test and attack pages. I would also like to increase my involvement in AfD articles to increase the efficiency of keeping or deleting articles that have a common overwelming response or vote. Admin powers would also help me to delete redirects with history that block a move, or to merge histories of pages moved by cut and paste. These powers would also help me to fight vandalism with a server-based rollbock, blocking persistent vandals and protecting pages that have undergone frequent vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased to be able to remove all the red-links of English soccer clubs in the National 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.
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?
A: There have not been any major conflicts. However, in the first few weeks of editing, I experienced some oppostition in the manner in which I contributed to the 1911 Britannica topics. I learned and acknowledged my mistakes and improved my contributions in this are of Wikipedia. In the beginning, I felt a bit of stress because I thought that I was not doing a good job and I was only trying to help out. But I used the feedback to improve on my edits. In the future, if I receive any negative feedback, I would use this opportunity to move my edits to a higher level. In this way, I would become a more solid contributor to Wikipedia.
4. (from Dragons flight) Since you've joined Wikipedia, you have voted in at least dozens and quite possibly hundreds of RFAs. Based on your voting record you would seem to have an extremely low standard for adminship. In going over your contributions to Wikipedia space, I noticed only 3 RFAs that you opposed and all of which had the distinction of not having a single support vote. By contrast, there are examples where yours is one of only a handful of support votes on RFAs that are overwhelmingly opposed. Please explain your rationale for deciding how to vote in RFAs with specific attention to what would make a candidate unqualified for adminship in your opinion.
A A candidate, in my opinion, would be unqualified for adminship if he/she has been blocked for quite a number of times. Moreover, if the candidate has repeatedly vandalized articles, I would not vote for them. Additionally, if a candidate shows signs of being not committed to Wikipedia by performing constant, vandal edits, my vote would be oppose. But generally speaking, most candidates who have taken part in RfAs does not belong to this category. However, if the edit counts of candidates are low (for example about 800-1200 edits) but the candidate has shown signs of being committed to the project, I would vote support for their nomination. They may show signs of impatience, but their willingness to nominate themselves for adminship early must be commended. I do not like to discourage potentially good candidates for adminship just because they have low edit counts or have been involved in the project for about 2 to 3 months.
5. How do you feel about the relative (a) importance, (b) purpose, and (c) punishments for violations of, (1) policy, (2) process, (3) guidelines, and (4) goals? Cyde↔Weys 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A As far as policies and guidelines are concerned, they are very important to keep note of when one is involved in a project such as Wikipedia. For first time violations of guidelines and policies, we must take care not to punish the respective user excessively. A warning should do just fine. But for repeated violations, the particular user would have to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If the conduct is serious in nature, a lenghty ban should be sufficient in dealing with these anti-social acts. The purpose of these policies and guidelines is to ensure that this project is not too anarchic in nature. Without some basic rules and regulations, there would be many instances of abuse in the project. The goals are less important compared to the other 3 aspects of Wikipedia because the setting of goals would change more often in the future than policies or guidelines. It is also important to follow a systematic process when dealing with abuse or edit wars. But if one violates this process, it is not as serious as violating policies or guidelines. The latter constitutes vandalism while the former is just an acknowledgement on the user's part that he/she is not familiar with the proper process of Wikipedia.
6. What is your take on the Afd process, particularly the administrator goals and responsibilities of closing Afds, which you will be doing if this Rfa succeeds? --Cyde↔Weys 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A My take on the AfD process is that I would have the responsibility of deleting articles from Wikipedia which have an overwelming delete votes. If the consensus is overwhelmingly clear to delete the particular article, I feel that it is not imperative to wait for at least one week to clear the article from Wikipedia. 3 to 4 days is sufficient to take the necessary action. If consensus is unclear, I would most probably not delete the affected article.
7 What do you think of most sysops on Wikipedia today?(e.g:they are courrupt, they are good, etc.)The Gerg
A On a personal note, I have not come across any courrupted admins so far (Thankfully!). My personal experience with them have generally been positive and helpful in nature. Most of them are doing a good job in Wikipedia. Courrupted admins are relatively rare but I have seen some of them being involved with edit wars with other users.
8 Do you look at your old RfA as a failure , or a way to improve?The Gerg
A Frankly speaking, I view my old RfA as a success as I view all opposing votes in a positive manner. These votes tell me on what aspect of editing on Wikipedia to improve on and what must I avoid doing. However, I would be lying if I said that I was delighted with the result. It was a disappointment for me to fail on my past RfA but I channelled this disappointment in a positive manner. I endeavoured to improve on my edits and my interaction with other users increased. Generally all users should view their failed nomination as a way to improve and not get discouraged by the negative votes.

Two questions from Captainj (Qs 9 ans 10). Completely optional, but I'm still undecided. Thanks.

9 (Ref Q8) Please can you give examples of what improvements you have made to your edits since your last RfA, (preferrably with diffs)?
A According to my last RfA, some users had expressed reservation on the low number of edits on article talk pages. I have since added some controversial discussions on some of the topics. For example, view this page (as at 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)) and this page. Previously, I tend to avoid controversial discussions. This has since changed and I am now more active in communicating with other users. Moreover, it had also been noted in my last RfA that I tend not to revisit the new articles which I created. This has also changed recently when I began adding images to some of the football articles which I had started. For example, please view the history pages of this article. Many more such examples of this can be viewed at my user contribution page. Moreover, I do not intend to stop there and I am planning to make one of these articles reach at least Good Article status in the future.
10 According to Q3, you haven't been in edit conflicts recently. Can you give me an example of how you avoided getting into an edit conflict, what you did to head it off? (I need someway of assessing how you deal with people that might disagree with you, hold other POVs, etc).
A The golden rule of avoiding edit conflicts is to try one's best to understand the other party's point of view. If you are able to understand the reasons why some people might disagree with you, your perception on the subject would be more broader. Of course, this does not work all the time when the other party is an unreasonable user. In this case, I would always try my very best to maintain my cool and pacify the user.
When people disagree with me, most of the time, these very users have more experience in editing Wikipedia than I have. They always provide me with sound reasons on why they disagree with some of the edits which I have made. In almost all cases, I am able to see their POV and most of the time, their reasoning is much more concise than mine. In that case, I would admit my shortfall and endeavour to improve and avoid similiar mistakes. If one is able to take constructive criticism in a positive manner, in no time, that particular user would become a fine contributor, editor and person.
However, if I am dealing with a considerably less experienced user, I would gently guide the user to the policies and acceptable guidelines of Wikipedia. If he/she continues to be involved in an edit conflict with me, I would gently remind that user that this is unacceptabel behaviour in Wikipedia. If the user still persists, I would report the matter to an admin.
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.
Category