Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Siva1979 3

Siva1979

Voice your opinion! (60/16/3) Ending 20:41, 2006-08-22 (UTC)

Siva1979 (talk · contribs) – Siva1979 is an excellent contributor, with over 11,000 edits and 8 months experience. He is a kind, courtious, and helpful user, who never is incivil. He has contributed heavily to articles about the English football league system. I have no doubt in my mind will be an excellent admin.

He had 2 previous RFAs here and here, both of which failed. However, most issues have been cleared up, and I feel it is time for a new RFA. The Gerg 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to re-conominate him! I nominated him on his first Rfa, citing his good effort and help in the Singapore Wikipedians' Notice Board. Now I'm doing so because of...well...everything has been said by the nominator...he has contributed heavily to articles about the English football league system...--Tdxiang Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 10:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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 by closing AfD's. 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. . I also will be using my tools for cleaning up the CAT:CSD backlog, WP:SPLICE, and any other janitorial tasks that's waiting to be done. . I'm also willing to handle admin-related requests, like merging page histories or handle requests at WP:PER.

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 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.

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 had not been any major conflicts so far. 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 area 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. There is also a minor conflict regarding the article Manchester Football League Premier Division. The article in question which I had created was changed into a redirect page. Instead of reverting this edit, I discussed this with several users on the talk page of WikiProject Football. Although I did not agree with their opinions over this issue, I respected their arguments by not reverting the article to an earlier edit of mine. I will be maintaing this position for any possible future edit conflicts as long as the arguments put forth by the other users are of sound judgement. This will be the case even if I am not able to agree with them.

4 Optional question from User:Dlohcierekim. Hi Siva, In your nom statement it says most issues have been cleared up. Which issues have not been, please?  :) Dlohcierekim 21:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A: Well, the failure to meet 1FA criterior is one of the issues which have yet to clear up. Hopefully, I would be able to meet this in the future.

Hi Siva- Thanks for your note. Sorry for being overly brief. The Gerg's statement above in your nom says that not all concerns from prior RfA's were resolved. Can you tell which they are and how they would affect your abilities as an admin? Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A: Well, firstly I wish to comment on JoshuaZ's statement below. I have some expereince in dealing with SD where I tagged the articles in question with the appropriate tags. I have also warned others who vandalized articles, and once reported an incident to AIV. However, I have yet to post an article for deletion under PROD. Although this could show a lack of experience on my part (but not necessarily show a distinct lack of knowledge of policies), the effect on my abilities as an admin would be minimal. For example, I would be at a slight disadvantage compared to non-admins who constantly make the first move by posting articles on AfD. But the mistakes made from others is also a great learning tool for me. Granted, personal experience is a greater learning tool and users would be much better editors through mistakes and experience. But a good understanding of policies, at least in theory, also plays a positive (albeit a more passive) role as well.

5 Optional question from JoshuaZ. In your last RfA there were many users concerned that you had a lack of policy knowledge. What has changed since then to alleviate those concerns? JoshuaZ 02:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A: First of all, I would like you to refer to the answers I gave to question six of my last RfA. I made a major mistake in stating 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. There should be a five-day discussion on the merits of the article in question. This is applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases.

Secondly, refering to the same question, I made an error in commenting; 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. Well, this should only be used if a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached. Then the discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period. The debate should remain transcluded on the appropriate deletion page. If the proposed solution has not achieved a very clear consensus, the listing should remain for the full five-day period. Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea. Furthermore, I wish to add that I will use my best judgement to determine when rough consensus has been reached. I will also disregard opinions and comments if I feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. For example, such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new user Id whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.

Another question from JoshuaZ While your above answer does indicate an understanding of the AfD policy, is there anyway you can address the general concern raised at the previous RfA that this answer indicated a general lack of policy knowledge? JoshuaZ 03:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A Well, firstly, allow me to state the obvious proof. Over the past few months since my last RfA, I made it a point to include most of the policies (as well as guidelines) to my userpage. This acts like a reminder for me to go through important details of Wikipedia policies over a period of time. Although I am unable to give you conclusive and definite proof over improving my policy knowledge (based on the nature of my edits), at least, there are some definite proof when it comes to MOSNUM and MOS in dealing with article pages. On top of that, I am doing my very best in following CIVIL, which is an official policy. I have also shown an improvement in assuming good faith when it comes to RfA pages. In my last RfA, there were some objections in my support for almost all candidates. I believe that I have addressed this situation to the best of my abilities. Lastly, I wish to add that there is a fine difference between policies and guidelines. Policies are which that are widely accepted and that everyone is expected to follow. Guidelines are less rigid rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many(or most) cases. The former is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions while guidelines are something that is actionable and authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 09:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Siva1979 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 105 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 16, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 2, May, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 59.06 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 134 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 123 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 3.68% (184)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 4.72% (236)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 14.24% (712)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 115 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 60.39%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 4.28% (214 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 1.72% (86 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 2.08% (104 edit(s)) (54 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.28% (14 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0.52% (26 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3158 | Average edits per page: 1.58 | Edits on top: 35.62%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 60.72% (3036 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 38.66% (1933 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 0.58% (29 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 0.04% (2 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 22.76% (1138) | Article talk: 7.56% (378)
User: 7.32% (366) | User talk: 13.18% (659)
Wikipedia: 12.68% (634) | Wikipedia talk: 9.38% (469)
Image: 3.26% (163)
Template: 1.7% (85)
Category: 3.62% (181)
Portal: 2.26% (113)
Help: 2.36% (118)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 13.92% (696)

All user's Article edits.Voice-of-All 09:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Siva1979 (over the 3650 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 223 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 16, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 15hr (UTC) -- 6, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 11.56 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3650 edits shown on this page and last 123 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 37.48% (1368)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 7.1% (259)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 44.79% (1635)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 115 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 54.49%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0% (0 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 2.58% (94 edit(s)) (49 moves(s))
Page redirections: 2.79% (102 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0% (0 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2279 | Average edits per page: 1.6 | Edits on top: 16.27%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 58.96% (2152 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 19.15% (699 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 0.25% (9 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 10.38% (379 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 100% (3650)

• See Siva1979's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count as of 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's temporary tool

Total	11710
Distinct pages edited	7633
Avg edits/page	1.534
First edit	16:14, 6 January 2006
(main)	3650
Talk	621
User	439
User talk	2866
image	164
image talk	113
MediaWiki talk	114
Template	125
Template talk	123
Help	120
Help talk	113
Category	182
Category talk	129
Wikipedia	2125
Wikipedia talk	582
Portal	125
Portal talk	119

Support

1. Looking through the past RfAs, he seems to have addressed all the concerns raised. Good luck! --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, I've been waiting for you to run again for months, now. I'm very confident that you'll do an excellent job. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, for exactly the same reasons as last time. I believe Siva is a more than capable editor who will not misuse the tools, what more can I ask for? Rje 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support No obvious problems, a lot of edits, a lot of time spent here, I have seen Siva around Wikipedia a lot too. Total support Viva La Vie Boheme!
5. Support Looks to be a good admin candidate.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Clearly meets my 2k edit and civility requirements. He's really a nice guy, and he goes out of his way to encourage people. No objections here.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Clichéd I've been waiting support - but it's true! What a great candidate - a nice guy and a great contributor to the project. Srose (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Great contributions to the project, good answers, looks ready to me. Themindset 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support I opposed in last two RFAs, now endorse - with some lingering reservations about support for MUFC ;). I trust him with the tools. Pete.Hurd 22:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support -- Samir धर्म 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
12. SupportSome P. Erson 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - Richardcavell 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I supported last time (neutral the first time) but feel more confident supporting now. The user has probably learned a bit from previous RfAs, and both the edit count and the resume going back to January indicate plenty of experience. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support as I did in both previous RfAs. Great work Siva1979. DarthVader 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I'm not sure how a misunderstanding about how city councils work should be a bar to adminship. Siva1979 understands Wikipedia enough to be an admin. -- tariqabjotu 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support - belongs in the admin group by now. The mistake about city councillors referred to below is just that: a mistake. We all make them from time to time. It's not a reason to think s/he would abuse the admin tools. Metamagician3000 23:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support I don't see any reason to oppose. Would make a reliable admin. --Gray Porpoise 23:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Mighty Support. A fine Wikipedian. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support seen him around a lot in AfD. Believe he would benefit from the tools. Viridae^Talk 00:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. I haven't talked to him, but I've seen his editing here and there on Wikipedia, and I'm sure he'll make a great admin. YAY INDIANS!! (Okay, I'm done now.) --Nishkid64 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. About time. G.He 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. I don't see any indication that the editor would misuse or abuse the tools. --Aguerriero (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. Definately ready for adminship. An excellent contributor. Zaxem 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Seen him around from time to time in the project space, excellent comments. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, for the same reasons as Thatcher131 above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Powerful Support HAND HIM THE MOP! He's not leaving until he cleans up this mess... Rama's arrow 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong Support per Thatcher13, also per edit counting - dedicated editors make good admins abakharev 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    Support Although I hasten to caution Siva that new users and anons do not need to be completely discounted from AfDs. If one of them makes a policy based point or points to some source, we should pay attention to that. JoshuaZ 03:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC) switching to neutral until a few other issues are cleared up. JoshuaZ 03:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

31. Happy to support an up-and-coming administrator. Quill E. Coyote 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong Support Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)(cell)
33. Strong support per alex Bakharev.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support, it is time. SorryGuy 05:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Hell yeah. --Nearly Headless Nick 06:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Merovingian - Talk 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support You'd have to be mad not to. Jorcoga^ETC. 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support as per the last RfA, an enthusiastic and engaging editor who appears committed to the wikipedia spirit and who vastly exceeds the civility minimum. MLA 12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:37, 16 August 2006}
41. Support, great user. :) --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support, seems ok, even though I couldn't agree with their signature. Oppose reasons don't bother me.--Andeh 16:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support seen this user around for some time now, good contributor. Would do well with the tools. Stubbleboy 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support will make a gret admin. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Don't see why not. --kingboyk 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support with slight reservation, but swayed by his good temperament and evident hard work, which I trust will be applied to some of those backlogs. Tyrenius 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Strong Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Good editor who will make good use of administrator tools. -- Vision Thing -- 19:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. why not? --heah 22:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Examination study support! I'm studying but I support as his co-nominator!--Tdxiang Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 10:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Total Support.  Grue  11:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. A mature and responsible individual, with lots of editing experience and a cool-temper. Yes, in 11,000+ edits it's possible to find poorly chosen wording or bad decisions--but that is true of all of us. Bogman2 13:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. Great editor. Budgiekiller 16:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. I just don't see any well-explained reasons to oppose that are convincing. He has valuable things he wants to do, and his heart's in the right place, so any lingering policy-knowledge issues (my reason for opposing in the 2nd RfA) can be dealt with easily enough through discussion. -- SCZenz 20:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. I agree with SCZenz. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
58. Support per Rama's arrow.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
59. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
60. Support - "a good user". :p —Khoikhoi 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
61. Support per Bogman2, Thatcher131, and, especially, SCZenz; inasmuch as I've long since inferred from Siva's RfA participation that he/she properly understands the nature of adminship; and consistent with my my RfA guidelines. Joe 06:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Needs more work with AfD's per this dif. :) Dlohcierekim 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   I think that Siva is just confused about a question of fact, rather than a question of policy. He was wrong, but there was no harm done. - Richardcavell 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   It is arguable that some cities are so important their councilmen would be recognized statewide. Or the councilperson is just weird- Dar Heatherington comes to mind as a provincially (indeed, nationally) recognized councilman. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   The mistake, though seemingly minor, indicates lack of knowledge of policy/guidelines as well as judgement. :) Dlohcierekim 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   So you're saying it should be policy for a Singaporean to comprehensively understand British Columbian governmental structures? We're making systemic bias a pillar of Wikipedia now? It is not illegal for a person to ask a question or make a suggestion in an AfD- that's the point, even though one might take the questions or suggestions to be a vote and therefore demonstrable of one's judgement or lack thereof. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   It isn't unreasonable to ask that people comment on AfDs where they have some prior minimal understanding of the context. Otherwise all the comments do is ruin the signal to noise ratio. JoshuaZ 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, but the comment is actually a question: The exact quote is "Isn't a city council member a political figure holding a statewide office?" CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   Good point. JoshuaZ 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   I admire him raising a point and not just following the others blindly. Shows intelligent inquisition and strength of character.Tyrenius 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks to all who discussed my vote, especially CanadianCaesar. Sytemic bias is something to be avoided. Thank you for alerting me to this fault in my thinking. However, after reviewing each of Siva's AfD votes since his last RfA, I am still troubled by a tendency to vote to "keep" articles that clearly did not meet notability requirements. I also sense a wistfullness, a desire to change Wikipedia to conform to his way of seeing things. I still have lingering doubts as per User:Jersey Devil and User:W.marsh. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 03:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for consolidating your reasons. Tyrenius 03:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Well, although it is true that Siva is an inclusionist, there really is nothing wrong unless he recommends keep on bogus articles, and likewise if a deletionist tries to delete notable things like parliamentary members, Olympic medallists etc. The notability guidelines are pretty loose and "voting" on RfAs in contravention to them isn't a "punishable offence" so to speak. Nor do I see it as policy-activism. As long as Siva doesn't engage in extreme undeletion against community consensus, I see little problem or cause for concern, and as noted by both sides, Siva would likely be a cautious and conservative admin, not one who would make unilateral out of process actions. Secondly his point on that AfD is commendable, as he is being honest about his lack of strong knowledge and is trying to extract information and debate out of the other users, which can only be a good thing, improving the quality of debate. A lot of guys go to random pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivation of the partition function, and "vote", clearly not reading the concerns expressed by editors whose day job is maths and physics. Lots of other people just go and pile on frequently with "..per nom/above". Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   You are both welcome. I share Blnguyen's concern with rubber stamp "delete per nom's". Hopefully, I'll not fall into that trap, despite the amount of time it takes to check and recheck. Good night and happy editing. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 03:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose I like the user's overall civility and body of contributions. However, from my experience with the user I have some doubts about how strong he would be willing enforce Wikipedia policy with regard to trouble users. In particular, with regard to his answer to question 1, I have some reservations about how liberal he would be with keeping afd'ed articles for which the consensus to delete is not entirely clear due to internal spamming and other measures used to sway the consensus of afds.--Jersey Devil 22:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The state of this RfA says bucketloads about why the RfA process is screwed. Rebecca 00:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   Would you please clarify? I am not trying to defend the nominee, just to understand what exactly you object to. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)`

   Agreed, please expand on what you mean. That type of vehement vote with no reasoning given is something I would typically not expect from an editor of your good standing. You've done that a couple times now, and it's not helpful. RfA is a consensus gathering exercise and one can't expect their position to be given as much weight if reasoning isn't given. Just tell us civilly and constructively what you're getting at please. - Taxman ^Talk 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   I think my feelings have been accurately summarised by some of those below. Siva is one of those people who desperately wants to be an admin, and who seems to act in Wikipedia in such a way as to further that goal. It thus becomes about faux-civility, social networking and driving up edit counts in the place of doing genuinely useful work on the encyclopedia and exercising good judgement where necessary on controversial issues. I've always been an advocate for a low bar for admins, but Siva is representative of a particular type of candidate which we simply don't need, but sadly seem to find all too regularly on RfA these days. Rebecca 01:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hello Rebecca. I've spoken to you about these philosophical issues before (on IRC), and I feel that in this case you have chosen the wrong target. I do not feel that Siva has been involved in the large scale social-networking that I think that you are referring to or implying. If you look at his article contribs, there are a lot of genuine articles which he created, with genuine content (mainly in the fields of football (soccer)) - so there is no question of him having 3600 "cheap" or "quickie" article edits or not having done "genuinely useful work" - there are many folks who have passed RfA with maybe 1000-1500 article edits, basically all from semi-automatic dabbing pages and vandal reversions assisted by bot identifications which reduce the workload to clicking a button. If you are looking for people who are surfing the wave of feel-good social networking then I can think of heaps of people who have some 10 or so barnstars for doing about 1000 small article edits (some of whom easily cruised through RfA near the century mark almost unopposed). I can even think of one person who has about 5-10 for less than 200 article edits, none of which were substantial article expansions. Siva has nothing like this level of social fame, and his barnstars were properly cited for his contributions to expanding the encyclopedia, in contrast to some mentioned above (eg, see some of the stuff at WP:BSB). If you look at people in the support column you can see that his support is not derived from socialising at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge as can be seen by looking at the names - there are a lot of serious contributors in the support column, not a whole pile of people who have accumulated 10 barnstars for 500 small edits. As for his behaviour I am sure that his conduct towards other Wikipedians is genuine and not a marketing ploy so to speak and if one doesn't feel comfortable dealing with extremely ugly situations that is also not a big problem as the number of administrators is unlimited, (unlike the arbcom) and there is plenty of backlogs that need clearing that do not require involving oneself in ugly situations such as clearing out the deleted images. Forgive me but perhaps with my personal conservative approach I should have kept a closer eye on Siva and told him to keep patient rather than the optimistic idealism of his nominators (whom I suspect are somewhat younger than me and are have more of the "exuberance of youth"). Blnguyen | rant-line 04:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose. Fails my criteria --Masssiveego 03:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose my feelings are very much similar to W.marsh's below, but they're more resolute.--cj | talk 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - not convinced by the mushy answer to JoshuaZ's question. Kimchi.sg 06:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per W. Marsh. —freak(talk) 12:31, Aug. 16, 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose per W.Marsh - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, because of edits like [1], where he tags an article with {{context}}, after he himself had created an empty article an hour before (that was one of 20 similar articles he started that look exactly the same). That makes absolutely no sense to me, shouldn't you have some idea what to put in an article you just started? He also seems to do completely useless edits from time to time, such as [2], agreeing with a year old comment that was already acted on (I know this was mentioned in the last rfa, but this particular event happened 2 weeks ago). He seems like a nice guy but I don't think he has enough common sense to be an admin. - Bobet 08:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose by JerseyDevil and Bobet. Kusma (討論) 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per above. Thumbelina 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose for now. Perhaps doesn't follow foundation issues in his answers (assumes bad faith wrt anons?). Please contact me to discuss! :-) Kim Bruning 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
13. I'm just not sure Siva really understands policy. He has a very interesting RFA voting history that someone who's done numerical analysis on RFA could tell you more about (ping Kelly Martin if you're interested). My impression of him is that he just sort of follows the herd. That's not a quality we're looking for in an administrator. --Cyde Weys 21:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Obviously nice, hard-working, means well, and so on. However, I still have the sense that in doing the right thing as he understands it, Siva1979 doesn't necessarily think through to the whys and wherefores. I'm less concerned about knowledge of policy as the fact that many situations, especially for administrators, involve balancing policy considerations, which means you need a grasp of the underlying principles. The support strikes me as mostly "he's a good guy" stuff, but adminship is not intended to be a status symbol or reward, use barnstars or something. --Michael Snow 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose per above. --HResearcher 02:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Michael Snow and Cyde. Ral315 (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I supported his first two noms, and there can be no question that he's a good faith editor, but shows some naivety about policy and our purpose, and has that intangible "wants adminship too much" thing going on (which may be unavoidable after 3 RfAs, but I still get the vibe). Sorry... might reconsider on my own before the rfa is over... I hate to not support a clear good-faith editor. --W.marsh 00:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Until some issues are cleared up. JoshuaZ 03:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) After the answers to the questions, I am staying at neutral. The user is clearly hard working and will not abuse the tools. However, I am concerned over the possible lack of policy knowledge. The user's answers in these regards were insufficient. Adding links to policies on a user page is not enough, nor is keeping in mind WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. The sort of policy that admins need to know are things like deletion criteria and procedure, speedy deletion, block policy and others. The user's answer gives no indication that he has any significant knowledge of these policies. I will support in a later RfA if at that time Siva can convince me that he understands and has had experience with these policies. JoshuaZ 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   Why don't you ask him some basic questions about them? Tyrenius 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning to oppose basically per W.Marsh. Also, I'm not sure there're any diffs from before this RfA that show knowledge of policy by the candidate has cleared up since the last RfA. Kimchi.sg 03:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Changing to oppose.

3. Neutral per Cyde. The level of contributions is quite high though.Voice-of-All 23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)