Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Siva1979 5: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:21, 6 October 2007

Siva1979

Voice your opinion (talk page) (21/31/10); Scheduled to end 08:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Siva1979 (talk · contribs) - This is my second self-nomination and my fifth overall nomination. I have over 28 000 edits ranging from various namespaces. I would like to have the additional tools of adminship to broaden my scope of edits of this project. I have been editing since January of 2006. However, during the months of March, April and May of 2007, I did not have any contributions to this project as I was in hospital --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

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 would also like to help with WP:AIV. I would also like to help out in protecting pages which are prone to vandalism.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, 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. I also enjoy welcoming old and new unregistered users to encourage them to sign in to Wikipedia as registered users as well.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes, there was a minor conflict over the usage of British English in the Manchester United article. I respected the consensus of the community in the end. Other than this, I have not been in any conflicts over editing in the recent past. I have always been civil in my conversations with other users.

Optional question by Chaser

4. Why did your previous RFA fail? What has happened since?

A: Firstly. I was relying too much on google to determine notability for the vast majority of my AfD comments. Moreover, I asked someone to nominate me just after returning from a long Wikibreak. However, since then, I was making more original comments (by being the first to make comments on AfD) on AfDs and relying less on google to gauge notability as well as verifiability.

Optional question by Daniel

5. What is your response/rebuttal to the comments made by TigerShark (#14), cholmes75 (#20), Michael Snow (#21), *drew (#27) and NSR77 (#28) in your previous RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Siva1979 4? 10:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A: TigerShark (#14) - Tigershark claims that I am obsessed with becoming an admin which is not entirely true. I left my comments to this comment in my last RfA. Micheal Snow (#21) - He claimed that I could not grasp the nature and extent of previous concerns with making me an administrator. Although I admit that I did not make significant improvements in the nature of my edits since my last RfA to aid me in becoming an admin, I did help to improve the nature of this project by making minor helpful edits to articles especially dealing with soccer. Drew (#27) - Is it morally incorrect to be eager in becoming an admin? I have a sincere desire to improve the quality of this project and the added tools which I would receive once I become an admin would allow me to improve the quality of this project. I love editing in Wikipedia and the added buttons would further allow me to improve the quality of this project. In fact, I have been editing extensively since January 2006. NSR77 (#28) - This user claimed that I was power hungry which I feel that it was a harsh comment. However, I agree with him that the history of my RfAs have been a bit comical to say the least. I wonder how many RfAs I must go through before being given the added tools to be an admin, so that I can give a helping hand to improve the quality of this project further.

6. I see that there are some articles with backlogs. Although there are many admins, there does not seem to be any action to repair them. Will you as an admin, try to:

Improve the situation (as in improve the situation among admins)
Review all articles with backlogs?

(''Shokwaav'' 11:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A: Yes, I would most definitely try to improve the situation and review all the articles with backlogs. I personally dislike backlogs and would most definitely help out in this area as well.

Optional question by Ronnotel

7. You are quite active in RfA's although some have characterized your participation style as drive-by. Can you show us a couple of your most substantial RfA comments and describe your thought process that led up to them? Ronnotel 13:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I have to admit that most of my RfA comments are not substantial in nature. Other more wonderful users have most of the time made all the necessary important observations. However, please allow me to descibe my thought process that led to my decisions in these RfAs. I give the benefit of the doubt to most of the RfA nominations because being an admin is no big deal. (Jimbo Wales made that comment). However, if a candidate is clearly not suitable to be given the mop, I would usually oppose the RfA nomination. However, in my early participations on RfAs (that is last year), I gave some unsuitable candidates a Moral support statement, so as not to discourage them. But, I have stopped doing this as well.

Optional question by Dweller

8. I'm intrigued. How on earth did you do those dozens and dozens and dozens of welcome messages on 18th September ([1])? --Dweller 13:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there were 673 such messages over one 8 1/2 hour stretch, about 1 every 45 seconds. Ronnotel 13:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Well, those IP addresses made at least one edit to the Manchester United article (a team which I support). I guess that by welcoming them, they would in the future be registered users of this project. It was also to influence these IPs to be registered users of this project in the future. It is my belief that once an IP address makes an edit, it would most likely not be his/her last edit to this project. By welcoming and encouraging them as IP users, they would in the future register themselves as proper users of this project. In fact, I am also planning to do this again with other articles as well, meaning IP edits. It is very unlikely that an IP user would make only one edit to this project as well.

Please note that my question was how, not why you welcomed them. Welcoming people is generally laudable, and I'm not too bothered about "inappropriate" welcomings. I want to know how you did 673 welcome messages in about 8.5 hours. --Dweller 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Well, thank you for rephrasing your question. Well, there is usually a red-link in the talk pages of IP users. This means that no one has made a welcome (or a warning message for that matter) to the IP user's talk page. If the edit is not clearly a vandalism act, I would just follow the red link and welcome the user. However, I must admit that I sometimes made a mistake in welcoming vandal edits! I will most certainly be more careful in welcoming legitimate IP users in the future. And finally, I wish to thank you for pointing out that I did 673 welcoming messages in about 8.5 hours. I was not working at that day and I just listened to some music and made those edits. I dislike any type of red-links and my aim was to remove them. Is that a record? --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you're still saying you posted all those welcomes yourself, no bot involved? 8.5 hours, every 45 seconds? Gray62 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly physically possible; even without using AWB or similar, the process is just click-paste-click. (When I manually added 84 thankspams after my RFA it took exactly 1 hour.) Not something I'd want to do for eight hours, though — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is physically possible!. My edits were a proof to that! I wonder if anyone would follow my example and try that in the future? It seems like kind of a therapy for me to do that, welcoming IP users new and old!! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

See Siva1979's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Siva1979: Siva1979 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Siva1979 before commenting.

Discussion

A question: Why is copying and pasting your answers from your past RfA a bad thing? His responses to Q1-3 were perfectly acceptable in his last RfA (he was even lauded for his answer to Q1), so I don't see why he would need to change his answers in any way. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Walton^One 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. Ral315 » 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also agree. Thedreamdied 16:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

First Support! I've seen you around, and, I think you'd make a great admin! You seem smart, and, civil, everywhere I've seen you. I can't see a reason to oppose at this time. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's time already! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
Strong Support As last time. Cummon guys let's get real. This guy is totally commited to Wikipedia. Let's not slag him of with "wanabee an admin" criticsm yet again. As a recent admin I've realised that what's needed above all else is commitment and energy - which Siva has in spades. The backlogs are growing (just look at the image stuff at C:CSD for a start), and Siva has been here long enough to know what to do, and not to go heavy with a delete button. Sure, hitting welcome templates doesn't require much brain power but frankly neither does 90% of the dross at CSD. In addition we can see the excllent article building and AfD comments, that show this guy is not just here for a medal but believe in Wikipedia. He works damn hard at this project, and I see no reason whatsoever not to trust him to keep up that hard work with a couple of extra buttons. Pedro : Chat 09:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't much effort involved here by copying and pasting answers from their last rfa, what tremendous effort has this user put in here? --Ben^chat 10:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please take note that my answers to questions 2 and 3 were not entirely just copy and paste. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, well said. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah. Sure. I can't see any reason to oppose. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I sometimes Welcome anons who may just be testing too. (If they persist in making unconstructive edits, then I persist in coaching them.) It's gentler than a warning and can have the same effect-- to let them know the Wikipedia community wants to encourage constructive edits, that it is watching for unconstructive edits, and that there are guidelines they need to follow. Some new editors are so thunderstruck by the Wiki concept that they make dumb, lame, unconstructive or vandalistic edits for the lack of anything useful to write. This is Siva's 6 5th try. Maybe he's just out of fresh ways to request the mop. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you welcome anons whose last edit has been a year before the welcome? Kusma (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lord no, I hope I haven't. I haven't made 28,000 edits yet, but I've made some that I find embarrassing. Hopefully, if I ever seek the mop, they won't sink me. No disrespect, Kusma, ~~but I think you're reaching a bit.~~ Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposing based on a single edit. My point is that I can find hundreds of poorly thought out edits in just a few minutes, and it is too depressing to list them all. Kusma (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh come on... Siva's been around a long time (in Wikipedia terms), if he was going to snap and become a problem, years of random conflicts and four stressful RFAs would have brought that out by now. This just seems like someone at minimal risk to misuse the tools. While it's easy to construct a reason why Siva shouldn't pass an RFA, I don't see any more compelling reasons why Siva would actually make a bad admin. --W.marsh 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ (changed to neutral, see below) I see nothing wrong with welcoming new IP users. Yes, Siva wants the mop, but he seems like he's actually done some productive work to get there. He appears somewhat sane and therefore gets my !vote (providing no one digs up some sort of unforgivable incivility bones in his closet). Ronnotel 12:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming new IP editors is great. Siva1979 is welcoming old editors, many of whom have not edited for months or have been indefinitely blocked already. I can't imagine any other reason to do this other than further inflating his edit count. Kusma (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I buy it, even old editors can be revived and turned into good ones. And it's not as if Siva wasn't aware this his history was going to be reviewed at an upcoming RfA. While it may be a bit , er, odd, I see nothing inherently devious in his behavior. Ronnotel 15:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this looks good (apart from the fact this is the 5th request, but hey...) Your time has come my friend. Lra drama 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not think so. It looks like yet another failed nomination for me. Well, anyway, thanks for your encouragement. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Because I have seen you around in many RFAs, other discussions in the past and you have demonstrated the crystal clear understanding of wiki policies and consensus building. Admin position to you will be an asset to Wikipedia. Taprobanus 14:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Siva is an experienced Wikipedian (he welcomed me originally, when I joined in February 2006, and I remember him helping me out when I got IP-autoblocked due to editing from school). Yes, like everyone else, he makes mistakes; if you're welcoming hundreds of new users, it's easy to accidentally welcome a few who've been blocked. But his answer to Q1 displays a clear knowledge of policy and understanding of the admin tools, and he has experience in a wide range of areas. I think it's time to trust him with the mop; he may not be perfect, but I don't think he would misuse the admin tools. Walton^One 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I must admit to having a few reservations about this user's suitability as a sysop, but overall I don't see anything bad about this candidate. He's put in a lot of work here and clearly has a dedication to the project, and the majority of his edits demonstrate understanding of policy and guidelines. Any lapses in judgement will be minor and easy to correct, and I believe the net effect of sysopping this candidate will be positive. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing at all to suggest that Siva1979 will be abusive with the tools. Acalamari 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Support While I realise that this user will be able to clearup backlog and generally do good with the tools, the concerns of the opposers do worry me as to whether this user is in fact suitable. Phgao 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Experienced user who does a lot of hard work around the wiki, and who clearly won't abuse the tools. The reasons cited by the opposers are ludicrous. Melsaran (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good editor who knows Wikipedia well. Zaxem 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Won't abuse the tools, why the hell not? Ral315 » 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, how often do I wish to have this absolute confidence about other people that Ral315 displays here! Ral, would you pls lend me your crystal ball? This would make voting here so much easier! Ok, only joking, no insult intended. Gray62 14:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're not poking here Gray and that it's a good natured comment, but I've yet to see any evidence from a year and a half and 28,000 edits as to why Siva would abuse the tools. Sure, he's made mistakes. He obviously rushes things when there's no need to. But will he delete the main page, block dozens of editors on a whim or protect pages he's editing warring over? I doubt it. Pedro : Chat 14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, admins that have a meltdown and delete the main page or block dozens of editors are not to be feared. They are quickly identified and desysopped fast. The actual damage they do is minimal. But well-intentioned admins that make mistakes and rush things when there's no need to? Now that is the prototypical nightmare admin. I know you meant that comment in support of Siva but you're not really helping his cause. Pascal.Tesson 14:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pascal, let's not play semantics on the word "abuse" via Siva's RfA. My further comments in "support" or "defence" are hardly relevant anyway, as this RfA is going to fail. Pedro : Chat 15:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm playing semantics, I just don't understand why you'd be inclined to support someone who "obviously rushes things when there's no need to". This is the core of the opposes below: rushing to welcome users without actually checking if it makes sense, rushing to add a Google test to an AfD or rushing to support an RfA without taking the time to dig any deeper. Pascal.Tesson 16:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on Siva's fitness for a couple of buttons my friend. I keenly understand the concerns by opposers, and I hope Siva will work towards rectifying them for a future RFA. However I must also give weight to Siva's undoubted and relentless dedication to this work when making my contribution to the discussion. I just hope he will, yet again, be resillient when this RfA fails (as it seems sure to) and continue to help. Best. Pedro : Chat 07:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will yet again be resillient when this RfA fails. I love to help out in making this project better. I also wish to state that I enjoy welcoming old as well as new IP and registered users to this project. But I admit that I have made some mistakes in welcoming some questionable users. I assure the community that this will never happen again. But I will continue to welcome old IP and registered users who have made some good contributions to this project in the future as well. I just personally hate to see those red-links in their talkpages when they have made some good contributions. Will these future edits be seen as a mistake by the community? Especially if those edits are more than a year old? I hope someone can give his/her opinion on this matter. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This RfA is not going to succeed regardless of my input, so I'll give a heartfelt moral support. The comments here address a number of relatively small issues that can definitely be resolved. Heed the advice provided on this page and you will become an even more productive editor, regardless of the user rights of your account. — aldebaer⁠ 02:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that - don't read the opposes as "we don't want you", but as "sort these problems out and we'll want you". — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tarragon-Support The dedication shown by this user, far outweighs ans minor flaws. Best of luck, Dfrg.msc 21:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support wants to help and would be an asset in plowing through backlogs (which can be as much of an exercise in banality as welcoming IP's for 8 hours). And he's a nice guy. We need more Siva's as admins. -- Samir 04:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has done nothing in the interim to make me change my previous support. LessHeard vanU 22:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose, virtually no change since the last RfA, no evidence that Siva even understood why it failed. For instance, he apparently copy-pasted the answers from last time without even correcting the typos ("rollbock"). Sorry, but Siva1979 does not seem to have the judgment skills an admin should have. Kusma (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to strong oppose as Siva seems to think it is useful to welcome IPs and thank them for their one-year old vandalism. (Similar behaviour was brought up by Tigershark in the last RfA, but Siva's edit is just two weeks old). Kusma (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to agree with Kusma here. I admit that I have made a mistake in welcoming this particular IP address. In fact, there are also some similar mistakes as well. Well, we all learn from mistakes and it would be very unlikely that I would make this mistake again in the future. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose take heed that this user has in fact copied answers from their last rfa, and doesn't seem to have improved or taken heed to issues raised in this short time either. I mean seriously 5 times applying? I'm not saying that wanting to be an admin is a bad thing, but you think Siva1979 would have figured out improvements they need to make. Sorry - I just don't think you're ready for the mop at this time. --Ben^chat 10:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per this. Spent days on end welcoming IPs... * Ail lema 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is there anything wrong in welcoming IP users? (old as well as new) I feel that most IP users would not make only a single edit and they would come back in making edits in the near as well as far future. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How does this affect Siva's ability to be an administrator? Melsaran (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: It doesn't. What it shows is that Siva doesn't demonstrate how he'd be better off with admin tools. Welcoming editors is one thing; page tagging, vandal reporting, AFD discussion are quite different, and Siva does not demonstrate he has this experience. 28,000 edits - I wonder how many of them are rather useless IP spam welcomes? * Ail lema 20:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's bullshit and you know it, Aillema. How are they useless welcomes - we need those editors! If you hate IP welcomming so much, go TfD the templates, don't take it out on those who appreciate where most of our contributions come from. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Aillema and Kusma, looking through those welcome messages the majority were not recent editors, and I saw numerous from 2005. To give a welcome message to User:Mattdonsisgay1 (blocked 15 months previously) instead of taking it to WP:UAA, shows a distinct lack of judgement, in my opinion, especially for someone with intentions of becoming an admin. Even though you do alot of good work for the project, I certainly would not be comfortable with you using the buttons at this time. Sorry ^Khukri 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kusma and Khukri. I am also puzzled by your answer to question 4: you say you have learned to rely on more than Google searches for participating in AfD. Yet I go and check and just over the last two days you made these comments to AfD [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I don't doubt your good intentions but I'm not comfortable supporting. Pascal.Tesson 15:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please allow me to rephrase my answer. I do not rely 100% on google to gauge whether an article should or should not be kept. I also explore other concerns as well such as verifiability and notability. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, your test for notability and verifiability is the Google search. So I'm not sure that's much of an improvement. Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I would say that Google searches can, at times, be a useful tool in AfDs; while a search certainly doesn't prove or disprove notability, it can (particularly for media-related or current affairs topics) provide verification of a topic's existence, and may produce some sources which can be used to save a poorly-written article. Obviously, though, a Google search should never be used as the sole determinant of notability, nor does a lack of ghits necessarily indicate non-notability (especially for obscure historical, scientific, or non-Western cultural topics), so I would never encourage excessive reliance on Google in place of reason, logic or research. If this RfA passes, I urge Siva not to evaluate the arguments on a superficial level when closing AfDs. Walton^One 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of this. I myself do not excessively rely on Google hits alone in place of reason, logic or research. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walton, I know that Google can be useful but look at those diffs! This is precisely the kind of superficial Google test that Siva was criticized for in previous RfAs. Pascal.Tesson 12:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder oppose pending answers to non compulsory questions. Will replace this comment and possibly amend !vote on basis of what if anything is said in answers. While you can of course choose to ignore them, I currently have no trust in you as an admin and while you'll be hard-pressed to convince me, I am flexible enough to read any answers with an open mind. --Dweller 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even though I supported last time. The candidate's contributions have always been minor edits, and that seems unlikely to change. I checked the recent log: fixing talk page Wikiproject templates, voting on AFDs and RFAs, fixing soccer-related wikilinks, and so forth. This is all valuable work, and I hope he continues to do it, but it's not the kind of approach I'd like to see in an admin. The problem is that being an admin requires a person to think on their feet and not just to act automatically. This is why we don't allow bots to be admins (with one or two known exceptions), and one user has been desysopped for running an unauthorized bot on an admin account. Welcoming 600 IPs is a bot-like task, even if he didn't use a bot to do it. What would happen if the candidate became an admin? Probably he would start attacking the speedy deletion candidates, knocking off broken redirects and undocumented images by the hundreds. But would these all be correct decisions? In every large batch of deletion candidates, there are always a couple of outliers that don't belong there and can be salvaged, and a good admin can see these outliers and fix the problem instead of blindly deleting everything. I don't see that judiciousness from the editing pattern of Siva1979. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ This user's certainly been around long enough to have picked up policy by osmosis, but I can't really see any evidence of it. Shalom puts it perfectly; this is a user who's main admin area is likely to be deletion, but doesn't demonstrate any ability to tell an unsaveable article from one that just needs cleanup. Aside from cut-and-paste templating of talk pages I can see only two talk edits since January and, while the user talk edits are hard to pick out of the flood of cut-and-paste welcome messages, I can only see around six user talk posts in the same period. Despite your claims in the answers to the questions, you seem just as willing as ever to confuse google hits with notability and equate "sources aren't online" with "sources don't exist" ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13] for example in the last three days alone), and I don't think it's appropriate giving someone with this attitude deletion powers. You also either don't understand the username policy at all, or don't pay attention to what you're editing - neither of which is a good thing - if you really didn't see any problem with posting welcome messages to User:Vaginal discharge (total contribution history:[14], [15], [16]) and User:Mattdonsisgay1 (sole contribution; to move Cristiano Ronaldo to Cristiano 'The Gay Wanker' Ronaldo) — both on 18 September, so not in the dim-and-distant past). — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Strong oppose. You specifically say you want admin powers to be able to speedy-delete pages and close AfDs - however, having looked at your deleted edits you have only (successfully) nominated one article for speedy deletion and four articles for AfD in the last 12 months. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iridescent; when someone wants to do CSD's I look for deleted edits as evidence of familiarity with the process and criteria, and found little. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thank you, Iridescent, I've had much fun reading your comment. Beit Or 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but welcoming such an obviously bad-faith user like User:Vaginal discharge is a deal-breaker to me. They should have been reported to UAA the moment the name was seen, or to AIV the moment the edits were seen. Given a general "welcome to Wikipedia" message suggests you're not paying attention to what you're doing, which is not a quality an admin should have. We don't need human/bot hybrids. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are right! What was I thinking!?! I offer no excuse here for my total lack of judgement. It could be due to way too much editing. Moreover, referring to me as a human/bot hybrid is very comical to say the least!! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not have any Wikipedia Project space other than all of these RFA's. Evethough this user has been a member for than 1.5 years, they still need a lot more to learn. The fact that you have not been succesful with all of those other RFAs worries me. You need a lot more experience, good luck next time! --bobsmith319 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than RfAs? Well, I also made quite a lot of edits to AfD pages as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Siva1979's archived edit count, he's got 117 edits on the past four RfAs, out of 3,397 edits in the project namespace (that's 3,280 edits to Wikipedia namespace pages that aren't his RfAs). To say he hasn't done anything there except work on his own RfAs is ridiculous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is an easy decision for me, but one which troubles me. In your last RFA, I based my oppose on the Google test issue, and that remains a strong foundation for my opposition now. Plenty of difs have been provided above to this point (Pascal in particular). What troubles me is opposing you when you are clearly a dedicated, motivated editor, who has been here long enough to know how things work. In this case, I'm breaking "trust" into two parts; trust in technical matters, and trust in judgment. You have my trust in technical matters, but you still have not convinced me to trust your judgment. Your response to Question 8 above could actually represent this lack of judgment. The question is clearly asking you how you could physically spend nearly 9 hours making almost 700 manual edits. The hidden question is how could you make a rational decision on each of those edits. Your responses then fail to take the question very seriously, and in fact appear to brag about your ability to edit at a speed so rapid that it eliminates any possibility for well reasoned thought. If this RfA fails, I really want to see from you a greater application of rational thought. You knew from the last RfA what you were doing that prevented many respected editors from supporting you. This time around, your best chance of success would have been not to enter this RfA with hundreds of edits that suggest you have not grown since the last time through. I think there are many people who would like to see someone as dedicated as you (and I count myself amongst the many) pass through an RfA with flying colors. To that end, I am encouraging you to simply slow down you editing, and demonstrate a more thoughtful process. Hiberniantears 23:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this user doesn't use enough discretion in normal editing for me to trust their judgemental ability if they were to become an administrator, and the comment "I wonder how many RfAs I must go through before being given the added tools to be an admin" didn't impress me at all. Daniel 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Siva but you don't seem to be learning anything from your failed nominations. I'm quite concerned with whether you will be careful enough around AFDs and speedy deletions. Many of the concerns above -- but also at your previous 4 RFAs -- have been about the need for more care, and yet this problem continues. --JayHenry 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but I honestly see no improvement from the last Rfa. Jmlk 1 7 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. After reading the reasoning of the opposers and the answers to the questions, I believe that there is a substantial chance of misuse (not abuse) of admin tools. There are just too many examples of acting without thinking things through. Chaz ^Beckett 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning oppose. The issues brought up by the opposers concern me, though I'm withholding opposition until additional questions are answered. RfA comments such as this, this and this are verging on votes and aren't very helpful to candidates. Combined with the tendency to welcome users whose contributions are mostly vandalism, I'm wondering how much effort is put into each edit. I'd prefer to see quality over quantity. Chaz ^Beckett 11:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how you see those three examples verging on votes and why they aren't helpful? To me they look like modification of the tally counter, followed by support/oppose, with what seems to me, acceptable commentary. ^Khukri 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're verging on votes because the "commentary" is so minimal. A comment like "Glad to give my support to a very experience user" is about as generic as it gets and isn't helpful in a controversial RfA like Kelly Martin's. Same with "User needs to have more experience. Try again after a few months and you may have my support." and "I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after a few months". These comments don't demonstrate much thought or effort, in my opinion. Chaz ^Beckett 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with you that his comment on Kelly Martin's RfA - "glad to give my support to a very experienced user" - looks somewhat trite and superficial in the light of later developments. However, bear in mind that he participated in that RfA during its first stages, as did several other editors; many of them later changed their minds when I and a few others presented them with the evidence of Ms. Martin's aggressive and unpleasant behaviour (most of which was detailed in her fourth user conduct RfC, later deleted). There was no way Siva could have known the background to the situation. Further, there were several experienced admins who supported that RfA; while this makes me doubt their judgment, I don't think they all need to be desysopped. So I don't think this is a compelling reason to deny Siva the tools. Walton^One 15:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That demonstrates what I'm concerned about, that it appears that little thought or effort is being put into edits. A slight bit of research would have immediately revealed a great about Kelly's background and the controversy surrounding her. Perhaps Siva would still have supported her RfA, but at least then he would have been making an informed choice. I want admins who assess each situation fully before making decisions. I'm just not confident that Siva will do this. Chaz ^Beckett 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest we hold judgment on this issue until we see an answer to Q.7 above? Ronnotel 15:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did mention I was remaining neutral until questions are answered However, I would like to see evidence that such minimal comments are the exception, rather than the rule. Chaz ^Beckett 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above users' reasoning, and as demonstrated by your replies to some of the comments left here, the fact that you can't determine the difference between the quality of edits, and the quantity of edits. ~ Sebi _[talk] 01:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but I cannot support you due to issues raised by above users, especially Aillema, Kusma, Khukri, and iridescent. You still show a lack of comprehension about WP:PG. Try to work more on WP:AFD, that is a good place to gain experience. Good luck. Carlosguitar 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Major judgment issues. Mattdonsisgay1 and Vaginal Discharge? Wow... -- Y not? 04:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This "power-hungry" user devotes most of his edits on welcoming inactive anon IPs and making useless edits on updating his signatures. Furthermore, as mentioned by Kusma, this user did not even correct the "rollbock" typo from his copy-pasted RFA answers. Keb25 05:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Power-hungry" is rather harsh, and verges on a personal attack. Nor are inadvertent typos a particularly good reason to oppose IMO. I can understand some of the other reasons for opposing Siva, but not these. Walton^One 07:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the typos, it's worth pointing out that Siva's from Singapore and (I assume) English isn't his first language - I'm sure any of us would make more mistakes in Malay than Siva makes in English. — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I presume you meant Tamil?) Orderinchaos 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm sorry, Siva, I appreciate your enthuasiasm to help out, but I don't think the problems I perceived at the last RfA in judgement regarding AfD have yet improved sufficiently for me to be comfortable supporting your promotion. Espresso Addict 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sry. I like the enthusiasm of the candidate, and the civility in discussons. However, I'm deeply disturbed by this statement: "I give the benefit of the doubt to most of the RfA nominations because being an admin is no big deal." Sry, but the power that comes with admin tools is a big deal, imho. This requires trust, that has to be earned, this isn't something to take on the light side. The points made by other users here, as well as the candidate's own statments, supports the view that Siva isn't taking the matter serious enough. If there would be other rules here, say, a "sunset clause" thazt required another vote after a probation time of six months, I would perhaps support this nomination. But not under these circumstances. Gray62 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more about this, "being an admin is no big deal. (Jimbo Wales made that comment)", my doubts about Siva's good judgment are even growing. Look that quote up, what Jimbo said in this context is that admins shouldn't regard themselves as special or even more important than other editors. Jimbo didn't say the community shouldn't take the AfA vote for serious, nor did he say that being a good admin is easy! Siva, do you really think Jimbo meant it the way you stated it here? Gray62 14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kusma and Aillemma. I think that IP welcomes are just to rack up edits. Judging from his last 5000 edits, he just seems to be doing minor edits like welcomes, adding templates or wikification.--WriterListener 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but welcomes, adding templates or wikification are some of them most important roles around. Dfrg.msc 21:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the above concerns. NHRHS2010^Talk 22:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is your fifth nomination, and your second self nomination. I think that shows that the community has big concerns about you becomming an admin. Yahel Guhan 01:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the community aside, what do you think, and why? ^Khukri 06:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have doubt in this user's judgement (vaginal discharge?). Two self nominations in as many months after three failed noms also makes me concerned about power hunger. east.718 at 02:47, October 4, 2007
Strong Oppose Completely unqualified to be a sysop as far as I can tell. Answers to questions, as well as four previously failed RfAs show immaturity and a serious lack of judgement. I think a one year ArbCom ban from applying to be a sysop might be in order, to give Siva the chance he needs to mature and improve his Wiki-attitude. Rackabello 18:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom? Don't you think that's extremely excessive? Acalamari 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I think five failed RfA nominations in such a short time is, and I feel it requires further attention. Rackabello 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why ArbCom would need to get involved. There's no formal rule stating how frequently an editor may apply to RfA, and as long as a candidate has addressed the concerns of their previous attempts, why should we hold a grudge against them? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Answer to question number six shows that he's no willing to spend much time on backlogs at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above reasoning. --Folic Acid 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't feel that this person necessarily has the judgement to be a good admin. Being an admin involves making good calls in difficult situations. The Google hits reliance at AfDs is of concern to me. Additionally, a rather odd flurry of activity in late July just days after the last RfA, after a proposal still in development at Template:Football (some of the changes were not even 2 days old) was pushed heavily on a selection of random WikiProject templates (Australia, Japan, Africa) on the basis that all WikiProject banners should look the same. While everyone is entitled to an opinion and I can see some merit in the suggestion, the only non-protected template of the three, Africa, was changed by Siva despite a lack of consensus and had to be reverted (it should be observed that if the 4th RfA had have passed, all three templates would have been open for the candidate to edit), and of particular concern was the attempt to solicit unrelated editors into the discussions on the various WP talk pages. [17] [18] Both diffs were almost straight after the creation of the suggestions on the respective pages, and it should be noted neither editor entered the discussions. The end result was a discussion at Village Pump archiving diff where a consensus otherwise was resolved. Siva did respect the consensus once established, but the conduct throughout the whole incident, while showing perfect good faith, unfortunately demonstrated a lack of judgement in my view. I would suggest the candidate wait six months and then try again, as I believe that people can make mistakes and errors and learn from them. Orderinchaos 14:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont normally like to participate in these things, but... why do you need to be an admin to do thousands of welcome messages? Or have discussions about templates? Sure, everyone would like to be an admin, but unless there's a decent reason... Thedreamdied 16:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI don't normally like to participate in these things either, but I recall a user (Raina?) once joking that this candidate is everywhere, all the time, and should be put on list so that she could be reminded he is not an admin. (or something to that effect). I fully agree with the views expressed by the "opposers" above and feel that this candidate lacks the maturity to be a good admin.Ivygohnair 11:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Orderinchaos' reasoning. The candidate also still relies on google hits in most Afd debates that he participated. *drew 12:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral I can't really decide. Your number of edits are phenomenal, but you seem to be quite new compared to other admins. And reading some of the oppose comments, I neither support or oppose. (''Shokwaav'' 11:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Was originally Support, but answer to Q.7 makes me a little uneasy. RfA's deserve attention from each participant. I won't oppose because of the decidedly strong contributions. But I detect a lack of good judgment in some of Siva's actions. Sorry. Ronnotel 16:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The concerns raised by Kusma and Aillema are kind of concerning. Sure, it's nice to welcome IPs and new users, but the number of welcomes you have done is staggering. I'm not sure if you should be spending all that time welcoming new users and IPs. Then again, you do have more than 7000 mainspace edits as per this, so I'm not worried about having too little edits outside of talk pages. Also, may I ask a question here instead of in the dedicated section for sake of speed? Why, after five RFAs, do you feel that the time is ripe for another go? Regards, Ανέκδοτο 01:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutral to avoid pile-on, largely per HibernianTears (oppose 13). Also, I would expect more effort at winning trust with a more thorough self-nomination for a fifth RFA. It correlates with HibernianTears' observations about not addressing editing problems from previous RFAs.--chaser - t 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral changed from oppose. I cannot support your nomination as you're a weak candidate on so many grounds, particularly judgement and deletion processes. However, you remain steadfastly good-humoured and are an absolute work-horse. I wish that you could find a slightly more worthy outlet for your energy that welcoming dud IPs, but I'd not oppose you for your clearly laudable intentions. The fact that all those edits weren't automated (which I suspected, but I'm happy to trust your answer) is astonishing. All in all, I wish you well, but cannot in good faith support you for the mop. I'll drop you a line at your talk page if this RfA fails, with some advice. --Dweller 09:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, which I've tried to post twice, but I've been blocked by edit conflicts. Typos are not a huge deal, if you attempt to fix them. Spending a whole day welcoming SPA's is a tad much. I understand and agree with many of the comments on both sides. Better luck next time! Bearian 16:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I do think you're a well-meaning, civil and hardworking contributor. But two of the issues raised by iridescent give me pause: (1) Missing some obviously inappropriate names. I can kind of understand this though, since I'd presume that doing welcome messages for 8 hours would make most people trance-y. (2) The dealbreaker is the lack of evidence for understanding of deletion policy. (Although since I'm not an admin, I'm relying on iridescent's honesty here). Low contribs in this area makes me slightly nervous. Best though, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right!! I was in some kind of a mysterious trance which is hard to explain! Will I ever do that again in the future? It depends, but I must admit that I actually enjoyed welcoming those users for a period of 8 hours!!! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I was tempted to support and then tempted to oppose. I finally succumbed to the convienience of the Neutral section, which is just as well. I've seen this user around everywhere and he generally tends not to make a complete fool of himself. Although the edits links provided above by various users are concerning, I don't think Siva would abuse the tools and I think all the problems pointed out above were in good faith and simply bad mistakes. I think we can all agree that Siva is an asset to the community, but for now, I think you need to work on your admin skills a bit more before you're granted the tools. Cheers, Spawn Man 10:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true Spawn Man. The problems pointed above were just some terrible bad mistakes (what was I thinking welcoming Vaginal Discharge?!). However, I will in the future strive to improve on the quality of my edits. And I will assure the community that I will not repeat these mistakes again. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel 6 months would be sufficiant time after this RfA, if you don't make any mistakes like this again that is. My philosophy is that if you're in doubt, don't comment on it; all it's going to do is piss someone off who's on the side you're not on. Unless you have an absolute must tell opinion, it's better to save yourself the trouble and stick to the ones you know 100%. But of course, be bold. :) Cheers Siva. Spawn Man 04:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral After reading through this entire RfA, I'll have to say neutral. Has he done positive things? Of course. Do some of his actions make me doubt his judgment-making abilities? Possibly. I know this is generic, but I truly think that, after this RfA, Siva, you should give it about 6 months. Work very hard to make educated judgments, make strong contributions in the mainspace, try to participate throughout the namespace with comments that are backed up by policy, and make user/article talk page edits in an attempt to collaborate/better articles here. I think that you do have a great deal of potential. You simply need to back away from RfA's a bit, and focus on becoming a trusted member of the community. I am positive that, in time, you can become an admin if you put the work into it. The issues that have been presented are easily corrected. Cheers, нмŵוτн τ 16:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. What a puzzling user. His actions could be laudable, or they might simply reflect poor judgment. More substantive activity is necessary for me to make up my mind. Cool Hand Luke 07:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 169: / Line 169: @@
 #'''Oppose''' I dont normally like to participate in these things, but... why do you need to be an admin to do thousands of welcome messages? Or have discussions about templates? Sure, everyone would like to be an admin, but unless there's a decent reason... [[User:Thedreamdied|Thedreamdied]] 16:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose'''I don't normally like to participate in these things either, but I recall a user (Raina?) once joking that this candidate is everywhere, all the time, and should be put on list so that she could be reminded he is not an admin. (or something to that effect). I fully agree with the views expressed by the "opposers" above and feel that this candidate lacks the maturity to be a good admin.[[User:Ivygohnair|Ivygohnair]] 11:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
+#'''Oppose''' per Orderinchaos' reasoning. The candidate also still relies on google hits in most Afd debates that he participated. [[User:*drew|*drew]] 12:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 '''Neutral'''