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

Final (69/34/6) Ended 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

1. Comment Hmmm, it seems your answer to my question was less than complete per Centrix, Snow and David D. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 04:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

RfA voting history (edits out of all WP: edits).Voice-of-All 21:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to RfAs: 29.81% (640 edit(s))
Marked RfA votes: 16.3% (317 support vote(s)) || (33 oppose vote(s))

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
8. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Great contributions to the project, good answers, looks ready to me. Themindset 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   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) changed to neutral Pete.Hurd 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10. Strong support -- Samir धर्म 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. SupportSome P. Erson 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - Richardcavell 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. 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)[reply]
14. Support as I did in both previous RfAs. Great work Siva1979. DarthVader 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. 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) Reconfirm support I don't feel it's right to conjecture that Siva's body of contributions, especially since the last RfA, have been resume-building. Siva clearly won't abuse the tools, and I fear that this is a textbook example of the nit-picking that is beginning to go in RfAs. Heck, I have a thousand consecutive repetitive edits myself, since I didn't feel like contacting a bot owner. Go ahead; subtract them from my edit count. -- tariqabjotu 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. 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)[reply]
17. Support I don't see any reason to oppose. Would make a reliable admin. --Gray Porpoise 23:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Mighty Support. A fine Wikipedian. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support seen him around a lot in AfD. Believe he would benefit from the tools. Viridae^Talk 00:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. 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)[reply]
22. Support. About time. G.He 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. I don't see any indication that the editor would misuse or abuse the tools. --Aguerriero (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Definately ready for adminship. An excellent contributor. Zaxem 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Seen him around from time to time in the project space, excellent comments. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support, for the same reasons as Thatcher131 above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. 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)[reply]
28. Strong Support per Thatcher13, also per edit counting - dedicated editors make good admins abakharev 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

30. Happy to support an up-and-coming administrator. Quill E. Coyote 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Strong Support Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)(cell)[reply]
32. Strong support per alex Bakharev.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, it is time. SorryGuy 05:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

33. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Hell yeah. --Nearly Headless Nick 06:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Merovingian - Talk 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support You'd have to be mad not to. Jorcoga^ETC. 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. 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)[reply]
38. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:37, 16 August 2006}
39. Support, great user. :) --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. 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)[reply]
41. Support seen this user around for some time now, good contributor. Would do well with the tools. Stubbleboy 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support will make a gret admin. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Don't see why not. --kingboyk 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

44. 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)[reply]
45. Strong Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Good editor who will make good use of administrator tools. -- Vision Thing -- 19:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. why not? --heah 22:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

48. Examination study support! I'm studying but I support as his co-nominator!--Tdxiang Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 10:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Total Support.  Grue  11:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. 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)[reply]
51. Support. Great editor. Budgiekiller 16:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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) Changed to oppose. -- SCZenz 15:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

52. Support. I agree with SCZenz. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support per Rama's arrow.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - "a good user". :p —Khoikhoi 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. 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)[reply]
57. Support Meets all of my standards. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Having gone through the users edits in more detail, I think that Siva has a basic understanding of policies. I would strongly prefer however if Siva be careful the first few weeks of his adminship to make sure that he is acting within policy when he uses his admin tools. JoshuaZ 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

58. Strong support One of my favorite users. Dislike some of the AfD styles, but that's nothing to oppose over (opposing over a user with slightly different wikiphilosophy is unprofessional and absolutely uncalled for). Go Siva! — Deckiller 21:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak support- After reading all the comments and mulling this over, I believe Siva is careful enough that he can be trusted with the tools. I believe he is making a good faith effort to overcome his shortcomings. If he is to err, it will be on the side of caution, and he has other admin's in support that he can rely on if need be. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 21:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    'Back to oppose it is per Centrix, Snow and David D and evidently incomplete answer to my question. :) Dlohcierekim 04:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

59. Support Looking through Siva's contributions to Wikipedia, he's done much for improving it. Also, he resides in Singapore, which helps since the overwelming majority of English Wikipedians are currently from the United States and England (among others), and this thus it would add another international side to this great community. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 01:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support per Blnguyen's counter to Rebecca's argument. Dionyseus 02:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60. Support Great editor. ForestH2 t/c 02:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support per Alphachimp. Would contribute quality articles to football. --Ageo020 11:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit obtuse sometimes-- how will adminshio help him contribute quality articles to football? :) Dlohcierekim 12:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

62. Support a dedicated, honest and well menaing user who would be a credit to Wikipedia. Robdurbar 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Yankee Rajput 04:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User's 35th edit. Registered on August 17. Kimchi.sg 12:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

64. Support: Per Forest H2. The Coffee Shop That Smiles Upon The River 16:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Registered on August 18. [1]--Jersey Devil 16:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me, but why does that matter? If i'm not allowed to vote per a rule somewhere on Wikipedia, please just tell me so. Otherwise, please do not question my character if that is your intention. The Coffee Shop That Smiles Upon The River 17:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You're allowed to vote, of course. JD was just noting that you are quite new.

    I was also likewise wondering what the purpose of that small text was below my vote. Yankee Rajput 00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it is not a "vote" precisely. It has the nature of a debate, where less weight may be given to new users, for example. Tyrenius 06:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65. Support. This user has shown that he will use admin tools helpfully in q1, and he is definitely civil. Picaroon9288|ta co 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Should help to clear the backlog.--Runcorn 19:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support: changed vote after reading further discussion. Thumbelina 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support, don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. Everyking 08:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. 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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

   Thanks to all who discussed my vote, especially CanadianCaesar. Systemic 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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

2. Oppose. The state of this RfA says bucketloads about why the RfA process is screwed. Rebecca 00:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   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)`[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   Rebecca and the opposers below, think of it this way: when you hire someone into retail, would you rather have someone who would just go in and do their usual work, or someone who is ambitious and willing to go above and beyond for the same pay (in this case, nothing)? See, one must understand that if someone is ambitious, it doesn't make them blind. We need to take advantage of ambitious users and put them to work where they are willing to work, not shun them based on the philosophy that ambition is bad for an encyclopedia (?!). I'm ambitious, and I see Wikipedia as an opportunity to further my work ethic, my writing, my communication skills, and my endurance/time management skills. Does that make me a liability to this encyclopedia? I think not; I've contributed to several FAs, wikiprojects, and so on. Not to sound egotistical, but I personally feel this is flawed logic, and I ask you to reconsider your position. Oh, and this user is clearly not tailoring edits to meet RfA standards; otherwise, there would only be one oppose (Massivego). — Deckiller 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   My criteria are not based on whether he is a liability to wikipedia. If that was the only criteria then anyone with three months of editing, no record of vandalism or blocks should be made an admin right now. It could easily be automated and no RfA should be requirted. Until that day i vote on whether I think the user displays editing habits that require the tools. What Siva requires is a licence to run a bot. But do you need to be an admin to do that? David D. (Talk) 22:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Your comment sounds remarkably like this one in another failed RfA. :) Kimchi.sg 02:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   We must have similar criteria. David D. (Talk) 21:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Sounds like we have different core ideas as to who should get the admin tools. My idea is that admin tools shouldn't just be given to users who may use them the most; even if a user doesn't seem like he or she will use the tools, it's always good to have them on short notice (and, I don't know about you, but I tend to get wierd impulses to do tedious work...probably because of my job). Also, I disagree with the liability assessment; I consider users who are constantly incivil or who become fused with edit wars to be liabilities (at least temporarily enough to cause issues in trusting the user). My point is this: why not give assets the chance to become even greater assets? You have ten dollars. You keep those ten dollars no matter what; do you just keep it as it is, or take a chance to add another five? Why not go for it when there's nothing to lose (as clearly, the opposes don't really seem to point that the user would do terrible things with tools). The counterarugement to this si going to be that the user may burn out anyway, and the user may forget a policy and slip up (which I actually highly doubt in this case, given Siva's ambition), but that happens to everyone — perhaps especially if they are turned down from something they're interested in. — Deckiller 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   You miss my point on liability. I agree uncivil users are the worst admins to have on wikipedia and I have opposed against the tide for landside candidates for this reason before. I am looking for an admin who has abilities to interact with other users. When someoine makes an unpopular decision they need to be able to defend their actions with reasoned and rational explanations. It is this admin like quality that seems underdeveloped in the case of Siva. So my rationale for opposing is based on the fact that I am not convinced Silva can interact and communicate with those that will inevitably criticise or worse, fool him into taking sides. I am sure he can develop these skills but at present there is not really enough quality edits to judge if he has them or not. I don't think it is wise to promote an admin who may become a deer in the headlights. I am interested why you think ambition is something that is desirable with respect to being an admin? Ambition for what? David D. (Talk) 21:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Ambition and motivation to do well as an admin, which often boils down to a willingness to perform tedious tasks, such as clearing backlogs. I go back to my retail example; some associates come in, and despite lousy pay, they are driven to do their best with characteristics that seem to be similar to that of Siva: they just want to be noticed and they want to be satisfied with their work ethic.) This user seems more geared toward performing community cleanup (and AfDs; closing based on consensus is nothing like "voting" on them), which I always welcome (and I believe that the best way to learn is to be placed in the heat of the moment, as edit wars and admin criticism issues are entirely different, so I believe the skills you mention can only be appropriately honed after months of admin duties. Many people learn how to swim after being thrown into the water; it's quite difficult to learn how to swim in the classroom, and be expected to start swimming immediately thereafter). — Deckiller 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Weak Oppose. Fails my criteria --Masssiveego 03:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per W.marsh, Rebecca, David D., Bobet and Michael Snow. His contributions don't strike me as substantive and I feel his eagerness for adminship is irksome.--cj | talk 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: Eagerness for adminship? Well, so far, all of my nominations had not been a self-nom. If I had self-nominated myself twice or three times within the past eight months, I would have viewed your comments with justification. But there were even times when I had declined to be nominated for adminship and as for this RfA, I officially accepted this after two weeks of consideration from the nominator. Everytime someone nominates me for adminship, I give it due thought. Yes, I would like to become an admin to widen my range of service to this project. BUT I am not desperate for this position. If I had been, all of my past RfAs would have been self-noms. Moreover, I am always willing to learn from mistakes and improve on my contributions on this project as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose - not convinced by the mushy answer to JoshuaZ's question. Kimchi.sg 06:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per W. Marsh. —freak() 12:31, Aug. 16, 2006 (UTC)
7. Weak Strong Oppose per W.Marsh - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Chg to strong per Centrx - oy vey! - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose, because of edits like [2], 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 [3], 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)[reply]

   Comment Well, the reason I did this is because I did not want these articles to be deleted. I was hoping that a user with the necessary information would expand these types of articles. A few of these were indeed improved on because of my prominent tag. My intentions were to improve on these myself but I was very busy with other aspects of Wikipedia. And I have not forgotton about these articles. Well, I wish to thank you for your comments. All the other oppose votes would also be taken into serious consideration as well. The correct attitude one must take in dealing with oppose votes is to improve the quality of edits. As each month progresses and with another unsuccesful RfA looming so near yet again, the only way for me is to better myself with this wonderful project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose by JerseyDevil and Bobet. Kusma (討論) 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   #Oppose per above. Thumbelina 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10. 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)[reply]

    Hellooo, changable oppose opinion here. Worth 4-5 supports to talk with. Please badger? :-) Kim Bruning 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: No. I do not assume bad faith with anons. In fact, I also welcome new anon users from time to time, encouraging them to have a username. I am also aware that anons are just as capable of making excellent contributions to this project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11. 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)[reply]
12. 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)[reply]

    Comment: Well, actually I personally view adminship as a service to the community. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose per above. --HResearcher 02:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose per Michael Snow and Cyde. Ral315 (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose per Michael Snow. Mackensen (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose per Michael Snow. An admin doesn't need to be able to quote chapter and verse from policy, but they do need to understand why a policy exists. This is a case where I'm quite sure that the tools wouldn't be abused, but do I believe that they'd likely be misused. Aren't I Obscure? 14:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose I'm sorry but I feel I cannot support this candidate at the time. It's an impressive number of edits over a very wide range of areas but I saw very few edits that seem to demonstrate this candidate is well versed enough to be an administrator. On closer inspection I get a strong feeling that there may be some resume building going on too and this fits with what I consider a premature RfA (less than three months after the last one finished). I have seen this impatience from many other candidates. When I sense a candidate really wants to be an admin it does make me look at their edits a little more carefully. Adminship should not be viewed as a status symbol. Below is a summary of some edits since June the 8th (the end of the last RfA) that I find troubling.

    Minor edits to increase edit count?

    There were a significant number of edits in the portal and help domains mostly titled (minor wikification). I find it incredible that Siva1979 took eight edits to wikify the introduction of the punk portal. Is this to rack up edits? Sorry for my lack of good faith here, but it is a little strange.

    Manual edits more suited to a bot, why not ask someone who uses a bot to perform these edits?

    In the portal talk there were many edits titled (added template). Why wouldn't Siva1979 ask someone with a bot to do such edits? This seems like a perfect task for automation? Another instance of this was when Siva1979 changed his signature and then proceeded to go back and 'updated signature' on all his old welcome messages. Why bother? These do not seem like the type of edits I would see a savey, admin type, editor doing.

    Drive by comments without significant contribution to discussions

    I think it was interesting that Siva1979 has contributed to many of the media wiki talk pages. I looked at one talk page and found mostly vacuous comments that really added nothing to the discussion. For example, the only three comments on the MediaWiki talk:Common.css page were "This sounds like an excellent idea", "Support. Articles would benefit from it" and "Agreed. I feel that it would be appropriate to follow the style guidelines as much as possible" why is the nothing more substantial on these pages. Is this aimed at showing talk page interaction to look good for the upcoming RfA? Another example from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate is the comment "Well, I have no objections over this". This was literally the only comment made by this user of the page. I find these drive by comments quite strange, I would expect to see someone with admin qualities play a more substantial role in discussions.

    Little evidence of interactions with other editors

    I was also looking through the article talk edits for Siva1979 since the last RfA and almost all of them entail 'added template' changes with very few actually interactions with other wikipedians.

    Creating new content without commitment for expansion

    Finally some have mentioned the quality edits he has been making to football pages. Yet I see this page which has been dormant for two months. Did Siva1979 forget about this article? I also wonder what is the true value of having pages on all these local football teams at level 12 in the UK. Their notability seems on the low end of the scale with regard to this project. I think he demonstrated a great effort to catalog them all, although I question whether it is necessary given the holes in other areas of content. David D. (Talk) 20:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18. Strong Oppose per Rebecca and RfA voting history; I just don't like what seems to be "tit for tat".Voice-of-All 21:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Reluctant oppose per Michael Snow, David D. et al. DS 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Strong oppose: Behavior raised above is weird and does not show experience. One alarming thing: when voting on RfA, RfA candidates clearly were not considered carefully, if at all. Aside from sheer number, an astounding 350 RfA votes, 317 being supports, numerous times there were votes in 4 RfAs within the space of 10 minutes, and at other times 30 in one week. Answers to questions are somewhat weak (Still proud of the red-link fixing on the very same articles described in the April RfA?) and do not relieve concerns (Applying the dates and numbers MoS shows policy experience? In all maintenance experience of 6 months, never once using prod?). Noticing Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen and mentioning it in the boilerplate questions here does not entail maintenance experience. So, I looked at Wikipedia namespace edits. I looked at the many RfA comments, the AfD comments, and the handful of FAC comments. They are almost invariably short, repetitive votes, and are often appended to what is already a landslide; they do not demonstrate knowledge or experience that would alleviate the concerns here. Of the last 500, back to June, there are about 200 of the pointless signature-changing edits and the several updates to the vote count of this RfA. There is so much ballot-box voting (i.e., quick, no discussion) so hastily in so many RfAs that he actually duplicate-voted on three of them ([4] [5] [6]). All of this, and the concerns raised above, at best points to bad judgement and hasty decision-making. —Centrx→talk • 22:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought he had stopped that. Were there any after his last RfA? Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 23:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All of this was after the last RfA. I did not closely examine contributions made before the last RfA (early June). —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21. Weak Oppose per W. Marsh. Wikipediarules2221 00:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose per Michael Snow. *drew 04:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose per last two RFAs and above. Very convincing argument for oppose. Sorry. –Chacor 07:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose as per the many above concerns. --pgk^(talk) 10:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose. My experience tells me that when an RfA is contested this actively, and the nominee expresses this much of an interest in the speedy deletion tool, the nominee's usually not ready to be an admin. Sorry, Siva, but nothing you say here convinces me that you're an exception to the pattern. VivianDarkbloom 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose per Michael Snow and Cyde. 172 | Talk 04:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose Actually, I don't want to oppose his adminship, I would like to support. However, He doesn't show experiences. So, need to consider himself before 2nd adminship. Daniel's page ☎ 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose I originally voted to support, but the evidence provided by Michael Snow and Centrx. Dionyseus 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose, although I too had been supporting. I thought from the reactions of trusted editors as well as the answers provided by Siva that he had chnaged many of this actions since the last RfA. However, after reviewing the information which centrx provided I was alarmed. I went ahead and looked at Siva's contribs and found that centrx is correct. As a result I can no longer support this canidate. SorryGuy 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Reluctant oppose, but Michael Snow and Centrx did the homework I neglected. :) Dlohcierekim 04:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose as per Centrx (changed from neutral). Pete.Hurd 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose per Centrx, Michael Snow, and this comment: Moreover, the lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy. If we began to delate this article, I am afraid that this would set a presedence in the way no-league football clubs are being delt with on Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 07:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but I don't see how Siva's comment referenced here warrants an oppose. :) Dlohcierekim 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I discussed it on my talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 16:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

33. Reluctant oppose. Centrx raises valid points; admins need to do more than just have opinions, they need to think about the judgements they're making. -- SCZenz 15:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose per David D. Centrix, and Trialsanderrors. I'm not convinced that this user is completely up on his knowledge of policy, and, as SCZenz (among others) stated, Siva has a tendency to simply go along with the pack or act without truly thinking. I have no doubt that Siva is a good and valued contributor to WP, but I just don't think the user should be given the admin tools. -- Kicking222 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   #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) switching to support. JoshuaZ 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

   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.[reply]

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

   Decided to oppose.Voice-of-All 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral changed from support, as per Michael Snow etc. Pete.Hurd 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC) change to oppose as per Centrx. Pete.Hurd 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral, mainly per Centrx and Michael Snow. I might reconsider later if it's still close. BryanG^(talk) 05:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral changed from support. Centrx's well argued case makes it difficult to support at this time. I will think about it more if it's still close. --kingboyk 21:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral Now per concerns raised by Centrix, Snow and David D. JoshuaZ 18:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral Per concerns raised by Centrix, and to a lesser extent by others above. I have not had enough personal interaction with Siva1979 to override these concerns; on the other hand I don't see evidence of anything strong enough to make me oppose. Mike Christie (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral, reluctantly--changed from support, as per concerns raised by centrix. --heah 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.