Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Siva1979

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Siva1979

Final (33/21/17) ending 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Siva1979 (talk • contribs)-- Siva has been here for quite some time and has managed to rake up over 4000+ 6000+ edits! It's surprising. Not only that, he also participates in SGpedians' Notice Board actively. He also has contributed a lot to football related articles. A good editor and an asset to Wikipedia!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC!SGpedians' notice board 09:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tweak in edit number by LV (Dark Mark) 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Seems level-headed, knowledgeable of Wikipedia, and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Elkman - (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. My only dealings with Siva were surrounding the 1911 Britannica import, and the fact that he (unprompted) has acknowledged where he went wrong gives me no reason not to support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Little new still, but level-headed and thorough. His mophood will benefit Wikipedia. Xoloz 17:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support very good editor, even if new. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Three months is enough experience for me, especially with a good candidate like this one. good luck.--Alhutch 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support seems good.  Grue  18:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. DarthVader 22:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. have seen this editor around. --Andy123(talk) 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. I'll support ya- interested in the project, the added tools will be good for this editor.--Adam (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support good candidate --rogerd 04:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Three months is sufficient for me. Editor seems to make up for lack of talk page edits with user talk page edits. Everything looks fine to me. Pepsidrinka 12:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support _-M o P-_ 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, good editor. I think he's quite levelheaded. Sure, he should probably talk page a bit more, but agree as above he user talk pages quite a bit. I see no problem -- Samir (the scope) 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. "Adminship is no big deal" - Mailer Diablo 04:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Cabal support as nom!-- 陈鼎翔 说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support - Siva1979 is operating as an admin should, with deep involvement in the wikipedia namespace. - Richardcavell 11:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Weak Support no big deal. Eivindt@c 21:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support I leave no comment. What this member did speaks for itself. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, adminship is no big deal. --Terence Ong 03:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, judging by his contribs, a unique editor and wikipedian who can bring a lot to the table.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 14:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, he helps wikipedia.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, seems very helpful.Crew29 13:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Super-strong support Should make an excellent administrator. Well done! Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support I don't have any 'x months, y edits' criteria. Candidate seems exceptionally nice and helpful in every instance I've seen, I think there's evidence they'd make a good janitor. --W.marsh 18:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support - Likes to tidy up and has been in involved with Adminship and VFD. --Knucmo2 11:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support My only experience with the user is very positive. Managed to make a controversial point diplomatically. Gotta respect that and the desire to clean up vandalism. -CTSWyneken 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 08:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. He is a very good editor. Carioca 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Looks good. -- No Guru 15:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Helpful user, good editor. —Lesfer (talk/@) 17:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Some experience only comes with time. --NormanEinstein 17:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    Decent editor, but with only 53 total talk page edits across all talk namespaces, communtiy interaction is just too low at this time. Sorry, but oppose. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Moron... only over 2000 in user talk. Think before you type, I-Who-Should-Not-Be-Named.
    • after reviewing the history, it appears LV made that comment to himself...riiiight. Vulcanstar6 01:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • That is irrelevant. Going by NPA, LV has no more right to insult himself than he has to abuse others. Tintin (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Too soon, with not enough evidence of experience. Edit count isn't everything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I like the feel of Siva. There is a sense of dedication to duty, and a willingness to do routine tasks, such as posting many "welcome" templates. However, there is a sense of wanting to attempt beyond ability in order achieve, as is evident from edits and talk page responses, for example the following:Hi Siva1979, thanks for your series about German towns. But may I say that the material from that old encyclopedia is, most of the time, so outdated that it's really of not much use. I think it generally would take no less time cleaning up one of those articles than translating one from de.wikipedia afresh (I tried once in the case of Frankenhausen.) You might want to consider if it wouldn't perhaps be more efficient to simply list the topics under "requested articles", and wait for someone to come along and work from the German? Lukas (T.|@) 11:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC) The use of old encyclopaedic material has been brought to Siva's attention before that. I think there is a little more learning and understanding that needs to take place, and I hope that Siva will persist, take on board the advice, because I believe he has good intentions, but is not yet ready. Tyrenius 00:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per above. Masssiveego 05:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Too new to wikipedia. High edit count doesn't do it for me and this is a good case of why, very narrowly focussed edit counts and a lot of procedural edits (welcoming) as well as the creation of large numbers of stubs including some that I believe should be redirects (Leyton-Wingate F.C.) as well as edit count inflation on a couple of articles by doing many similar things one at a time. Not really noticed the importance of this user on AfD. Also the comment on thanklessness below suggests room for development in the field of community awareness (WP:EA). MLA 09:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: too new, and not much interaction on article talk pages yet to see colaboration. Give it time. Jonathunder 12:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, moved from neutral. The Major League Handball AfD below tips the balance for me. Apparently there are several AfDs where there is doubt on whether Siva1979 actually read the article; in this one, he seems to have voted just on the title. Kusma (討論) 16:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose -- May be good admin material in time; I hope you'll take positive criticism to heart. John Reid 17:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose right now. Still too new, and the AfD/apparently not reading the article issue isn't encouraging, though I've noticed Siva1979 addressed it below and admitted to oversight. I think in another 6 months if Siva1979 continues to do good editing another RfA nom would be in order.--Isotope23 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose as above Pete.Hurd 05:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, sorry. Too new, and pledging to 'pay attention from now on' is never a good sign. His heart is in the right place, but needs a little bit more seasoning. Proto||type 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Fad (ix) 20:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Keep this up, and I will support your nomination in a few months time. (^'-')^ Covington 04:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Looking through your contributions to article space, I see football, football, football F.C., and more football. I was going to vote neutral, with a recommendation to explore other topical areas where your presence as an admin might forseeably be requested, but seeing the Major League Handball AfD puts a major hook in me. That just screams of knee-jerk "keep, it exists" inclusionism, and I cannot support this candidate with any semblance of good faith. Please accept this as constructive criticism. The suggestion of checking out the rest of this web site still stands. — Apr. 16, '06 [05:53] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  15. Weak oppose. A little on the new side, although not enough in and of itself for an oppose. However, after looking at this and thinking about it for a couple days, the reasons given in previous oppose votes tip the balance for me. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per freakofnurture and Doug Bell. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Back in February Siva was active at WP:MEA he created a number of stubs the Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics list. This was great except sometimes the info from Britannica and especially from this version, is quite out of date and occasionally racist. A few examples of the articles he created: Conibos, Malleco, Pagri, Flumini Maggiore, Fonsagrada. Conibos, is a particular problem which states "They have since been converted and are now a peaceful people". I like Siva and appreciate his contributions but I don't think poor articles like these should be created for the completions sake. To be fair he wikified and properly stubbified the articles, but there was no other effort to expand information other than what was in Britannica. I wouldn't expect these kind of contributions from a more experienced editor. Check the new non-football articles from [1] and [2] Wait a few months and continue with your other excellent contributions and I will support you--Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Too new, only three months as a Wikipedia editor. *drew 03:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose: Too new. --cj | talk 09:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, enjoy editing wikipeia for some more time. Shyam (T/C) 10:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose: 4000 of the 6000 edits mentioned above seem to be welcome msgs. Regardless, has good potential to reupp in say 6-9 months perhaps. Netkinetic 12:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Correction - About 1900 of my 6000 edits are welcome messages. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral No reason to oppose. Great and valuable contributor on Wikipedia but a little too new for my standards. I can't vote support knowing that he's only been here since January. Moe ε 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral leaning support another month would be great. Computerjoe's talk 16:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, leaning to oppose. A bit too new. Too few (21) talk page edits. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Gimme some time to think. Voted changed from above. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral would support, but a bit new, and this combined with a noticeable drop in article edits, which should always be the focus, makes me want a bit more time (unless he/she is using show preview a lot) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    Moved to oppose:
    Neutral for now, still thinking. On one hand, Siva1979 is one of the nicest editors around, always supportive and he responded well (in the end) to criticism regarding his 1911 articles. On the other hand, I would like to see more useful contributions at AfD -- Siva's are almost always plain votes "delete per someone above", "keep per someone above" and almost never bring any research or real discussion. One particular AfD here makes me believe Siva sometimes votes based on other votes alone instead of on the article, which is worse than useless at AfD. Kusma (討論) 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I greatly appreciate the fact that he supported on my own RfA and has made useful contributions to the project and is a very nice guy but his lack of time here and inexperience in certain namespaces prevent me from supporting. GizzaChat © 22:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral leaning very weak oppose per Kimchi.sg. NSLE (T+C)(seen this?) at 00:45 UTC (2006-04-12)
  8. Neutral, leaning towards oppose. I'm not always sure that he completely thinks through AfDs all the time, per Kusma and Blnguyen's examples. If he's been called an "inclusionist," that's fine, but I'd like to see more reasoning. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. Great editor, but three months doesn't cut it. Royboycrashfan 04:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Nuetral. I trust this user with rollbacks and blocking, but closing AFD's? I don't know... three months isn't a very long time... and all the admin capabilities come at once. I can't support, but I have no strong reason to oppose. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Nuetral. Wait two or three months and I will be glad to support you. SorryGuy 07:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Nuetral. I will support two months later.--Jusjih 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Neutral too new --Jaranda wat's sup 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Neutral Don't think siva is admin material. J.J.Sagnella 10:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Neutral, too few talk and project talk edits, otherwise no major problems. JIP | Talk 16:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Neutral Too many valid reasons given in the "oppose" section to support. However, I have no strong feelings either way. (Is the plan, by the way, for everyone in Singapore to get adminship?!) --kingboyk 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    Nope, we are not trying to do that, kingboyk. There is no such plan of everyone in Singapore to get adminship. --Terence Ong 03:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    So it's a secret plan, then? Kusma (討論) 04:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    Nah, we don't have such plans in mind. I would like to clarify that SGpedians' do NOT have this motive. --Terence Ong 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Neutral as above. Ashibaka tock 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Comments

When I click on Mathbot's tool, it says "Server problem or the user may not exist." Strange! — Kimchi.sg | Talk 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, it is fixed now.

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 have done some New page patrol and would like to have the additional tools of an admin to speedy delete test and attack pages. I would also increase my involvement in AfD articles to increase the efficiency of keeping or deleting articles that have a common overwelming response or vote. Admin powers could also help me to delete redirects with history that block a move, or to merge histories of pages moved by cut and paste.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased to be able to remove all the red links of English soccer clubs in the National League System - from step 1 to 6. I am also pleased to create links for all the English soccer leagues from step 1 to step 7. Although most of these articles I have created are just stubs, I am planning to increase the content of these articles in the near future. An immense amount of research needs to be done but I am relishing this challange. 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 am also doing a thankless job of welcoming new IP addresses and users. I noticed that many new users and especially IP addresses lack a formal welcome message into Wikipedia. This could create a cold atmosphere in the Wiki community (eventually leading to an increase in the number of vandals) if this area of work is overlooked.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: There have not been any major conflicts. However, in the first few weeks of editing, I experienced some opposition on the way I had been contributing for the 1911 Britannica. I learned from my mistakes and somewhat improved my contributions. In the initial stages, I felt a bit of stress because I thought I was not doing a good job and I was only trying to help out. But I used the comments received from other users to improve my edits. In the future, if I receive any negative feedback, I would use this opportunity to move my edits to a higher level. In this way, I would become a more solid contributor to Wikipedia.

Questions from JoshuaZ. (As always, additional questions are optional, but answers are appreciated).

1 You have under 30 edits to article talk pages. Can you explain why and please explain how this does not indicate a general lack of involvement in helping to construct good articles?
A One of the fundamental reasons for having such a low amount of edits to article talk pages is the lack of time I have right now. Rest assured, I will be concentrating on having more edits in this area of Wikipedia in the near future. I agree with you that this shortfall indicates a general lack of involvement in helping to construct good articles. However, I have managed to remove some red-links for non-league soccer clubs by starting new articles about them. Although I am lacking in involvement in improving these articles to good-article status, I have at least sowed the seeds on having a topic about them in Wikipedia.
2 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?
A No, I would NOT like to give any admin powers to ALL users. The reason is obvious; new users would tend to abuse some of their new found powers. Secondly, some new users would be unfamiliar on how to use these former exclusive admin powers. The best solution is to take part in a RFA and be a admin through merit, thus gaining additional powers. I feel that there will be less chaos on Wikipedia by this method. Users have to prove themselves before being given any admin powers. These admin powers do a great amount of change on Wikipedia.
3 If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A I hope that nominations for bureaucratship would not be so stringent. Currently, a user must have at least 90% of positive votes before being eligible for bureaucratship. I feel that we should lower the requirement slightly to about 75%-80% of votes. We have too few bureaucrats on Wikipedia compared to the total number of users here. The requests for adminship success should also be lowered to about 55%-65% of votes. By doing this, I feel that more users, especially the newer ones, would be encouraged to improve the quality of their edits, thus making Wikipedia (in an indirect manner) a more enjoyable place to be in.
4 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A This would be an extreme case of vandalism. For example, if a user has been blocked repeatedly (at least 3 or 4 times) before (at least 24 hours to one month for each block) for serious vandalism and returns back to Wikipedia by continuing his/her unsocial actions despite several warnings (such as You might be blocked indefinitely), I would indefinitely block the user without any prior direction from Arb Com. His/Her presence in Wikipedia would be a liability to the project. But of course, I would seek the opinions of some experienced administrators first before undertaking this extreme form of action.

Question from Blnguyen. (As always, additional questions are optional, but answers are appreciated).

1 You seem to have a strongly inclusionist philosophy on AfD, which is fine. However, your Keep votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennichuck talk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Handball would appear to condone inclusion of schoolyard nonsense inventions. How do reconcile this with an expectation (perhaps not universally agreed) that administrators should be ambassadors for Wikipedia, and in that sense should prevent WP from declining into a dumping ground?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
A Firstly, I wish to state that you are correct to notice that I have a strong inclusionist philosophy on AfD. Secondly, I agree that administrators should be ambassadors for Wikipedia, and should prevent WP from declining into a dumping ground. But I feel that the article 'Major League Handball' had a potential for expansion. As for the article 'Pennichuck talk', I admit that it was an oversight on my part to vote for the article to be kept. On hindsight, I should have voted Delete. I thank you for pointing this out to me and I would endeavour to be more thoughtful on my part in voting for future discussions on AfD.
The above 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Siva1979_113b.html"