Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Siva1979 4

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

[edit] Siva1979

Ended (42/28/7); No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Siva1979 (talk · contribs) - This is my first self-nomination and my fourth overall nomination. I have over 19 000 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. My last three RfAs are here, here and here. I accept this self-nomination.Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following 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.

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: 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 RFAs fail? Why should this one succeed? How have you changed since then?

A: The reason why my last RfA was a failure was because it seemed that I needed more work on AfD pages. I had not even posted one article for deletion. However, this time, I have posted quite a few articles for deletion. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A question from bainer (talk)

5. Under what circumstances should someone ignore a rule?

A: In a nutshell, if the rules prevent one from improving or maintaining Wikipedia we should ignore them. Rules are NEVER final. However, IT does not mean that one can always have it one's way. Wikipedia works by building consensus and it is an inherent part of the wiki process. Moreover, one must respect other contributors as well and be civil. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from NAHID

6. What would you do if you were investigating an article on AFD and found the subject to get less than 60 hits on Google ?

A: If an article gets less than 60 hits on Google, one can also verify the article from books or magazines. If these books or magazines are reliable sources, the article should not be deleted. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by DarkFalls

7. An obvious defamation article about a underaged living person, written in a libellous and unsourced manner. A million google hits, all with only a single mention of the person. What actions would you take? Prod? AfD? CSD? try to fix it? or just leave it and ignore it?

A: Firstly allow me to state that it is totally improper to just leave and ignore the article in question. Secondly, if the article is poorly sourced, whether it is negative, positive, or just questionable, it should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. One must take note of an important rile of Wikipedia; that is to do no harm to the subject in question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid; it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

8. A war veteran who is the recipient of the Medal of Honor and ranked a General of the US Marines, but has a lack of verifiable information on the internet, and is only distantly mentioned in published sources. The afd is 3 deletes and 3 keeps. Will you close with a delete or keep?

A: Firslty allow me to state that Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions. Accounts operating in violation of this policy are blocked indefinitely. However, if the subject in question is notable in nature and it is possible to verify the contents of the article, the article should be kept. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I was using a specific example. I was wondering whether you feel the article should be included on Wikipedia, based on the above information and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Sockpuppetry was not the main point of the question, and I have rephrased the question. --Dark Falls ^talk 06:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A: If the article can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. If notability can be proved for this article, I would close the consensus as keeping the article in Wikipedia. Moreover, a war veteran who is a recipient of the Victoria Cross should be notable in nature. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/siva1979 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

I reviewed portions of the previous RFAs, of which the most recent is almost a year old. The common thread is that Siva's edits tend to be minor, almost trivial, and don't really do much to help the project. Arguably, that may not have changed. Of his 150 most recent contribs as of this writing, almost all are welcome messages for new users and categorization and similiarly minor edits. There is very little indication that Siva would know how to close a controversial AFD. That being said, Siva has been doing these minor edits for so long - about 18 months - that I'd be willing to trust him with the "minor" admin tasks, such as speedy deletion of redirects and nonsense pages. Shalom ^Hello 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Siva is exactly what we need in an administrator: someone who enjoys being here, enjoys handling the backlogs that we all seem to find too banal, and has the common sense to speak to others before making a foolhardy decision. I don't doubt for a second that he would use the tools only appropriately. Frankly, I wish we had more Siva's as administrators here -- 199.71.174.100 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Where would we be, without the users that tirelessly work on the little stuff, that makes Wikipedia that the much better? --SXT4 07:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. First off the blocks!. Massive Support - That is so weird - I spent an hour yesterday reviewing your contribs and previous failed (and contentious) RFA's - and I was going to approach you over the weekend to nominate you. Although past critcisms (wanabee an admin / welcoming users to rack up count etc. etc.) will no doubt be covered again in this RFA all I see is a diligent and strongly commited user who could really use the tools -0 and would use them wisely. Good luck this time. Pedro |  Chat  07:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. I don't necessarily agree with some of your AfD contributions, but the rest is sound. I had assumed you were an admin. —Xezbeth 07:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Good user. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
4. S why not? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per myself eleven months hither (I don't find on a cursory look, and can't on the whole imagine there to exist, anything to suggest that the candidate is less fit for adminship than he was at the time of his last RfA, when I happily supported). Joe 08:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Good all-round contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Support dedicated user, who has shown the capacity to listen, learn and improve. Tyrenius 09:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, could use the tools, probably not a mental. Neil ╦ 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Support will do well with tools, probably not a mentalist. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Support I don't believe abuse of the tools is forthcoming from siva. KOS | talk 11:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. No apparent reasons to oppose. Answer to q1 demonstrates good understanding of admin tools. Walton^One 11:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. I think you have earned the mop. You are a steady and hard worker, whose only period of sustained idleness was due to hospitalization. Pedro is on the money on this one.old windy bear 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. No reason not to. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Support Siva has demonstrated dedication "the hard way", by toiling fairly consistently over the last year in wiki-gnome tasks. Whatever objections I had in the past have been overcome by his time and effort. Xoloz 15:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
15. Support I have some reservations, which I will note in the discussion section above, but "adminship is no big deal", and the reservations are not sufficient reason to withhold support. Shalom ^Hello 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong Support Siva's done great work on Wikipedia, and definitely could use the admin tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
17. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
18. Support nothing wrong with this user. Acalamari 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
19. Support- I see no reasons to oppose. Seems to be a good editor and should help wikipedia by having additional editing capabilities. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - very effective around the wiki ck lostsword•T•C 18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
21. Support per Pedro and Nishkid64. Trustworthy editor who is ready for the tools. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
22. Strong Support - as per Nishkid64 and Mailer Diablo...--Cometstyles 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
23. Support From what I have seen of this editor I am certain there will be no abuse of the tools. LessHeard vanU 19:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
24. Support, although I'm a little worried about this hospital business. Couldn't you have found a way to do some vandalism cleanup while you were there? - eo 20:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Good candidate, time to give him the mop! Politics rule 21:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
26. Support nothing concerns me. —Anas ^talk? 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - I have no worries. the_undertow ^talk 22:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. A dedicated, committed user who's been around for a good length of time and knows the terrain. Will be an asset as an admin. Zaxem 01:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
30. Strong Support The hard work done by siva and my personal experiences give me confidence that they will not abuse the tools. Dfrg.msc 08:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Seen you around, thought you were already an admin! Will be good with the mop, no reservations. Eliz81 15:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. I hate to burst the bubble of the oppose voters, who I'm sure feel strongly, but closing AfDs is not hard. I had almost never participated in the process, and the few AfDs I have closed since becoming an admin were not difficult to close, even the contentious ones. Providing counts of google hits, while not the most in depth contribution, is clearly something. Google can at least give a basic overview of a subject's notability and an editor who didn't run something through Google before putting it up for AfD would be foolish (unless it's obvious, in which case, it probably qualifies under CSD, or at least PROD). I have encountered this user before, and seen them around. I have seen nothing disturbing, and although I can't say I already thought they were an admin, I must say I wouldn't have been surprised to find that out. Anyone who can make 17,000 edits with a clean block log clearly shows the dedication and temperament to become an admin. Even if he closes a few AfDs "incorrectly," it's a quick matter at DRV, no one will die. I can't imagine the net result of this user receiving admin tools to be detrimental to the project. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 22:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. There is absolutely no reason why this user should not receive the tools. A lot has changed since previous RfA's. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
34. Support I am certain that this user can be trusted with the tools. A history of predominantly minor edits is not a disqualification. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. You are highly spoken of. Others believe in you. With the respect of the community, you will make a fine admin. J-stan ^Talk 03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
36. Support, No reason to beleive the user will abuse the tools. Nothing wrong with self-noms, too. --SXT4 07:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
37. Support this candidate can be trusted with the mop. --rogerd 02:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - no reason to believe this user will abuse the privileges. also maybe I am biased (having self-nominated myself 3 times) but there is nothing wrong with self-noms. ugen64 10:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
39. Support why not? Excellent answers to questions, and I see no evidence that he might abuse the tools. SalaSkan 13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Good user, with experience. No harm :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. Good user, very civil, and apparently really wants to be an admin. No big deal. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. Kind, corteous, hard-working and a long history of commitment with the project. Don't be sad at this, dear Siva: the time will come; remember my words. All the best, Phaedriel - 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, see not much change since the last RfAs. Siva is commenting more on AfDs, but very often just counting Google hits (like here) or repeating arguments already made by others before him. He seems to comment on AfDs only in order to become an admin; see also my comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/Siva1979 2. I get the feeling that Siva always tries to be nice and has completely avoided conflict, and don't see any evidence for the good judgment skills an admin should have. Kusma (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Kusma and finding another very recent AFD where Siva made the same argument, that's simply incorrect and specifically pointed out as being invalid on numerous guidelines and essays. Admins should know better, I do not wanting anyone closing AFDs if they think number of Google hits is why we keep or don't keep articles. And then there's the broader issue, the candidate hadn't participated in AFD since December 2006 and then participates in numerous AFDs in the 48 hours before an RFA, where he explains that his last RFA failed because of lack of AFD participation? I really hate to oppose good faith candidates, but not everyone is a good choice for admin work, even if they really want to be one. --W.marsh 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose I normally prefer to state a neutral position if I can't find a justification to support. But I'm sorry, in this case I have to oppose. I've spent the last hour reading through this individual's AfD discussion history. To me his comments feel very "political", as though he's going to great lengths to give the appearance of not entering conflicts for any reason. However, I feel that conflict is a good thing - conflict is usually required to reach consensus. Overall, I feel that his contributions are tremendous, but the lack of any serious AfD contribution and the lack of working with AIV for someone who wants to help with vandalism just doesn't do it for me. Trusilver 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

   I attempted to find something to relax my suspicions to at least give this user a neutral position, but everything I read only makes me more and more uneasy about this user. The "quite a few" articles that he has nom'ed for deletion are actually a total of four. Of those, two of them [1] [2] were extremely ill-conceived and I was able to find sources for both in less than five minutes on google. Aside from that, I have identified 36 articles that he has particpated in for AfD's. In thirty of these he only left paraphrased regurgitations of comments that had already been left or boilerplate things like "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" or "This article lacks notability". The most troubling is that in all 40 articles he has not engaged in any kind of discussion toward consensus. He has never posted a single follow up or response to any of these. I find this very disturbing since the goal of an AfD is not a vote, but rather to come to consensus, for which discussion is required. Trusilver 02:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose I am concerned about how thoughtful this user would be as an admin. Hiberniantears 21:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose, because of the answer to question 4. The previous RfAs spell out extensive concerns about civility, knowledge of policy, and a lack of substance to edits. To claim that the principal issue in them was AfD participation is inaccurate and misleading. Chick Bowen 01:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I'm worried by some of the articles this editor has recently taken to AfD eg [3], [4]. Also concerns of Kusma, W.marsh & Hiberniantears, above. Espresso Addict 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Way too desperate for the admin bit it seems, whilst not really being suited (see AfD contribs above). I also thought it was really odd (and quite rude really) when he returned from his wikibreak and asked Phaedriel to nominate him! Surely it's the other way around - the nominator asks the candidate. Also a pretty poor lack of judgement by doing that - obviously Phaedriel, being so nice as she is didn't want to say it bluntly "No, you've just come back from a few months long wikibreak, give it a while longer and I will." Other users told you though, but to think you'd have been able to pass just like that, and to ask someone out of the blue to nominate you just seems really weird to me, and bad judgement. Sorry, not now. Majorly (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

   Well, on further insight, I have to admit that I have made a slight mistake here. Maybe, I was too keen to be an admin at that period of time, after being in hospital for about three months. But I hope that you would take note that this happened more than a month ago. Moreover, I hope that you would take note that this is my first self-nomiation. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Relying on google to determine notability will get you in enough trouble as just an editor; it will get you in much more as an admin. And asking someone to nominate you just after returning from a long Wikibreak, while not really bad, is kinda strange. So I'll have to oppose for now, but you may well make a good admin in a few months. -Amarkov moo! 03:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Although this user has made a large number of edits, I am not convinced that concerns from the last RFA (as pointed out above by Chick Bowen) have been resolved, particularly those regarding knowledge of policy and a lack of substantial edits. Carom 16:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose I had been discussing with Siva whether he should be pursuing an RfA so soon after he had started editing again. Especially given that many of his edits in the last five weeks do not address any of my concerns with respect to the last RfA. I was worried that he does not communicate with anyone in the wiki environment (essential for an admin). This has not changed. I was worried that he does not appear to have a need for the tools and that he should present a good rationale for this need. His strong rationale does not seem to be forthcoming. I was worried about resume building and the rash of AfD activity right before this RfA shows that has not changed either. Basically, I do not have enough information to be confident that he can communicate his admin decisions. Worse, there are plenty of examples given above to indicate that he can make poor decisions. The combination of poor decision making with a lack of communication is a recipe for disaster, IMO. David D. (Talk) 16:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 17:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    Sigh... Are you using a template for these? Seriously, please stop trolling every self-nom like that. You have a responsibility to keep your comments civil and constructive and this fails on both counts. Pascal.Tesson 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    I trust that the closing bureacrat will be aware that Kurt Weber posts this comment on every self-nom. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose Answer to questions are my main cause for concern. A4, A6 and A8 (especially given the diffs provided above about Ghits vs notability) do not convince me that concerns of previous RfA have been addressed and I'm not comfortable with Siva closing AfDs. A5 more or less fails to answer the question and overall I can't escape the nagging feeling that the answers show a knowledge of Wikipedia policies which is mostly syntactic. Let me stress that I have complete confidence in siva's good intentions and I certainly can't see him/her intentionally abusing the tools but I'm not sure he has shown the sound judgment and communication skills we need in admins. Pascal.Tesson 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong Oppose - per Kusma, W.marsh, and Trusilver. Siva1979 has not explained any concerns raised, or my concerns over Q3. Also this diff is cause for concern, rather then look at WP policies, he used the 'google test' and claimed strong notability, when a review of policy makes it clear there is no notability.--Bryson 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose This user is completely obsessed with the idea of becoming an admin, yet wants to add little else to the project. In the past they used to vote support on every single RFA, even ones where the candidate was cleary unsuitable. Between January and June this year their contributions consisted almost entirely of edits to other RFAs. Then around the beginning of June they started requesting a nomination [5]. When it was suggested that they should focus on returning to editing for a while [6], Siva began racking up new edits in the most cost effective way possible (i.e. leaving welcome messages - LOTS of them). Then exactly a month later they again suggested a nomination [7]], which resulted in a fairly clear response [8]. Clearly Siva can wait no longer, and has decided to nominate themself. This clear obsession with adminship, and no obvious interest in contributing (apart from as a mechanism to gain adminship), rules them out for me. Welcome messages can be left without the admin tools. TigerShark 23:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    It is not true that I am completely obsessed with being an admin. If that was the case, I would have self-nominated myself way back in November 2006, three months after my third RfA. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sorry but that is the only conclusion that I can come to based upon your earlier and recent activity. Why you didn't self-nominate in Nov 2006 is not clear, but I assume that you felt it would fail at that time and that leaving a greater time gap would increase your chances. However, since the end of last year you have contributed almost nothing apart from edits to RFA, welcome messgaes and some mass tagging (often several tags per minute). My interpretation of this is that you wanted to leave time between RFAs, but that you did not want to expend any significant effort in that intervening period, because your only interest is gaining the admin tools. If there is another explanation for the editing pattern I have described, then I would be happy to hear it, but a lack of self nomination in Nov 2006 just proves you know that frequent re-nominations usually fail. TigerShark 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sorry to labour the point, but I did take a look through some of the welcome messages that you leave, primarily to see how you select so many, so quickly and why they come in such short bursts. It appears that you select an article and then add welcome messages to all users and IP that have edited it (presumably you look through the history page for red talk page links). For example, it seems that you recently selected the article Aylesbury United F.C. and then welcomed all of the IP and users with red talk links [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with this, generally welcoming is targeted at currently active users (for obvious reasons). The last of the above edits is for a user who has not edited since 18th October 2005 [14]. This further reinforces my belief that you are just blindly racking up your edit count as quickly as you possibly can, with as little effort as possible and with little regard for the actual value that it is adding. TigerShark 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

15. Weak oppose On the fence, somewhat. Tools aren't supposed to be a big deal, but comments above and in early AfDs, so the argument that siva may not make heavy use of them doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. That said, the recent AfD discussions, some of which are pointed out by Trusilver above, where siva responds with a keep based solely on google hits are a little off kilter - If his RfA is based on his wanting to be able to close AfDs, one would hope he'd have a better grasp of the deletion procedures and acceptable arguments in an AfD. MrZaius^talk 00:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Weak oppose. Sorry, I've read over your past RFAs and thought some of the opposers were unfair on their descisions. Although after reviewing your recent edits and seeing the comment you made yesterday here (pointed out by one of the opposers above), I feel you have still not yet completely grasped Wikipedia policy, supported partly by your answer to some of the optional questions above. I'll be more than happy to support you in a future RFA, if I see evidence of better understanding of policy. --Android Mouse 01:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    Weak oppose On the fence, somewhat. Tools aren't supposed to be a big deal, but comments above and in early AfDs, so the argument that siva may not make heavy use of them doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. That said, the recent AfD discussions, some of which are pointed out by Trusilver above, where siva responds with a keep based solely on google hits are a little off kilter - If his RfA is based on his wanting to be able to close AfDs, one would hope he'd have a better grasp of the deletion procedures and acceptable arguments in an AfD. MrZaius^talk 00:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    You said the exact same thing two above :) Daniel 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    I was editing from Typo City yesterday, apparently - Could have sworn that the initial post had been popped off. Thanks for striking the dupe, MrZaius^talk 15:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

17. I echo the sentiments of the above, and find what TigerShark has to say extremely compelling. Daniel 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Concerns from last RfA not addressed. Rebecca 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose I hate to oppose you - I do not feel you would ever abuse the tools; I just do not see you having a need to use them. Of all the pages on Wikipedia you have edited, you over have 500 edits to your userpage, in your contributions, your recent contributions, I see a lot of template adding and welcoming messages. I am usually not very picky about these sort of things, nor do I want to say that would you do is completely thankless - I would feel comfortable to see if you had some active involvement in mainspace editing, but more importantly Wikipedia edits. I cannot ascertain the breadth of your knowledge on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Ozgod 14:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose - Has not demonstrated a real need for the tools, and seems to me to be entirely too anxious for adminship. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
21. If Siva1979 can't grasp the nature and extent of previous concerns with making him an administrator, it further confirms the belief that his desire exceeds his capacity, thus disqualifying him. --Michael Snow 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
22. I just don't know what to make of the sort of voting on display here. How can you possibly evaluate 6 RfBs and 4 RfAs in 13 minutes? --JayHenry 05:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps he had read through the complete RfA page before he voted together ? Or perhaps he knows and trusts them very well and hence did not feel the need to read them closely ? Tintin 05:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps. But combined with minimal encyclopedia building, some strange issues at AfD, concerns about too much focus on adminship, etc. I hate, hate, hate opposing good-faith editors, but I just see too many flags being raised here. --JayHenry 06:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

    I have read through ALL the nominations before casting my opinion. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

23. Oppose Lack of interaction within the Wikipedians community. Also, the candidate relies on minor edits to build up his edit counts. Keb25 08:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
24. As a wiki-gnome myself, its always nice to see other editors going through some of the tedious work, however, knowledge of policy and interaction with the community are prerequisites for adminship and I don't see much of either evidenced in this candidate's contribs. Lack of changes in response to concerns from previous RfAs is particularly disturbing. Shell ^babelfish 03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose, as per before. Nothing has changed. Too much duckspeak, not enough critical thought. —freak(talk) 22:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose per all above and for giving a robotic answer to Q7. Copying and pasting from policies, especially when the result contains nonsense such "removing an article from talk pages," does not demonstrate an ability to exercise judgement. Nor do I like the idea of an administrator who believes in deleting anything unsourced about a living person even if it is not negative or controversial; we don't want another round of "Hank Aaron is in the baseball hall of fame" -type material disappearing all over the place. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
27. Oppose per Kusma. It seems that the user is too eager for adminship. *drew 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
28. Oppose Personally I find it comical to watch Siva continuously shoot down criticism for being ridiculously obsessed with becoming an Admin. His agenda is quite clear, and, while his edit count is quite impressive, very little of it appears to be focused constructively outside of the "WP" side of things (i.e article writing). I could, in no way, give a support vote without seriously scrutinizing the entire necessity for a sysop in the first place. Don’t mean to be harsh, but the situation calls for it, as Siva is blatantly power hungry. NSR77 ^T_C 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I like this user, but would prefer more experience in admin-oriented areas where he intends to use the tools. Virtually no participation in WP:AIV, for instance. And no recent vandalfight.--Húsönd 13:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral - I think Siva1979 will use admin tools well; however, Kusma has raised concerns. Also I find the answer to Nr.3 weak, it does not suggest any particular action.--Bryson 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to oppose.--Bryson 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I would typically support, but Trusilver and Kusma have raised some very valid points. Sorry. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral Kusma has raised some valid points. Also this diff [15] suggests to me that the user is too overly keen on becoming an admin even if he has not contributed to the project for 4 months ( I understand he was in the hospital). But he should have known better. Also I have the same concerns as Shalom --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral I wish I could support, but the issues raised by the opposing side just throw me off. Jmlk17 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral I stumbled on to this user at AFD and while I can say that this user seems to be dedicated to improving Wikipedia. Unfortunately the users above who oppose you have good points and make me unable to support this rfa right now. Please try again in a few months and I will support. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 04:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Majorly makes some valid points in his oppose, and coupled with the AFD problems previously mentioned gives me some reluctance about supporting. --Dark Falls ^talk 05:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
7. The oppose votes make me concerned enough to not support you.--†Sir James Paul† 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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.