Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Siva1979 4: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:32, 14 July 2007 editDavid D. (talk | contribs)11,585 edits →[]: sorry but I have to oppose← Previous edit Revision as of 17:33, 14 July 2007 edit undoKmweber (talk | contribs)6,865 edits →Discussion: oppose, self-nomNext edit →
Line 100: Line 100:
#'''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. ] 16:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC) #'''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. ] 16:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''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. ] ] 16:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC) #'''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. ] ] 16:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger. ] 17:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Neutral''' '''Neutral'''

Revision as of 17:33, 14 July 2007

siva1979

Voice your opinion (talk page) (31/10/7); Scheduled to end 07:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

siva1979 (talk · contribs) - This is my first self-nomination and my fourth overall nomination. I have over 17 000 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 07:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages we should ignore them. Rules are NEVER final. However, IT does not mean that one can always have it one's way. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. One must take note of an important rile of Misplaced Pages; that is to do no harm to the subject in question. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid; it is not Misplaced Pages'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 06:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
8. A war veteran who is the recipient of the Victoria Cross 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, based on the above information and the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. Sockpuppetry was not the main point of the question, and I have rephrased the question. --Dark Falls 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 Wikipeeia. Moreover, a war veteran who is a recipient of the Victoria Cross should be notable in nature. --Siva1979 07:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

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 15:37, 13 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 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 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 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 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support Siva's done great work on Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - I have no worries. the_undertow 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 , . 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 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)

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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. Neutral Kusma has raised some valid points. Also this diff 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)
  5. 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)
  6. Neutral I stumbled on to this user at AFD and while I can say that this user seems to be dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages. 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 04:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Majorly makes some valid points in his oppose, and coupled with the AFD problems previously mentioned gives me some reluctance about supporting. --Dark Falls 05:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)