Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tyrenius (talk | contribs) at 18:26, 16 August 2006 (→[]: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Siva1979

Voice your opinion! (47/8/2) Ending 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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. --Siva1979 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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

Last 500 edits.Voice-of-All 09:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 22.76% (1138) | Article talk: 7.56% (378)
User: 7.32% (366) | User talk: 13.18% (659)
Misplaced Pages: 12.68% (634) | Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 (/_{fix me up}) 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
4. Support No obvious problems, a lot of edits, a lot of time spent here, I have seen Siva around Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
8. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Great contributions to the project, good answers, looks ready to me. Themindset 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
10. 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)
11. Strong support -- Samir धर्म 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
12. SupportSome P. Erson 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - Richardcavell 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
14. 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)
15. Support as I did in both previous RfAs. Great work Siva1979. DarthVader 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I'm not sure how a misunderstanding about how city councils work should be a bar to adminship. Siva1979 understands Misplaced Pages enough to be an admin. -- tariqabjotu 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
17. 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)
18. Support I don't see any reason to oppose. Would make a reliable admin. --Gray Porpoise 23:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Mighty Support. A fine Wikipedian. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support seen him around a lot in AfD. Believe he would benefit from the tools. Viridae 00:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. I haven't talked to him, but I've seen his editing here and there on Misplaced Pages, and I'm sure he'll make a great admin. YAY INDIANS!! (Okay, I'm done now.) --Nishkid64 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. About time. G.He 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. I don't see any indication that the editor would misuse or abuse the tools. --Aguerriero (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. Definately ready for adminship. An excellent contributor. Zaxem 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Seen him around from time to time in the project space, excellent comments. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, for the same reasons as Thatcher131 above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
28. 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)
29. Strong Support per Thatcher13, also per edit counting - dedicated editors make good admins abakharev 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support.--Kungfu Adam 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    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)

31. Happy to support an up-and-coming administrator. Quill E. Coyote 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong Support Srikeit 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)(cell)
33. Strong support per alex Bakharev.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support, it is time. SorryGuy 05:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Hell yeah. --Nearly Headless Nick 06:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Merovingian - Talk 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support You'd have to be mad not to. Jorcoga 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
39. 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)
40. Support. — FireFox  _{13:37, 16 August 2006}
41. Support, great user. :) --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
42. 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)
43. Support seen this user around for some time now, good contributor. Would do well with the tools. Stubbleboy 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support will make a gret admin. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Don't see why not. --kingboyk 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
47. 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)

Oppose

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

   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)

   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)

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

   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 Misplaced Pages 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)

   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)

   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)

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

   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)

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

   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)`

4. Weak Oppose. Fails my criteria --Masssiveego 03:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose my feelings are very much similar to W.marsh's below, but they're more resolute.--cj | talk 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - not convinced by the mushy answer to JoshuaZ's question. Kimchi.sg 06:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per W. Marsh. —freak(talk) 12:31, Aug. 16, 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose per W.Marsh - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
2. 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)

   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.