Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crisco 1492

Crisco 1492

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (59/3/1); Scheduled to end 10:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) – I'm delighted to be able to nominate Crisco 1492 for adminship! Crisco 1492 is a great editor, and has 297 DYKs, 23 GAs, 2 FAs and 23 Featured Pictures currently, and a triple crown! Crisco has reviewed 35 Good Article Nominations, nominated 57 pictures for WP:FP. Crisco has been a wikipedian for over 6 years, [and since becoming highly active in April 2011 is now Clarification, to avoid misrepresentation  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)] one of the 1500 most active wikipedians and has made 245 articles. Crisco 1492 currently is autopatrolled, a rollbacker, a reviewer and has Global IPBE. To finish, Crisco has a simple signature and over 35000 edits. Thanks! Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 10:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• I accept and look forward to answering any questions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: One of my main areas of expertise is DYK, as indicated above. As such, a main task I would work on as an administrator is the building / editing of the DYK queues, which are fully protected. I would also work on copyright issues when they come to my attention, including removing copied and pasted non-free content (such as I did at Garin Nugroho) then revdeleting the copyvios. I also hope to help with deletion, both speedy (log here) and at AFD. I would also involve myself with anti-vandalism work as needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am quite proud of my Indonesia related contributions - both FAs and 22 of my 23 GAs are related to the country. Of these, I am perhaps most pleased with my work on Chrisye and Indonesian literary works. The article on Chrisye is easily the best English language source on the artist in existence (and the translation is among the best Indonesian language sources), while my GAs on Indonesian literature, including Belenggu, Atheis, and Sitti Nurbaya, give very complete coverage of the topics, allowing international students of Indonesian literature to have a good starting point for their own research. Other articles, although not necessarily of GA or FA class, are among the best English-language works on their topic. A couple I can think of are the film articles Tjoet Nja' Dhien, Garuda di Dadaku, and Ibunda, as well as the articles on the Trisakti shootings and the crash of Dakota VT-CLA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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: There are two conflicts which I remember clearly, although both are quite some time ago. In April 2011, when I first became a highly active editor, I had a heated argument with SatuSuro and Merbabu about sourcing (visible here) which led me to improve my sourcing. Since then, SatuSuro has praised my contributions a couple of times.

The second was the DYK fiasco of July 2011 (at Did you know/Archive 69 and Did you know/Archive 70), which I found myself smack in the middle of. In the heated discussion over two weeks, I was not at my best (I was admittedly not the only one) and said some things towards SandyGeorgia, Malleus Fatuorum, (stricken, see Question 9) and Truthkeeper88 which I regretted. Since then, however, I have apologised to Sandy and Malleus and grown to respect all three for their extraordinary contributions. Malleus did a great job copyediting Chrisye and Truthkeeper gave a brilliant peer review for Belenggu, so I believe that things were settled amicably (Later edit: or not; I was mistaken about Malleus, although I firmly believe that his copyedits with Chrisye were instrumental in the article passing, and so I am letting the praise stand)

Since then, I have tried my best to take constructive criticism - even if phrased harshly - and work on a way to solve it. This is something I plan to continue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

4. I notice that on your user page you have a user box which says that you perform non-admin closures at AfD. Could you please provide some examples of the discussions which you've closed? Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of death metal bands from Nordic countries (no consensus)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Kovach (speedily deleted by admin)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Boucher (withdrawn nomnation)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss (South Korean group) (withdrawn nomination)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fancystreemscom (speedily deleted by admin)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davison Associates (kept)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff (merge)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ansiklopedika.org (2nd nomination) (speedily deleted by admin)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombie Ghost Train (2nd nomination) (kept)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Swan Hotel, Alnwick (kept)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response! Those closures all look sensible. I note in particular Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff where you did a good job of assessing the differing arguments which were made about whether the article should be kept or merged and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Swan Hotel, Alnwick where you also correctly weighed up the differing views. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Optional question from Hipocrite:

5. Review Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_70#Daily_DYK_scandal. What should you have done differently, if anything, at any point in the process before, during, or after that episode? Why? Hipocrite (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've considered that several times, and this is what I've come to. Firstly, I should have reviewed the edit history / general activities of several editors in question before answering (it was my first time interacting with several of them); had I done so, instead of basing my impressions of Sandy and MF, among others, on first impressions, I would probably have not been flippant with them and better considered their opinions. My negative first impression was not conducive to a proper discussion. I should have also not been inflamed by the comments I read, such as Sandy's "Crisco somebody".

Had I had a better understanding of close paraphrasing at the time it would have been monumentally helpful. I've been unconciously avoiding close paraphrasing for ages and I neglected to consider that a sentence's structure could also constitute close paraphrasing; had I understood that from the beginning, a couple kilobytes of drama could have been avoided. I am glad that I now have a firmer understanding of the issue and have caught close paraphrasing numerous times since the discussion last July.

Third, it would have been preferable to apologise for any untoward comments immediately after the controversy died down, instead of waiting several months. Doing so would have avoided unnecessary drama with the Signpost article after Sandy resigned from her spot as a FA delegate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Was there anything wrong with the hook you chose - "... that Texas State Representative Wayne Christian obtained passage of an amendment in 2009 that allowed him to rebuild his own beachfront property damaged by Hurricane Ike?" Hipocrite (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• As a Canadian living in Indonesia, I find myself distanced from the vagueries of American politics. At the time I found it interesting that he actually needed to get an amendment to do something like that. I neglected to consider that this may be considered putting his needs against those of his constituents. Now I attempt to be more conservative with hooks regarding BLPs. As such, that hook should not have passed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from It Is Me Here

6. You say in response to Q1 that you would like to participate in anti-vandalism. Could you describe your previous experience in this area? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Most of my vandalism patrolling was in May 2011, when I still had a strong internet connection (example revert here). Even then, I found myself edit conflicted out of reverting vandalism quite often and dedicated myself to content creation. After moving to a new place and switching to a satellite modem, my connection speed suffered and so I found little opportunity to revert vandalism. I've recently begun doing more (examples 1, 2, 3, and 4) and plan on dedicating more time exclusively to vandalism patrol in the future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Salvio giuliano

7. Imagine you are already an administrator and are patrolling CAT:CSD. You stumble upon the following articles; all have only received two edits, one by the page creator and one by the tagger, and none is eligible for deletion under A10. What do you do? First article, second article and third article.

A: Hmm...

1. Regarding the bike shop owner, I'd decline the A7 as it has a claim (not necessarily a good one) of notability (youngest businessman in a town, owning a successful business) but promptly tag it with {{Prod blp}}, as it is unsourced.
2. Regarding Sorj, I'd decline the A7 as it has a claim of notability, that it won a prize (assuming on good faith that the word prize was left from Médicis) but promptly tag it with {{Prod blp}}, as it is unsourced.
3. I'd delete the article on Jane Doe assuming a Google search and read of the CNN article does not come up with anything which may show notability. It is not a claim of notability to be on trial for murder (per Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill and WP:CRIME), but it's possible that articles on notable murders start from stubs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from My76Strat

8. Do you believe administrators should be required to have reached the "age of majority" to be eligible to serve in that capacity? briefly explain your answer

A: That is admittedly a decisive topic, and rightfully so. On the one hand, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (and presumably anyone can help manage). On the other hand, there are certain legal protections / requirements of persons under the age of majority which should be kept in mind. A further problem which muddies the issue is that age of majority is different in every country; I seem to recall that it's 17 in Japan and 21 in several countries. We should also keep in mind that editors can (and may) simply lie about their age, and requiring absolute proof of their age, like a driver's license or birth certificate, violates their right to anonymity.

I believe that an editor who has shown emotional maturity and quality edits, no matter what his or her age, should be allowed to run for administrator and be chosen in such capacity. If a person can make good edits and judge consensus well (for AFDs, RFMs, etc.), as well as follow the policies and guidelines, he or she should be allowed to help with the administrative backlog if he or she is willing to take up the mop. At Recent Changes Camp in Australia in January this year, I met an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia who was, quite simply, more mature than some of the editors who were over the age of majority; not allowing people like that to take up the mop is discriminatory and ultimately detrimental to the encyclopedia, as mature yet underage editors can still do great administrative work. I am also against requiring identification or proof of age to become an admin, as numerous admins are anonymous and do great work, work they may not be interested in doing if their real name is public record.

Regarding the special needs and obligations of minors, including various protection statutes both nationally and internationally, I believe that most underage admins or future underage admins, those who are mature enough to be trusted with the mop, will also be trusted to not violate their local laws. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Malleus Fatuorum

9. In your answer to Q3 you mention a conflict you had with me, for which you provide a link and which you claim has now been smoothed over, yet I see no postings from Crisco 1492 there. Who were you then?

A: My apologies, the disagreement with you came later, in September. I called you a troll, which I agree now was a mistake. I will strike your name above.

To answer the question directly, I've been Crisco 1492 since I can remember. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that you ought to be a little more careful in your answers? Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and my apologies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation of trolling appears to be a direct response to my comment that "So if DYK is not about article improvement then why is it explicitly mentioned as one of DYK's goals on this main page?" So I suggest that you strike any suggestion that you and I have made up in your answers to the mandatory questions, because we most certainly have not. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies, I assumed to much. I have left my praise of your copyediting, as I genuinely feel you did a great job, but noted that I was wrong about us having made up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Crisco 1492: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Crisco 1492 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

• Stats posted on talk. Rcsprinter (warn) 14:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Strong Support –- as nominator. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 10:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. Normally I would be the first to say that creating great content is not really the most important skill we need from admins, so this can be a distraction at RfA; but outside of content creation I've had nothing but good encounters with Crisco1492. I think they're competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the mop. bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Support As someone who's "just getting in" to DYK, I have seen nothing but good from this user, and "we need the extra hell".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Clearly an outstanding record of contributions, and Crisco is already performing administrator-like tasks well in the areas they've identified as being their focus. I see no risk that he or she would miss-use the tools, and their excellent contributions should provide a good grounding in handling the various issues admins are asked to manage. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - This user's contributions to Belenggu show that he knows how to contribute to content. Additionally, a read over several of his DYKs showed no evidence of copyright violations or plagiarism that occasionally plague them. (Most of the sources are in Indonesian, so I was only able to read and check for continuity/style changes.) His GA reviews, such as Talk:X (The X-Files)/GA1, show a careful eye for detail. Contributing to featured content is an excellent plus. Finally, a review of his deleted edits show good understanding of the speedy deletion and PROD policies. About the only mistake I found was when he accidentally moved a userspace draft to User:Surabaya (fictional work), and tagged it as U1 (user request to delete page in his own userspace) rather than U2 (no such user) or G7 (author request to delete). Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   Oh my. *blush* and to think I made the mistake of moving it there in the first place. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

6. Support Long standing, experienced editor. fantastic contributions and appears to be sufficiently familiar with policy. No concerns. Pol430 talk to me 12:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
7. Support a reliable contributor, and very faithful at DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
8. →Bmusician 13:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Support - Dedicated editor who consistently works for the sites betterment. If he wants the tools then past history shows he's going to use them well - Peripitus (Talk) 13:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - impresses as sensible, level-headed and fair, and has churned out a chunk of audited content. Fairly confident will be a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Support Good Content creator in particular to those related to Indonesia and see no concerns .He/She has been editing regularly since April 2011.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
12. Support Always helpful and outstanding (extensive and very nearly flawless) performance as an editor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  14:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
13. Often see around. They sure can have the mop if it was up to me ;) Rcsprinter (speak) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
14. Support Very good editor, see him at dyks often, I guess those template space edits are mostly from dyks. :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 15:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

    Absolutely correct. :-) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

15. Support Does good work in many areas, including FAC, DYK, GA, (has two featured articles, multiple GAs) writes many articles from scratch. Extremely pleasant to work with. Diplomatic and helpful. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
16. Support Clueful editor who I trust to use the tools well. Lord Roem (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
17. Support I have been expecting this, good candidate--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
18. Support — All looks good. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
19. Support 1492 is a great vintage. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC).
    
20. Support Crisco's history of quality content production is astounding, and in a year of being his enthusiastic talk page stalker, I've never seen him react to conflict with anything but diplomacy and kindness. Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
21. Weak support. Not the most convincing reasons, but good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
22. Strong Support We need admins with high-quality content contributions, he could really use the mop for DYK work too. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
23. Knows how to build an encyclopedia. Secret ^account 20:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
24. Full Support for a good content creator. Graham Colm (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
25. No red flags. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
26. Aye.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
27. Stephen 00:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
28. Yuuuuup All my interactions with the nominee have been positive. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
29. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
30. Support This user has a lot of experience editing Wikipedia, so he is now ready to handle the tools. Good luck. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 01:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
31. Support - Per nominator, outstanding content creation. Barring any unforeseen issues others may dig up, seems like a perfect candidate for mop privs. — GabeMc (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
32. Support. Materialscientist (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
33. Strong Support - I was surprised to see Crisco's nomination. He's being doing so much work at DYK, I had assumed he was already an administrator. Great writer, and always courteous in his interactions with other users. -Zanhe (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
34. Support – I always wondered why he's not an admin. — Bill william compton^Talk 06:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
35. Support Worked with Crisco at FPC dozens of time, where he is always seeking to enhance the encyclopedia. No doubt he will use admin tools to do the same. —Eustress ^talk 07:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Absolutely!! Great user to work with. PumpkinSky talk 12:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
37. Support—Excellent work. Tony (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
38. Support I trust other's judgements on his editing on the whole, but in particular I notice his AFD performance and willingness to do more than count the votes when closing, showing he can use judgement in determining consensus, not just a calculator. His record voting in AFDs (around 80%ish over time) I find reasonable as he doesn't seem to just tack on "me too" votes. I don't know him personally, but a look seems to indicate he can disagree without being disagreeable, willing to take criticism on board, and be independent without ignoring consensus. Being humble enough to recognize and address your own mistakes is a trait I find too all too rare at Wikipedia, and Crisco 1492 seems to have it in abundance. Glad to offer my support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
39. Support - From the looks of it, you should have become an admin a long time ago. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 13:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
40. Support Absolutely. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
41. Support I've paid attention to this editor for awhile, and worked with him once. He's as good as they get.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
42. Support I have had dealings with this editor at FAC and PR, and found him to be scrupulous about following WP policies, not a bluffer (he will say when he doesn't know about a subject), and above all thorough and helpful beyond the call of duty. Tim riley (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
43. Support User has a lot of maturity and has a lot of clue. Keep up the good work. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
44. I can only echo Tim Riley. The "not a bluffer" part in particular is a relevant quality when it comes to admin decisions. —WFC— 17:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
45. Strong support I was suggesting that he run for adminship back in August. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
46. Support His work here is almost flawless.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
47. Support Per everybody.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
48. Support User has a good eye for detail and sound judgement. Has the necessary experience with a wide range of WP processes, and has a pleasant demeanour when interacting with other users. The Interior (Talk) 20:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
49. Support User has great contributions, (DYK, GA, FA, etc.) and would make a great admin. —HueSatLum 22:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
50. Yup per above. Chedzilla (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
51. Support. Crisco seems to be model sysop; polite, knowledgeable, and well-versed in content creation and expansion at all levels. He'll be a great role model to users and has already he's more than capable of handling administrative tasks. GRAPPLE X 01:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
52. As long as he helps with copyvios. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
53. Support per nominator. Torreslfchero (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
54. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) of course
55. Yes. Positive asset - good quality contributions and a good attitude. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
56. Support - I honestly think that the obvious rubbish that fills up some ofthe questions above, and some of the absurdities below, make RFA what it is a smelly suspect circus and something that has needed overhaul for a long time (which is why I havent been see voting here at RFA for years) - but that aside - Crisco has a capacity to do things within a subject/field (Indonesia) that has very limited admin presence - and that alone should be a consideration as there is always a need for a balanced, level headed, involved editor in that subject area - and he is that SatuSuro 11:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
57. First time I saw him was at the WT:DYK discussion that is mentioned in Q3, so my first impressions weren't incredibly favourable. Since then every time I come across Crisco he seems to be knowledgeable and and level-headed, so I'm willing to accept that he has learned from it. Also has a relatively large amount of audited content, which is obviously a plus. Looked at the opposes and they don't concern me. Lastly, I have a lot of respect for SatuSuro, who works in the same area as Crisco, and if he trusts him then I can't see why I shouldn't. Jenks24 (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
58. Support Excellent content edits in my view, shows a good understanding of policies. I don't see AfDs and CSDs as reasons to oppose. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
59. Strong Support - Mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 14:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - You have so far closed only 10 AfDs which all were almost half year back (no problem in that). This isn't the main reason for me to oppose but, you stated in your 1st answer that you'll take part in CSDs. According to your CSD log, you have tagged around 84 things from which 10 were declined which shows that success rate is 88% and it is way too low if you are going to be trusted with admin rights. If you want to work in CSDs, then little more accuracy should have been shown. I really appreciate your efforts in DYKs and GAs but 88% is a red signal. →TSU ^tp* 13:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)It was an hasty vote. my apologies →TSU ^tp* 13:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the !vote. It should be noted that of those declined, all were later deleted. Regarding the AFDs, there are a couple more (I did not list all of them, such as this, this, and this). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I don't think the candidate is ready to make speedy deletion decisions in article space. Looking through User:Crisco 1492/CSD log I see only 2 A criteria speedy deletion nominations. Then, in response to question 7, the candidate seems to be confusing the notability guidelines with the criteria for speedy deletion under A7. Clearly an article should not be deleted if the subject is in fact notable, but the standard for deletion under criteria A7 is "claim of importance" not "claim of notability", a much lower threshold that an article must pass to survive. Response 7-3 highlights this problem, Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill and WP:CRIME are fine arguments to make at the WP:AFD stage, but they really have no place in the consideration of a WP:CSD A7. A national news outlet providing coverage of a subject, with a reference to that coverage in the article, should always foreclose deletion under A7. Monty₈₄₅ 18:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   I disagree completely with that. Being convicted of murder, let alone being accused of it, is not a claim of notability or importance. There are 15,000 murders a year in the USA alone. To quote A7 "..An article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.". Which that one doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   The hypothetical person is a suspected murderer who has attracted national media attention as evidenced by the hypothetical CNN link, that such a national news outlet has decided to cover the subject is clearly an indication of importance. It alone if likely not enough for full fledged notability, but it should be enough to justify deliberation over the deletion at AfD rather then a summary deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 21:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   WP:NOT#NEWS. To give you an example, I could point out that one of the UK's most notorious murderers does not have an article of their own, being subsumed into an article on their crimes. If this had been a "Murder of John Doe" article, A7 wouldn't have applied (and straight off to AFD). I'd have no problem pressing delete here, especially given the possible BLP issues. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   The key to understanding CSD A7 is that it isn't a license to delete content under a variety of Wikipedia policies, it is for situations where an article is so deficient that it doesn't even have a claim of importance. WP:NOT has been proposed as a CSD criteria many times and soundly rejected. Really the proper place for the article would be AfD, if an admin decided to IAR delete it and save everyone trouble I wouldn't loose any sleep over it, but its clearly outside the scope of criteria A7. Monty₈₄₅ 18:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Honestly, that's the answer I'm the least troubled by — except for the fact that Crisco keeps referring to notability instead of importance —. In my opinion, his answers regarding the other two articles are far worse, frankly. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   May I inquire why the other two give you more pause? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

   Well, for starters, you'd be treating equally an article about an unremarkable kid and one about a writer who was awarded one of France's main literary prizes, which I find a tad perplexing. That said, Wikipedia is becoming increasingly bureaucratic — and the various "let's make it de jure" ban nominations are good evidence of that — and we need admins who are capable of ignoring the red tape when it's warranted. Your actions regarding the kid's article, on the contrary, are terribly bureaucratic, though probably technically correct; that's one of the cases where we should be protecting the privacy of the fourteen-year-old boy and speedily delete the page. If, in your opinion, the fact that he's his city's youngest businessman is a claim of importance, which is legitimate, and you're not comfortable invoking IAR, then the least you could do would be not to interfere and let another admin do the right thing. To keep such an article around for ten days is a terrible idea, in my opinion. And, besides, your reply is also strange, in that you'd keep an article about this kid, though unsourced and with a dubious claim of importance, and yet you'd delete a sourced article about a woman charged with a murder — not that I'd particularly mind: I can get behind such a deletion, though it's clearly out of process —. Regarding Sorj, on the contrary, you'd basically propose for deletion an article about a writer who was awarded a very important literary prize; again, you're technically correct, but I am disappointed you would not look for a couple of good sources to improve the article, after declining the speedy deletion nomination. After all, this person is, quite clearly, notable — as in really notable and not in a "we must cover all MMA events" kind of way. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you for the feedback. I shall keep that in mind; I had neglected to consider that privacy would play a factor in the biography of Mr Doe, although it did cross my mind for M(r)s Doe. The second instance emphasises the need for WP:BEFORE in all tagging / deleting and not just AFD, and I shall remember that lesson well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Heh, I hadn't even looked at the other two. First one - kill with fire, second one - decline and tag for improvement. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2. (Moved from support) While I initially liked the large amount of edits, the cheerfulness all across the board, etc., I was really dismayed by:
   • a)The lack of A-category taggings in Speedy Deletion. While I see you are more into files, A# deletions are still important.
   • b) The AfD success rate. Although I may be counting this wrong ((103+154+5+15+6)/491)*100), adding up all of your supports and no consensus's over total # of AfD's yields a lousy 57%. Sorry, but I really don't like that. I'm suspicious of my math, but I don't like the #'s anyway.

   I also don't like the fact you mention six years of experience when you only have about 2.5 in activity. I understand this is very minor, but it does mislead people. Sorry for voting oppose, and hope you come back here soon. To summarize everything, do more A-class speedies, more successful AfD's, and teach me some math :). All the best, Buggie111 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you for the honest feedback. Just a bit of clarification, the nominator mentioned six years; I noted that I became highly active beginning in April 2011, although I had created a single article well before then. I will double check the math, although that is a field in which I lack aptitude (side note: the stricken support above seems to still be registered as a support; may need to be fixed) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Snottywong's tool gives 80.5% votes in accordance with the ultimate outcome, 14.8% not in accordance, and 4.7% no consensus, over my past 250 !votes. There are about 17 nominations in which I've !voted but that have not been closed yet, as of this timestamp. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for the reminder, and your response to point 3. I was going through and adding the successes+no consensus on all three AfD pages by Snottywong, yours are split up on the tool 250-250-10. I might be misreading the tool, and the percentages on each page (80+73?+52) are cumulative, but I'd like clarification. Buggie111 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   You're welcome. I shall try and count up the remaining 260, but I'm not sure how the tool works for old AFDs (i.e. 251 and after). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   K, so 103 !votes in accordance with the ultimate outcome, 19 not in accordance, and 6 no consensus, over my past 250 !votes after 3 June 2011, 154 / 45 / 15 between 16 April 2011 and 3 June 2011, and 5 / 3 / 3 before 16 April. That gives 517 !votes (a couple seem to be popping up twice due to technical limitations), and after subtracting 17 total for the open AFDs we have 262 / 67 / 24 out of 500... I guess there are a lot of malformed closes, because that's clearly not right; that that only equals 353... If we use the 353 figure, we get a little more than 74% overall. Confuzzled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   This is accurate. I have a secret way to run the tools over all of your votes, and it comes up with 74.8% for how often you vote in line with consensus. Keep in mind that the tool is not 100% accurate and usually errs on the low side (so your actual accuracy may actually be closer to 80%). -Scottywong| babble _ 14:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Ah, ok. Saw a lot of "undetermineds" in the counter, that might have thrown it off. Still concerned about the lack of article CSD's, which will keep me here, but happy about the other stuff. Buggie111 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks ScottyWong, that solves the confusion. Thank you for the feedback Buggie, I will keep that in mind (and try and practice a bit more) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Hi, Buggie. I saw that there was another oppose and came to look. Very surprised. I've been here seven and a half years, and have a "deletionist" rep, and I don't even know what "A-category" tagging means ;) As to not agreeing with AfD outcomes, well, AfD gets it wrong a /lot/ of the time. Anyway, I wholeheartedly support Crisco; prolly should have said more than "Absolutely", thou. Hope that helps. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   I believe Buggie is referring to all the A-type speedy deletion categories found under Wikipedia:Csd#Articles. In other words, he appears to be surprised that Crisco hasn't tagged many articles for speedy deletion. Worm^TT≡talk≡ 08:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks (some deletionist I've proved;) Mebbe Crisco should {{db-a1}} some more junk... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   On to patrol new pages. Jack, do you have any idea why the tools' figures are a little quite off? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   I barely know how to WP:NPP. I did recently patrol my new user and user talk pages to get rid of an annoying "!" next them in watchlists. Scott' tool will have a margin of error; it would be parsing the AfD text and looking for the usual stars and bolded "Keep/Delete" and such. If you post in an other form, it might miss it. AS I was saying before, such stats are meaningless, as "consensus" != "right"; more often it means "gridlock" or "battleground". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose. The two incidents referred to in Q3 suggest to me that the candidate has an unfortunate tendency to run with the pack when it comes to hounding those who express unpopular opinions. Does one's personality really change so quickly? Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   I have surprised myself by how sweet I have become, so the answer is "Yes!". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   And are you also preparing for a future RfA? Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Welcome back! I looked at that thread (with some interest;). FWIW, Crisco likes me and I often express unpopular opinions. Taht "pack" iz a problem; uze teh kitteh'z teeth to byte their sorry azzez ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Welcome back to what? My only remaining interest in this cess pit is in clearing out at least some of the shit. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Not really feeling strongly supportive, yet no opposition from me at this point, either. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 03:28, May 28, 2012 (UTC)