User talk:Scottywong

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth

Hi; the above AfD, which you closed as no consensus; turns out to have been disrupted by socking - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bartolo 5565 - (this affects at least 3 of the accounts at that discussion; Fabio 7654 = Poida 0122 = Green Hook 1224; (plus likely the 2001:8003:24A4:4700:74DF:850F:FE8B:A6C3 IP). I don't know if you had already given those less weight simply because they were SPAs, but if you hadn't, it might be worth reconsidering the original close. In addition, other keep !votes are poorly argued (for example, the final one simply WP:VAGUEWAVEs at GNG and LISTN, both of which require direct evidence and not merely assertions).

If you don't think the above is sufficient to overturn your original closure and re-close as delete; please tell me. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: That's unfortunate. I'd feel uncomfortable unilaterally changing the closure at this point, and I'm honestly not sure if omitting those three users' votes would make the consensus substantially shift towards delete enough to change the outcome. It still feels to me that the objections to these articles are more about how they are organized, and less about whether or not this information is notable enough to be included in the project at all. My preference at this point would be for you to either take this to WP:DRV to get the opinion of the wider community on how to proceed, or to start a merge discussion as mentioned in my original closing statement. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes

Clpo13

Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sanjay Awasthy

Hello, Scotty,

I think you need to remove the AFD tags when you moved the article to draft space. Hope all is well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And now, Sanjay Awasthy has been moved back to main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for letting me know. I apologize for failing to remove the AfD tags on the draft page. In light of the results of the recent election, I've decided that the best course of action is to open a fresh AfD on the article, to discuss whether or not this election changes the balance of the notability equation for this individual. Please feel free to participate in that discussion if you wish. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Ghadiya

Hi! I was a bit surprised at your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghadiya. After it was pointed out that the dab page had two eligible entries, the question was only if there was a primary topic or not, with one person believing there was, and another believing there wasn't. I don't see any consensus on that matter. Also, if it ultimately is determined that a primary topic exists, and the page gets redirected there, then the target will then need to have a hatnote for the other meaning. – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sameer Wankhede

There were 19 !delete votes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer Wankhede of which 2 were made by the same IP geolocating to same area and making no other edits on Wikipedia.[1][2] There were 17 !keep votes and it seems that you haven't counted this comment which convinced me to vote for "Keep" as my comment show. I am not counting apparent vote-rigging in one instance,[3] and a !vote which lacked a !vote in bold letter.[4]

Even if the nominator is counted, you can say the count was almost equal for either !vote contrary to your count of 16-24.

If the subject is a case of BLP1E, then what do you have to say on these sources that provide him major coverage such as [5][6] before this year? They talked about his career since 2008 and cannot be mitigated to routine coverage or rejected.

Nobody debunked these arguments as comments by S. Marshall show.

The article was in poor shape for most of the AfD and improved only after at least 9 days were passed.

I believe a fair close would have been a "no consensus" or "keep". TolWol56 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, counting votes in such a messy AfD is not a straightforward process. I counted again and I still get 24-16, I have no idea how you're getting 19-17. I'm obviously not counting the votes that have been struck because they are from blocked socks, and yes the nominator counts as a delete vote. You might be right that my count could be off by 1 or 2, but even if that's true, the actual vote count is not the most important aspect of deciding how to close the AfD. Just because two IPs geolocate to a similar area does not mean they are necessarily sockpuppets.

I've seen the two sources that you posted above. One of them (the India Today source) is from November 2020, so this would not help to disprove BLP1E in this case. The other (Sunday Guardian) is from 2013. In the AfD, this source was discussed. There were concerns that the Sunday Guardian may not be a reliable source. An editor even pointed out a fairly major error in the reporting within that story (referring to Wankhede as working for the Indian Police Service rather than the Indian Revenue Service), which further suggests that the Sunday Guardian's editorial standards might be too low to be considered a reliable source. These concerns were not adequately refuted, in my opinion.

Like I said in the closing statement, it's a borderline case, but the numerical advantage of the delete voters combined with the strength of their arguments convinced me that there is sufficient evidence to delete the article.

Trying to re-argue the things that have already been argued in the AfD is not likely to change my mind. You're welcome to take this to WP:DRV if you disagree with my reasoning. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)