Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wifione

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk | contribs) at 16:53, 11 September 2010 (→‎Nomination: on second thought, modifying an article is ok but not someone's comments, even if only a link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wifione

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (49/5/1); Scheduled to end 17:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Wifione (talk · contribs) – I have been an editor since April 2009. My contributions are relatively modest, compared to some of the other much respected and outstanding editors active on Wikipedia. There have been some months when I have been able to contribute to my satisfaction; but there have been many more when I have not been able to do so. Although I’ve created a few articles and am an autoreviewer, my contributions with respect to new articles are again modest as most of the 250 odd new articles I’ve created are stubs and I have only two dyks. I feel passionate about contributing on the Help Desk and whenever possible, have tried to my best extent to assist users with respect to their queries. I also contribute on the tool server as an accountcreator. Additionally, apart from gnomish work, I also have a fair exposure to new page patrolling. I’ve nominated articles for speedy deletion and have also tried and saved some from deletion. In my last hundred csd nominations that I counted in my previous 1000 edits, three must have been rejected by administrators. On and off, I report inappropriate user names to UAA too; in the last fifty reports, forty seven or so were blocked. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 17:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: At the start, I should wish to base my administrative work on the experiences that I have had till now; in other words, new page patrolling along with assessment of speedy deletion nominations. I would also attempt to gain experience at UAA under the guidance of other experienced administrators. At the same time, although I have nominated a few articles at AFD, I still don’t feel confident of being able to close those discussions that sit on the fence – and that’s one area I’d really like to get involved into in the future, as time progresses and I become a more confident administrator.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel very proud (I hope this is not taken negatively) about both my csd nominations and uaa reports. I do know that there’re many better contributors than I am and more sincere ones too; yet, I feel that working in these two areas, I am contributing my mite to our project along with the others towards creating a better project. At the same time, I also feel very enthusiastic about the articles I have created. I know many of them are currently stubs – as most are articles on obscure villages for which RS is not as easily available. Still, I am trying to get them on to the project and create a community/group that works towards adding more village articles and improving those that exist. To that extent, I’ve very recently started WikiProject Villages – I know a clearly amateur attempt – though I do hope to structure this project much better in the coming future to progress the encyclopedic documentation of villages on Wikipedia. I hope in a few months, this comes out successfully.
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: More than a year ago, I was brash and unmindful of the various pillars of editing on Wikipedia and jumped into removing statements and references from an institutional article. As unmindful about being particularly civil with opposing editors, I ensured push came to shove resulting in one particular opposing editor, who was later warned of an impending block due to continued harassment on me, hauled me up to the SPI notice board. I was churlishly infuriated, leading to further editorial dispute with the editor. Thinking about it right now, I have to say it was pretty embarrassing. But I think I have learnt from that experience quite considerably and in one perspective, it has also been extremely advantageous as editorial disputes at that time enforced upon me the need to understand all the imperative policies and guidelines of our project. More importantly, I learnt to let go, be civil and contribute more proactively to the project in many other areas since then. A more recent case – though I won’t call it editorial conflict – was when I was suspended from the ACC tool server for incorrectly creating two user accounts. I accepted my mistake and seconded the correctness of my suspension – as I was clearly wrong. Since then, I am thankful to the ACC administrators for having allowed me to regain ACC tool server access.
Question from —fetch·comms
4. I've read your answers above, but I would like to inquire whether there are any specific weak points in your work that you feel may lead others to oppose this RfA.
A:My lack of experience in dispute resolution is a point that I feel is a clear weakness. Administrators are expected to have a well-rounded experience, and in specificity, dispute resolution is a key pointer to their administrative orientation. I unfortunately lack considerably in the same. Another area that is quite clearly lacking is the editorial count and years spent on the project. With just 18 months spent on the project with just above 6000 edits, I fall quite short of many other more credible administrative candidatures that I see around. In terms of quality of content, I have no GAs/FAs - while there are RfAs which I have noticed with brilliant credentials on these fronts... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 22:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Soap
5. How would you assess the allowability of the following usernames:
  • ManitoWebDesign
  • WhatsyourPROBLEM
  • I doodled on the bathroom wall
  • ☮♥☺ (note that this type of name was the subject of a recent RfC which closed with no clear consensus and therefore this question cannot have a true right or wrong answer.)
  • Lŏs̩őỳṕa (user admits that this is a made-up name with no meaning but insists on keeping it with all the hard-to-type letters)
  • Save the cows ... eat more people!
A: I’ll base my answers on the presumption that these user names already exist, contributions are being made, and ceteris paribus, my comment is invited on the basis of our username policy without other policies being overridden.
  • ManitoWebDesign: Check the user specifications; past contributions (all spaces), user_real_name... If evidence points to blatant promotional/group/organisation/website representation and usage, report to UAA (non-admins), block with an expiry time of indefinite providing user_newtalk explanation through standard template with unblock request instructions and suggestions on how to request new user names; leave an additional CoI note for extended explanation. In case user is an established constructive user and there is no evidence in favour of the above premise, at best discuss with user about possible misrepresentation; at worst an rfc.
  • WhatsyourPROBLEM: In general, agf. In case an editor doesn’t assume that and finds the user name offensive per se, advise the editor too to agf, or talk directly to the user, and in case further required, follow procedural policy. In case of clear disruptive behavior on part of user, report/act on the bigger issue. (Additionally, in case one has too much free time, suggest the addition of a question mark at the end of the name to the user :-))
  • I doodled on the bathroom wall: Same action as above.(No question mark required here.)
  • Save the cows ... eat more people!: The user name seems an exercise in humor. Same action as above.
  • ☮♥☺: Suggest the usage of Latin characters, at least in part, to the user’s signature.
  • Lŏs̩őỳṕa: Although my browser is again performing inefficiently (and showing boxes splattered in between), these seem to be Latin Unicode characters. The username is all right; no issues here (unless some editor takes offence, in which case, the schedule is given as above).
  • ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from WFC
6. If, at AfD, a biography is adjudged not to meet the general notability guideline, are there any circumstances in which it should be kept?
A: Under certain specific guidelines, yes. A biography that does not meet gng could still qualify on specific notability guidelines defined by our community. In one key example that might be rightfully relevant here because of the previous discussions, while one of the basic philosophies that the professor test propagates is that ‘academics’ could be notable even without their ‘biographies’ (as opposed to their academic contributions, felicitations et al) per se being the subject of secondary sources, the test goes beyond and reinforces the point that “if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.” An interesting example that comes to my mind is an AfD that I came across a few months back of an individual called Juraj Tóth. He failed on gng, and on many counts on the professor test too, yet qualified on Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Creative professionals, with Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography#Notability criteria for photographers thrown in for further support. And then, there’re those AfDs where the biography is extremely borderline even on the specific criteria, yet escapes deletion because of no consensus. This AfD where I participated many months back – I should mention not quite convincingly – was one of them. Thus, specific notability guidelines under various ‘people streams’ define further specifications to be considered in deletion reviews. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 19:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not withstanding current policy, what is your personal opinion on this matter? In your ideal encyclopedia, should someone who meets one of the SNGs but not GNG have an article on Wikipedia? NW (Talk) 13:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I answer your question, let me mention that my answer to WFC’s question above was specifically with respect to deletion discussions, where the subject specific guidelines are used by some as pure rules of the thumb to determine whether an article has/does not have a ‘likelihood’ of meeting general notability guidelines (as opposed to asserting that the article definitively has met gng).(For example, WP:ATHLETE helps evaluate whether or not a sportsperson will meet the general notability guideline. In other words, WP:ATHLETE determines the ‘likelihood’ that sufficient sources exist, but not the ‘guarantee’ that they will exist.) This brings me to your question on my general opinion of specific versus general wrt biographies. Our notability guidelines mention that a topic “is presumed to merit an article if it meets the gng; a topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines.” Keeping our BLP and low profile individuals’ issues in context, while I personally am quite comfortable using the subject specific WP:BIO guidelines in deletion discussions to prove notability in case the biography is not meeting gng, it would be ironical if a biography escapes deletion in a deletion discussion by meeting subject specific guidelines that only prove the likelihood of existence of sufficient sources, yet continues to exist in that form thereon with no pressing reason for being questioned on its right to be included on Wikipedia and on its non-adherence to GNG. Given such instances, leave deletion discussions and reasonable time for improvement post non-deletion, GNG adherence should be the appropriate objective. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Atama
7. Your article edits have been focused predominantly at the Indian Institute of Planning and Management article. The article currently has a couple of tags complaining about improper citation formatting and general cleanup issues. There is also a rather extensive history of conflict on the talk page of the article between yourself and other editors, including COI accusations and NPOV disputes. For the sake of editors who like to see article development experience in administrators, do you plan on addressing the issues shown in those tags, and if so, how? Also, given your claim above that you lack dispute resolution skills, do you feel that you've handled the conflicts on the talk page of the article appropriately?
A: I second your viewpoints completely on the extensive history of editorial dispute on the talk page of the article in the past. Answering your second question first, the fact is that the conflicts on the talk page of the article – incidents which I’ve referred to in my nom-answers above – could quite clearly have been handled in a much better manner by me, more importantly with a steadfastly civil outlook and adherence to our pillars of editing. The recent past has relatively been much better clearly, not just in terms of handling of discussions, but even in terms of the absence of any edit or reversion wars, issues I believe this article saw much of in the past. But of course, this is only relative to the past; there is a lot more that should be done – and I believe is being attempted; which brings me to your first question. Just to provide a contextual reference, just ten days ago I had already initiated a discussion with the editors of the page to participate in editing a draft proposal of the article that could clear up much of the repetitive information on the article, the prime reason for the tags. Thereon, I completely believe that discussions and a definitive emphasis on consensus building is the way ahead on the article. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Buggie111 (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC) stolen from fetchcomms[reply]
8. Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose.
A:

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support, no reason to think they can't be trusted with the mop.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Not before time, judging by quality of contributions - happy to give my backing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The candidate's record in CSD tagging looks excellent - I've found one or two declined tags but the hit rate looks to be around the 99% mark. I've also noted in the past the candidate's very thoughtful contributions to other RfAs (in particular, questions). Definitely qualified. And bonus points for the self-nom! --Mkativerata (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Has good work in CSD, AFD and UAA. User can defiantly trusted as an admin. Derild4921☼ 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Was on the fence, seeing that a good portion of your contribs are in the Wikipedia space. However, a closer examination reveals a helpful valuable editor, should make a fine admin. Tommy! 19:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I've seen this user around various places and have no concerns - seems to have a good head on their shoulders. –xenotalk 19:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As Xeno said, seems to have a good head on their shoulders. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 20:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No reason not to. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support While I understand what ϢereSpielChequers is saying in the oppose, I note that the vast majority of the CSD tagging that I looked at were accurate. My advice would be to slow down if you are evaluating CSD. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Been seen around, I don't see why we shouldn't dish out another mop.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support We are not looking for perfect candidates. And besides, if all the incidents that were "problematic" are all still deleted (actually, deleted at all, which means we have admins who agreed with the candidate's interpretation of CSD), then I cannot see a problem, certainly not one to oppose over. Aiken Drum 21:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Seems well meaning and well versed in Wiki-policy. Unlikely to delete the main page. Mr. R00t Talk 00:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weakest possible support The candidate has been highly active for less than a year. 251 Article creations and 50 redirects look impressive at first glance; however, most of the articles are single sentence stubs. That being said, what convinced me to vote in favor was a clean block log and a relatively broad range of experience in the administrative-related areas. I feel the candidate is someone who can be now trusted with the tools (Accountcreator, rollbacker, reviewer) and will constantly learn and improve as time goes on.--Hokeman (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Contributions in admin-related areas suggest that this editor will make fine admin. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I like and respect ϢereSpielChequers, but in this case I think that his oppose is a little ridiculous. This user is an excellent candidate, as far as I'm concerned. He has experience in a wide number of areas and shows a level of competency that I find acceptable for an admin per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Trusilver 02:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. A very rational and levelheaded individual who is able to distinguish between right and wrong, and learn from his mistakes in the wrong. —fetch·comms 02:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Have encountered and been impressed by this user. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 02:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Pichpich (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Good nomination statement. I trust the candidate with the tools. Minimac (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - No reason to oppose. Shadowjams (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - per PhantomSteve and Xeno. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 06:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Stephen 10:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I think the CSD issues are relatively minor and certainly not enough for me to be overly concerned as long as Wifione is prepared to learn and improve. In this respect I see a good attitude in respnse to the oppose. Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Looks good to me. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --Connormah (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support The stubby town articles are a small cause of concern but they all appear to be verified. Nothing stands out hinting that you'd not make a good administrator. ThemFromSpace 13:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Satisfies my main RFA criterion, and seems to have a good sense of humour, which I actually find a big plus in an admin. No problems found in review of contributions, and lots of positives, so I support.  Begoon&#149;talk 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I don't see any red flags, he seems to have a good head on his shoulders, and takes constructive criticism well. Dusti*poke* 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Don't see why not to support, generally an all-around fine candidate. ceranthor 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Plenty of experience in article and project space, nothing to raise a concern. The few CSD mistakes aren't enough to drive me to oppose, when compared with all of the successful CSD tags. -- Atama頭 21:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No problem Inka 888 22:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I read through the oppose section since in my experience, when WereSpielChequers opposes it's a pretty well-grounded rationale, and it is this time too, but it is not enough to convince me to oppose. I think you will do just fine with CSD as long as you take it carefully. —Soap— 22:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Looks good Gfoley4 (press to chat) (what I've done) 01:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - No problems here. Mlpearc powwow 02:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No reason to oppose RahulChoudhary 04:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Yeah Bejinhan talks 11:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - cautiously. Looks like good work in various areas, and I'm not hung up on edit counts. The downside, for me, is CSD tagging. Even when done perfectly, CSD tagging is bound to put off some new contributors (or old ones who are moving into article-creation for the first time). The handful of examples I've seen aren't bad, per se, but perhaps just slightly too keen. I would advise caution & conservatism with CSD - and wikipedia won't really suffer in the meantime if it has a handful more articles where the notability, rather than the accuracy, is unclear. But that's just my opinion.... bobrayner (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I'm surprised no one's mentioned Wikione's Help Desk activity - that's where I've encountered Wikione and I've been very impressed with their cluefulness and helpfulness. Wifione, I'd hope that you take the oppose comments on board, particularly WereSpielChequers', but I also believe that a mop changes ones perspective on CSD and that admins tend to be more conservative when handling CSD requests than editors requesting CSD. TFOWR 13:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support PS. (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Intelligent, helpful, very well-rounded. A model editor whom I'm sure will make a fine admin. -- Ϫ 16:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Yes, answer to question 6 is a little odd: our specific notability guidelines are intended to offer guidance on how to apply the GNG to various fields, not to ovethrow the GNG. But with that said I still think Wifione will make a capable admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support He looks entirely trustworthy. Nolelover 01:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Yes, defintely. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support – Why not? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Absolutely yes. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - but please please please promise you'll be good with CSD tags. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. En el Copa... murió el amor --Diego Grez (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I like the clean blocklog, civil communications and nice mix of activities, building the wiki as well as defending it. But I'm concerned at the candidate's CSD tagging, both in terms of accuracy and haste - which may be interconnected. "professor of electrical engineering" "has published four papers in international journals" tagged in just two minutes as {{db-person}}. "one of the most popular guitarists and the young craze of Bangladesh" that could of course be a hoax but was tagged in just four minutes as {{db-person}}. This was tagged as {{G1}} - I don't read Sinhalese, but I'd have preferred to see a {{Not English}} tag on that one. "His Erdos Number is 2." - and a quick check seems to bear that claim out. Four deletion tags that I think were wrong out of maybe two dozen that I checked, and the first two were IMHO very hasty. Sorry Wifione, but overhasty deletion loses us newbies, and anyone with an Erdos Number of 2 has a pretty big clear claim to notability in my view an assertion of importance. ϢereSpielChequers 20:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and appreciate your views on the articles above. I have to confess that I had no idea Erdos number was important for notability. When I read details of Erdős number, noticing that it was created apparently as an exercise in humour might have misled my perception. But I get your viewpoint. With respect to the Sinhalese article, would it be possible for you to point out the name? Thanks and regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 21:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes of course. නිරිපොල ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All right; I think I've got the reason. I use Google Chrome, and the name of the article simply comes out as seven square boxes (foreign language fonts display issue?). In my contributions link, it still shows as seven boxes only. That must have been the reason for the speedy tag. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually use Firefox, but my netbook is Chrome and that just shows boxes. Though I suspect its more a matter of the fonts your PC has loaded. ϢereSpielChequers 22:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In defense of Wifione, as the the admin that deleted that article, I was also unable to recognize it as a foreign language. Even now, using 3 different browsers on two different operating systems each, I don't see anything but boxes. This is a technology deficiency, not a Wikipedian deficiency. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm I can see it. There is a site where one can copy and paste the boxes, and havei t rendered to an image file. Let me look for that real quick: it can be very useful. (Although I can see it, probably because I have language support for just about everything on this machine) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I use Google Chrome and can see the font; but, I think it pertains to which fonts are loaded and recognizable by your computer. This is certainly not a user error. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are picking on examples where an A7 tag has been applied on an "amateur mathematician" whose only (unsourced) claim to significance is an achievement on a "humorous index" that puts him on the same "level" as over 8,000 other mathematicians, RfA standards are just getting silly.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also add above that I think Aiken Drum's point is very well taken. In each of the cases identified, the article was deleted. That means there were four admins (myself included) who agreed with Wifione. A7 isn't a clear objective standard: the words "significance", "importance" and "credible" are all open to interpretation and reasonable differences of opinion. WSC takes quite a narrow opinion; that's fine. But I don't think RfA candidates can reasonably be opposed for having reasonable differences of opinion that were, on each identified occasion, supported by an admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The concern is that some admins are not really upholding the csd criteria. If one believes that these csds were errors, then the fact that they were approved by an admin does nothing to allay this fear! So I think we can't use the fact that admins agreed with these tags to say that this discussion is inherently unreasonable. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or perhaps what the admins uphold is the CSD criteria and these interpretations of it are outside of the mainstream. That is at least as equally likely. There's interpretation in the criteria. Use in practice varies from ivory tower talk page interpretations. It's a fair question about which one is preferable, but opposing based on the latter begs the question about whether or not that's the consensus interpretation. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am far from perfect and do not expect perfection of others. I gave 6 examples in my oppose - two of hastiness and four deletion tags which IMHO clearly did not meet the speedy deletion criteria, there have been other candidates I've either supported or not !voted at all where I've found fewer examples that gave me concern, and I try to disregard examples where I'd have done things differently but accept that discretion applies. The four deletion tags were indeed upheld by admins, but as I found these whilst trawling through the candidate's last 100 deleted contributions my methodology had a skew towards such cases. It's interesting to discover that there are people who don't realise that a row of boxes implies something written in a script that your PC doesn't read, but that still strikes me as an attitude of if in doubt, delete. If people disagree with our speedy deletion policies then I'd suggest discussing things at WT:CSD, not deleting things just because you are pretty sure they would not survive AFD. For starters I've raised the Professor issue at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Professors. ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an attitude of it in doubt, delete. It's a case of interpreting the CSD policy differently. Some treat it very strictly, others use it as a guide. Either way, opposing for tags that other admins clearly agreed with, and which could be argued as borderline anyway, seems ott. Aiken Drum 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that these were borderline for speedy deletion - though I don't dispute that they would have been at best borderline at AFD. I've raised a thread re the Professor, as for the Sinhalese one I've filed a Bot request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_to_tag_not_English_newpages. If people think the current longstanding {{G1}} guideline of Not to be confused with......Text not written using the Latin alphabet or otherwise not written in English is obsolete then the place to suggest changing it is presumably Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense (though as it isn't a high traffic page a note on the village pump and at the translation and speedy deletion pages would be in order). ϢereSpielChequers 12:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WereSpielChequers, a lot of npps tend to play fast and loose with CSD criteria, and I really like to see sysops be a check on that. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I'm only particularly concerned about the article that contained the text "one of the most popular guitarists and the young craze of Bangladesh" and the article that contained the text "professor of electrical engineering" and "has published four papers in international journals" that were tagged per a7. I can't read any of these articles as I'm not a sysop, but if the only claim to fame was an erdos number I probably wouldn't have db-personed it but I can understand doing so. Knowing that boxes imply a high likelihood that you're missing the required fonts is nice but probably not required for handling CSDs. Anyway now Wifione knows :) ErikHaugen (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm withdrawing my oppose and indenting, the %age of csd tags that I'm worried about is really low. ErikHaugen (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Erik, thanks for withdrawing the oppose. It's highly appreciated. WereSpielChequers, I do want to mention out here, not just to you but to others too who have given me the correct pointers on the CSDs, that I'll surely ensure that there're few chances from here on that the community would get to point me out on CSDs. I'll surely do my best. Yes, being human, there could be errors, but I can assure you that they would be minimal. Thanks again for the comments... And I have to mention out here WereSpielChequers - apologies for it all. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 12:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Candidate himself admits that his content creation and dispute resolution are both weak. Administrators need to be able to relate to the users whom they may be blocking, to understand what goes into an edit war and prompts page protection. Go get some experience and come back in six months. We've certainly had enough candidates recently who've excelled compared to this candidate in one or both areas, no need to rush this candidate before he's really ready. Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns Jclemens. I certainly do realise that there is no better substitute to understanding an issue than actually experiencing it. At this juncture, although it might seem too premature, allow me to say that in the coming future, whether or not I become an administrator, I'll extend my contributions to both the areas that you mention. Thanks for your note. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 12:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Question #6. Townlake (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see anything wrong with that answer. Please could you clarify? Minimac (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in campaigning against the candidate, and have no interest in providing RFA gristle for the bored to chew on. Your request is respectfully declined. Townlake (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. OPPOSE: I'm disappointed with the CSD work: Tagging a saint as A7 and requesting G6 for an AfC page. 23:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protector of Wiki (talk • contribs)
    Thanks Protector. Just leaving a note on a Village Pump discussion that I had raised very recently on the fact that in my opinion, knowing Hindu culture, a Hindu saint (as opposed to a saint) should not be considered a claim of notability. Do kindly go through the links I've provided in the Village Pump discussion to have an idea of why, in general, there are above of a million Hindu saints in India who don't need canonization to become one; just mere acceptance of the philosophy and ways of following a godly path (see the links). But then, this issue has already been resolved. Secondly, the Articles for creation tag was a housekeeping CSD that was raised as the AfC was wrongly created in main space. The version you are showing here is the version created after the non-controversial move. Here's the non-controversial move that was done right after my tag by the moving administrator. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 02:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Reluctantly, oppose. A lot of good work in important areas, but content creation is a big stumbling block. Of the 251 articles created, over 200 are orphaned sub-stubs like this. The best articles I could find were Houthoff Buruma, which was left in this form by Wifione and expanded by another editor, and Central Council of Homoeopathy, which has a similar story having started life like this. Creating very poor articles on notable topics and failing to improve them isn't what I want to see from an admin candidate, I'm afraid. Come back in six months having sorted out some of those 251 articles and I'll probably support. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. CSD tagging needs to very tight. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Axl, point taken. Do kindly read my note a few lines above (in the oppose section) with respect to CSDs. Will keep it very tight from here on. Again, thanks for the comment. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 12:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wifione&oldid=384224065"