Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wifione

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Wifione

Final: (90/23/4); Closed as successful by Useight at 18:45, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Question from Buggie111 (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC) stolen from fetchcomms

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:::*In opposition of Wifione:

Thanks for applying Wifione, but no thanks this time.

We have a few problems with you, and with them we aren’t that fine.

Adminship might be your cup of tea, but one suspects only if you fall in line.

Which you apparently have not done, and that’s what’s our pine,

Thanks for applying Wifione, but no thanks this time.

CSDs you have many, we checked all of them.

Sincerity we did see, some of the tags looked like gems.

From the hoaxers to the vandals, you caused them mayhem.

Sadly, you didn’t stop, and extended your belligerence when,

You tagged a Prof, a musician and a follower of Zen,

Shot them from the hip, all of those notable men,

One on G3, the remaining on A7.

How could you have speedied them, in the name of heaven?

We move to your articles, 250 new you mention.

Add 50 redirects, and we thought you were ready for administration.

Probed a trite deeper, and something caught our attention.

Stubs they were, most of them, without evidence of content creation.

Five or six were nice, but even they had incomplete citations.

Autoreviewer you are, yes, but we had a higher expectation.

Address these issues please; RfAs are forums for giving good explanations.

If you don’t reply now, even with that we’re pretty fine.

We hope you understand all our policies, and for six months work up the grime.

They’re critical, they’re non-negotiable, and adhering to them is the sign.

That you’re ready for adminship, not just for this life, but for the next nine.

Reapply again then, and we’ll see if you’ve finally fallen in line.

Thanks for applying Wifione, but no thanks this time.

• In defense of Wifione:

I thank you for the opportunity, my reply initially might sound shallow.

Unconvincing, unaffirming, you might dismiss me for being a fallow.

Pray, read my words slow, with a pace Macguire would call wallow.

And you’ll understand dearest Wikipedians, why you had me at hello.

CSDs I thought were my forte; and I counted my successes vainly.

As mistakes were pointed out, I’ve numbered them up too, painfully.

Yes, on hindsight, I seem to have been a quick-gun nihilistic bully.

With the Prof, the Lankan, and even the Bangladeshi man with the melody.

Newbies must have been lost, and all because of me.

Few moments pass these days, without me feeling sorry.

Can I make it up, in some way or the other, is my worry.

One promise that comes your way, I won’t tag ever in a hurry.

To newbies, the most welcoming sight I’ll always be.

Please check my Help Desk contributions, and do trust me.

It’s a much valid point, content creation, and in it my lacking,

This is something that builds Wikipedia; there is no denying.

Editors who’ve built up GAs and FAs, have passed RfAs with colors flying.

That I’ll have a pretty close call, the reasons for that are not hiding.

Yes, I’ll work up sincerely on the content bit, even that part you mention on citing.

Quality of contents might remain an issue; but to improve it I’ll go down fighting.

Will I be a net positive after all? It’s your call, I’m not deciding.

I’ll be back in a moment; there’s some Justin Bieber article, which I think needs hoax tagging.

I’m sure you’ve started understanding me, if you realized the line above was a joke.

But there’s still this nagging question, you might want from me bespoke.

What will I do, if your answer to making me an administrator is a no?

Will I cry, will I bleat, will I throw up my arms and walk off for an indefinite no-show?

The answer to that, is hidden a few lines not much above.

My dearest Wikipedians, you had me when you said hello...

• ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 20:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

<*applause*> encore! -- œ^™ 20:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional questions from efcmagnew

9. Has any event, policy or dispute on Wikipedia caused you to consider leaving?

A: Thanks for the question efcmagnew. If I might take the liberty of modifying the issue in context, the consideration should not be about entering or leaving Wikipedia. It should rather be about experiencing Wikipedia, or stopping the experience of the movement. Wikipedia has given me much to learn - intellectually, behaviourally, and most importantly sociologically. Quite honestly, I have gained far more from Wikipedia than what Wikipedia has got back from me. The experience is fantastically addictive, yet irredeemably stimulating... And expectable as it might be, the answer is in the negative to the query; I haven't considered stopping the experience of Wikipedia. Thanks and warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 16:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

10. If asked by Jimmy Wales, would you assist in carrying his sedan chair?

A: Thanks for asking efcmagnew. Although it would be a privilege to do the same (I assure you, it would be), I suspect I’d not be a quarter competent as many others around who clearly are not only more experienced than I am, but also have their commitment to Wikipedia’s advancement trusted beyond plain poems, words and one year of infatuated indulgence – a description that would better suit me, when seen from the eyes of the disbelieving critic. Rather than I, Mr. Wales should simply choose the best that Wikipedia currently has to offer. It might sound flamboyant of me, but I should ergo have to decline the kind offer with obvious dejection. Thanks for the honor. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:Geo Swan

11 While it has been my experience that the corps of administrators includes some wise, patient individuals, it also includes an unfortunate minority who seem to think being given the mop means they are no longer bound by our civility policies and conventions. Personally, I think it is even more important for administrators to always do their best to be civil, because we should be counting on them to set an example for less experienced contributors, and because when they are interacting with non-administrators it is not a fair fight if they get down in the gutter. If you are entrusted with administrator authority will you do your best to always be civil, and to call in another administrator, when you feel tempted to respond in kind to incivility? How would you react if you came across a fellow administrator who seemed to be lapsing from the level of civility, collegiality and AGF you think we should all observe?

12 This is (was?) a category administrators could list themselves in, if they were willing to be open to a review of their performance. Do you support this idea, and would you consider listing yourself there?

13 Personally I think it is important to approach each question posed to me with an open mind as to whether I made a mistake. I think it is important to be willing to openly acknowledge when I have made a mistake. I think it is important to be willing to try to fix my mistakes. I see these as corolaries of WP:AGF -- as efforts to prove we deserve WP:AGF. As above, although our corps of administrators includes some wise and patient individuals, it has been my experience that it also includes an unfortunate minority who follow the meme "never explain, never apologize", who are unwilling or unable to consider the possibility they made a mistake. If you were entrusted with administrator authority would you do your best to approach each question with an open mind? Would you do your best to own up to making mistakes, and be prepared to reverse yourself, and take other measures to clean up after your mistakes?

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, no reason to think they can't be trusted with the mop.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

   Q8 FTW. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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)
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)
4. Support - Has good work in CSD, AFD and UAA. User can defiantly trusted as an admin. Derild4921☼ 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
6. I've seen this user around various places and have no concerns - seems to have a good head on their shoulders. –xeno^talk 19:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
7. As Xeno said, seems to have a good head on their shoulders. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Support No reason not to. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
15. Support Contributions in admin-related areas suggest that this editor will make fine admin. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
16. Support Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
19. Support Have encountered and been impressed by this user. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
20. Support Pichpich (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
21. Support Good nomination statement. I trust the candidate with the tools. Minimac (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
22. Support - No reason to oppose. Shadowjams (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
23. Support - per PhantomSteve and Xeno. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 06:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
24. Stephen 10:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
26. Support - Looks good to me. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
27. --Connormah (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
31. Don't see why not to support, generally an all-around fine candidate. ceranthor 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
33. Support No problem Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 22:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
35. Support Looks good Gfoley4 (press to chat) (what I've done) 01:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
36. Support - No problems here. Mlpearc powwow 02:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
37. Support No reason to oppose RahulChoudhary 04:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
38. Support Yeah Bejinhan talks 11:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
41. Support PS. (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
42. Support. Intelligent, helpful, very well-rounded. A model editor whom I'm sure will make a fine admin. -- œ^™ 16:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
44. Support He looks entirely trustworthy. Nolelover 01:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
45. Support - Yes, defintely. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
46. Support – Why not? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
47. Support - Absolutely yes. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
48. Support - but please please please promise you'll be good with CSD tags. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
49. En el Copa... murió el amor --Diego Grez (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
50. Support - Why not? Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 17:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
51. Support - meets my standards: in particular - autoreviewer, rollbacker, etc. I understand that he had a faulty CSD, but everyone makes one or two mistakes. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
52. Support - On the condition that they consider their CSD tagging more carefully. Very good well-rounded editor. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
53. Support - saw him around WP:AN/I, and liked what I saw.--intelati^(Call) 20:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
54. Per frank answer to Q3: "Learnt to let go" - so vital in defusing tensions. Shiva (Visnu) 20:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
55. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
56. Support no concerns--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
57. Support: Overhasty deletion loses us newbies, but over all a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
58. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
59. Support - the concerns below are not unfounded, such as the one about article building; however, the knowledge of policy and the sense Wifione shows in answering all the questions makes me feel that this user and Wikipedia would both benefit from having the tools. :) Clementina talk 07:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
60. Support only reservation is fast csd tagging mentioned in opposes, but as steve points out there is still a high level accuracy though. Net benfit as admin though broad exp/civil. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
61. Support. Responsible editor who works in areas where the admin tools will be useful. A few of the CSD tags cited in the oppose section are on the edge, and a few may be (minor) mistakes, but I see no egregious lapses in judgement. I also like the calm and civil manner in which the candidate has responded to the criticisms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
62. Support—A net positive. Airplaneman ✈ 17:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
63. Support - Most likely, he will not delete the main page or block Jimbo. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

    I've thought about this over recent RfAs. Taking the longer-term view, those are probably two of the least harmful things a borderline admin could do. --WFC-- 23:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

64. Support as someone I've seen around, who is intelligent, articulate, and courteous. I've thought very hard about the opposes. I have a lot of respect for WereSpiel's views about RfA, and I think the discussion is a useful reminder of the hazards of too-rapid CSD, but I see the issue as something where the candidate has had this pointed out, has learned from it, and won't keep making the same mistakes. Some of the other opposes seem to me to be piling on or nitpicking. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

    But on second thought, anyone who can write such a splendid rhyming answer should not have to waste their talents as a mere administrator! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

65. Support - Seems ready. Rmosler | ● 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
66. Weak Support - Though Wifione's mainspace contributions are lacking to what I prefer and he's had some issues with his CSD taggings, but from what I've seen the candidate knows his shortcomings and is willing to work with them. That kind of admirable trait lends me to support instead of being neutral. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
67. support I see little in the oppose category to worry me, and largely solid contributions. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
68. Support I've seen nothing in the opposes to sway me. I'd be concerned about someone who was misusing the speedy tag but that really doesn't seem to be the case here, as the candidate has been able to offer perfectly reasonable explanations for a number of the cited examples. I've seen his/her work around and the candidate has always been a pleasure to deal with. (And for what little it's worth, per oppose #10, I love the candidate's signature). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
69. Support. His sig seems too elaborate is one of the worst possible reasons for opposing an RfA I think I've seen; I am hoping that user was joking. In any case, a minor percentage of mistakes at CSD are acceptable, as long as the admin has a good attitude about accepting errors and userfying/undeleting articles; while I am usually a stickler for the WP:GNG, an adherence to SNGs as a support to that sways me far in his favor: it's these sorts of liberal attitudes that help admins to smooth over issues. As long as we realize policy is important, it doesn't have to overrule the good of the encyclopedia. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 07:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
70. Support I have some concerns on the CSd, but besides that, everything is ok. Buggie111 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
71. Support, a good candidate who will be a net positive on balance, I am happy to assume they have learnt from CSD issues and will not rush in that area. ---Taelus (Talk) 13:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
72. Support - Wifione has always struck me as an thoughtful and intelligent editor, and I regard his aptitude for making newcomers feel welcome as a great positive for the project; certainly it played a part in my deciding to hang around. While I find the opposes pertaining to speedy deletion tagging quite legitimate, I am sure that he will take the advice below on-board, and given that, I do not believe the past errors are sufficiently egregious or numerous to warrant delaying adminship. Oh, and the answer to question 8 is fantastic.  -- Lear's Fool 14:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
73. Support Clearly a competent editor, no major issues, so no reason to oppose. Ronk01 talk 15:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
74. per Q8,and general demeanour in this RFA and elsewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

    Re the oppose section. While content contributions of some sort are usually expected at RFA, I think it would be a retrograde step to require a GA, FA or FL, and potentially damaging to both the RFA and Featured content processes. Some FACs involve quite a bit of work to bring the article up to standard, and I think it could be deeply damaging to that process if it started to be confused with whether we want to see the nominator of the FA here. ϢereSpielChequers 08:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

75. Support No objections. Efcmagnew (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
76. Support although I prefer poetry to scan as well as rhyme - but I can live with that in an admin. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
77. Support - Yes there are a few minor concerns about CSD, content creation and lack of experience in some areas, but this candidate is clearly competent. If nothing else, the candidate has demonstrated during this RfA that he is willing to accept criticism and make appropriate adjustments. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
78. Support: I'd like to see some more edits, but the rest seems fine, so why not? —Waterfox (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
79. Support Seems competent and willing and safe, which is really all we ask for. The pointless opposes about his signature, which is perfectly legible (unlike one or two above here) will, I trust, be discounted by the closing 'crat. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
80. Support Yes, user is very polite (at least to me) both on and off-wiki, i see no reason to oppose really. Pilif12p :  Yo  00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
81. Support. Anybody who can write poetry like that just for an RfA is obviously dedicated (or very bored!). ;) All things considered, I think he'll be a net positive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
82. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
83. Support. No indications whatsoever that this editor wouldn't be a responsible and conscientious admin. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
84. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Many of the opposers do raise some valid observations, and I expect that the candidate will take them into account going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
85. Support per retired professor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
86. Support Seems like a reasonable guy with a clue.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
87. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
88. Support Every messes up, every one needs a chance... So why not?? --Wolfnix • Talk • 07:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
89. Support. Seems to exhibit plenty of goodwill and competence, and a willingness to address areas of personal weakness. Might not become a "super admin" (right away, anyway), but this user seems likely to be able to contribute productively to a number of areas, which is really the key thing in my opinion. I'm not exactly enthused by the flamboyant signature, but I did some checking around and noticed that those can actually be changed, amazingly. - Vianello (Talk) 09:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
90. Support. Not convinced by anything I read in the Oppose section. Seems to possess clue. Signature doesn't bother me. --John (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

    Just as I'm unconvinced by anything I've read in the Support section. Malleus Fatuorum 15:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Shifted to support per reassurances on CSD. 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)

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)

Yes of course. නිරිපොල ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

1. 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)

   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)

2. Oppose Question #6. Townlake (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

   I can't see anything wrong with that answer. Please could you clarify? Minimac (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

   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)

   RFA is really based on a user's opinion on whether the candidate is ready or not. In this case, Townlake holds a different opinion on Q6 than Wifione, I am guessing, which is the basis for his oppose. Airplaneman ✈ 13:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

3. 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)

4. 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)
5. Echoing the above, I personally feel that working at a higher level in quality content is a must for admins; it's not about X number or quantity, just some evidence of quality building. ^{{explanation}} -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Concerned about the liberal CSD tagging mentioned above, some of which occurred in the past few weeks.--PinkBull 07:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose per CSD concerns. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
8. I doubt I would have supported off the back of CSD (an area you stated that you would work in), but Q6 tipped the scales too far for a weak support or neutral. The sorts of sub guidelines you mention are not intended to be considered independently of the GNG. They are routinely used at AfD by field-specific editors to protect articles that fall a long way short of the GNG; the sheer volume of field-specific keep voters gives admins very little option to close as delete, even if consensus among uninvolved editors is to do so. In this situation, the furthest they can go is "no consensus", with a rationale explaining that they think that a broader spectrum of editors might have found consensus to delete. To go further and state that you agree that these articles should be kept despite failing GNG is a deal breaker for me. --WFC-- 16:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose In addition to the good points made above, when I sampled I found that he created a poorly sourced BLP of a high-profile person without following through. And his sig seems too elaborate. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

   BLP rules are meant to protect individuals. They are not meant to beat admin candidates with for creating uncontroversial and accurate single sentence stubs on clearly notable people nearly a year ago. Polargeo (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

   The stub was of unacceptably poor quality. Two of the sources provided do not even mention the subject. The only source which did is now a broken link but appears to be a statement on a company website that the person was CEO of that company. This was inadequate as a basis for an article because notability is not inherited and the source was not independent of the subject. This example seems to show clearly that the candidate was at that time, quite inexperienced, and I consider it recent enough for our purposes. I expect admin candidates to understand basic issues of article quality as a matter of second nature achieved by long experience and this candidate still seems too far down the learning curve. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

   His sig seems too elaborate is one of the worst reasons for opposing a RfA. —Waterfox (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

   If you were to apply for an administrative position in another field, would you adorn the signature on your application with cute graphics and colours? When you appeared at the interview, would you wear a kiss-me-quick hat or spinning bowtie? It is our policy that Wikipedia is not MySpace and admin candidates are expected to understand this. Attempts at wit should be donnish, not garish. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

10. Weak Oppose Per CSD issues.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

    Reluctant oppose Both over the content issue as well as the response to Q6. I hate to say this, but I might have supported this if it wasn't a self-nom. IMO, self-nom candidates should have a stronger content resume than what I see here. Sorry! --RegentsPark (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Withdrawing oppose. (Per SarekOfVulcan)--RegentsPark (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

11. Partly per WFC; I also agree that many editors give too much weight to project-specific notability guidelines and I can't agree that articles whose subjects do not meet the GNG should exist. Also, some suspect speedy tags and lack of quality content. Unfortunately, we don't give out mops for poetry skills, or you'd already have one! BigDom More tea, vicar? 15:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose It's a signature, not a myspace page. Gigs (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

    I'll expand my rationale since it's been called "pointless", and it's even been suggested that the 'crat should ignore my and similar rationales. Signatures of people that do administrative work, whether they have the bit or not, are part of the public face of Wikipedia. If I'm a new user and you've just deleted my hard work or blocked me, I'd like to think that you take your responsibilities here seriously, and not that you think of it as some game or place to make a style statement. Such an impression, false or not, could easily result from a "fancy" sig, and majority of our current administrators get this and do exercise appropriate restraint. Gigs (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

    Dear Gigs, I had not replied to comments on this page against my signature purely because I did not know what to write. On one hand, I was wondering whether writing to editors enquiring about which part of my signature was worrisome, would sound too affronting. On the other, I was wondering whether writing to editors about the same, would further their irritation. I was also a newbie once. And one of the (small) ways a newbie creates individuality about one's existence on Wikipedia is through the signature and the name; I did. For some newbies to get attached onto the experience of Wikipedia, one fantastical wonder is seeing one's name playing around with colours, depth, shadows, Latin characters; it's a part of the addiction process on Wikipedia. Look around; look at some of the recent new users who've stuck around - at some time or the other, they've borrowed signature styles from some other users or even created their own versions of their individuality; for me, it added to the brilliant wonder of what is Wikipedia. Honestly, I am not averse to changing my signature if a user were to write to me on that. For example, I did this in the past, almost immediately when one user wrote to me on my talk page. So this message is clearly for you (so that crats don't cut out your vote from the oppose section) - and not necessarily being attempted to change your vote. Kindly do tell me (on my talk page, as this might not be the forum to discuss the same), which part of my signature you might wish me to change. As tomorrow is my birthday, and I'll be spending most of the day with my great grandmother at her residence where net is not available, I might not be able to log in. But if I log on tomorrow morning and see your reply (or whenever I do), I should be able to change my signature. Warmest wishes and sincere regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 02:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

    I will indent my oppose since you have changed your sig now. It looks like you will probably get the bit, use it wisely. Gigs (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

12. Oppose CSD concerns and severe lack of article building. Per above mostly except for Gigs. Vodello (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose Though I really would like to support - the large amount of CSD work appears not to be correlated with any XfD work, making any comments as to "notability" a bit of a problem. I would have liked to have seen actual comments at XfD concerning criteria for deletion other than just CSD. I am also concerned about stub creation as a main source of adding articles to WP. In my experience, the amount of work needed to make a "real article" should not be a deterrent. IMHO, some significant experience in XfD discussions is valuable. I also tend to agree with Jclemens about broader WP experience being quite useful. Collect (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose Help Desk regulars may know that I hate complex signatures, and this is a prime example of one. You use it to associate a post with a name. It doesn't have to be a work of modern art. But there are other things wrong with this nom as well. You have to be crazy to nominate yourself with the type of content you have created -- mostly one-line stubs. I want to see an admin with more content under their belt: at least a good article or two. I've found one article of real substance (Indian Institute of Planning and Management), and even that has a bunch of issues with NPOV, sourcing and whatnot. On the topic of experience, I just don't think you have been here long enough to be an administrator. You seem to have a fondness for non-admin closing AfDs, but as far as I can tell you stay away from actually commenting on them. So my only guide to your deletion policy experience is your CSDs, which I have to agree with other editors that it's evident you exercise little judgement before mashing the Twinkle button. And you say that you are weak at disputes -- so what the hell ARE you planning to do? Images? Finally, Q6, Q6, Q6. You cannot pass a sub-guideline, not pass the general guideline, then have an article. It's just ludicrous. If you're planning to thankspam when this passes, I don't want any. Xenon54 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Anyone who considers that their best contributions to wikipedia have been their csd nominations and uaa reports and puts him or herself forward for the cloak of invulnerabity has my undying contempt. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose per CSD work, and almost non-existent record of creation of proper content. Learn the criteria for SD forwards, backwards, and sideways, and write a GA/FL/FA, and then run again. Courcelles 01:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose I believe that editors should write some valid content in the encyclopedia with a few exceptions, most of the articles created by the editor are just nanostubs, I feel like supporting to cancel out some of the omg long signature votes, but I can't. Too inexperienced Sorry. Secret ^account 01:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose Per Alzarian and Der W. This is something I feel rather strongly about: I've opposed otherwise strong candidates before (here, for eg) over this same thing. I can't help but wonder that these left-behind stubs get done primarily in an attempt to answer the "creating content" thing at RfA. Quality matters over quantity every time and that goes for the entire encyclopedia and for individual content building. And for the latter, done preferably by adding substantially to stubs rather than, say, knocking oneself out over a single article for a star in the top right corner. And incidentally, the name is by me a bit unfortunate: I come from a long-before WiFi era and so can't help seeing it as pronounced "Whiffy-one." Soz. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

    I'm concerned by this pro-forma behaviour too. Early in his career, the candidate was accused of being a reappearance of a prolific sockmaster. I would expect a smart person of this kind to work their passage up to admin status by perfunctory activity of the kind that we see. My impression is that there are still some unresolved COI issues around The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

19. Oppose I'm concerned with the lack of content work at a higher level (not x number of FAs, GAs etc, but evidence that you have worked at that level, either alone or collaboratively, either creating or reviewing). With the ability to block editors, delete pages and protect pages during edit wars, as well as deal with the confrontations that may follow, I feel experience in this area is essential. I'm also concerned with some of the CSD tagging brought up and the fact that you seem to think that CSD A7 is about notability rather than a claim of "importance or significance". --BelovedFreak 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose User has made ~4500 non-automated edits, I agree WP is not a numbers game but this coupled with the low standard of created articles makes me think this User is not experienced enough with article fundamentals. As pointed out previously, 180 edits to The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (4% of this user's non-automated contributions) without resolving the two tagged issues which have been present for over 9 months. If these issues were fixed this could have been an easy(ish) target for GA before RfA nomination Jebus989^✰ 22:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose It wasn't that long ago that Wifione was suspended on the ACC tool for not staying up to date on the changes in a single policy. I can't support someone who must know many, many policies if they cannot stay on top of the changes in just one. I realize that policies don't tend to change much, but it doesn't inspire confidence either way.--Terrillja _talk 23:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose lack of content contributions. Don't require a GA/FA, but do require some writing of an encyclopedia besides sub-stubs. -Atmoz (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
23. Oppose - would like to see more content building and more non-automated editing. Jonathunder (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. CSD tagging needs to very tight. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

   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)

2. Neutral I'm seeing concerns on both opposing and supporting, I may ask a question later. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral, user appears to be productive and well intentioned, and there's no indication they'd misuse the tools. Normally, that'd be enough to put me in the 'Support' column. On the other hand though, a lot of the CSD tagging is sloppy at best. It's not enough to make me oppose, but I can't support, sorry. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC).
4. Neutral. I really have misgivings about commenting on this RfA at all, because Wifione graciously gave me unsolicited support at my own RfA. I don't do quid pro quo, so I must comment on what I know. Note that this is being posted in the Neutral section.

   I sincerely do believe Wifione holds promise as an administrator, but I'm not certain about his readiness. I fully admit that my point of view includes unfair bias on my part due to recent memories. Indian Institute of Planning and Management had suffered from an onslaught of sockpuppet whitewashing (see investigation) just before Wifione appeared there as a single-purpose account seemingly intent on including arguably promotional information and challenging every source that reported negative information, to the point where Wifione had to address a conflict of interest earlier this year, partly based on observed edits from suspicious IP addresses on both his[1] and my[2] talk pages. That fairly recent history underlies my personal bias.

   However, I also can assume that Wifione has acted in good faith. From that low point I described, I have seen Wifione redeem himself, growing into a productive Wikipedian, spreading out to multiple subjects, making positive contributions, becoming someone I would be pleased to collaborate with on just about any article. I think, if this RfA had appeared six months ago, I'd have opposed it. Six months from now, I'd likely give it my full support. But now, given Wifione's answers to some of the questions above (gotta give points for the poetry, though!), I find myself thinking that a bit more experience is in order, so I am comfortably settled into the "neutral" position. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.