Wikipedia:Editor review/SoWhy 2

SoWhy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) It's almost five months now since the community has decided to trust me with the admin tools. Since then I have done more than 3000 admin actions (much more if you count declined speedy candidates and declined page protection requests) and so I'd like to get a feeling what others think of my conduct as an administrator. Regards So Why 12:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

I come across your actions quite a lot as I do a fair bit of new page patrolling, and you know CSD as well as anyone I know. Sometimes i come across an unpatrolled article that's been tagged for CSD, and if i wouldn't have tagged it, sometimes i'll watch it to see if an admin would agree with me (thus learning!). You are not afraid to reject speedies that are wrongly added, and are quick to explain the reasons why in a way that hopefully the editor will be able to learn from. I'm sure it's very frustrating rejecting poorly formed CSDs, but you have remained calm. --Ged UK (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I first came across you during your RfA, so that's about all I know of you. Since you asked for a review of your administrator conduct: I feel that it has been pretty solid, from what I can see. One small suggestion I might make is writing down on a piece of paper somewhere near your computer whenever you fully protect an article, so that you indefinite full protections don't last for a few months at a time. But other than that, solid. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing your logs and contributions, your edits are well-spread between most areas of Wikipedia. You also seem to participate in many collaborative areas. Keep it up!
Good stuff on your userpage, good argument at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_5#Template:Rescue, thoughtful reply at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop#User:A_Nobody.27s_evidence_by_User:Ali.27i, good argument at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight, and good close at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight. My sole concern is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter music (2nd nomination) per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, but definitely more good than not. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great Help, I learned a lot of things by following SoWhy's actions. Permethius RFP (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy has an overly strict interpretation of the CSD criterion, which leads to the declining of speedies that 90% of other admins would probably delete, such as [1], a vanity page created for a high school's quiz bowl team. While it does have some claim of notability, it all comes down to the interpretation of "credible": If i wanted to write an article about my neighbor's garage band, should I be able to delay its deletion by 5 days just by saying that they "Won numerous awards"? Lets drink Tea 15:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

View this user's edit count using X!'s counter

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am pleased that none of my admin actions have ended in drama and that some people, even other admins, see me as somewhat knowledgeable in matters of speedy deletion.
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
Just the usual when dealing with users that miss their newly created pages or are not happy with my admin decisions. But I think I can honestly say that none of them caused me real stress, I managed to handle them calmly (I think).

Complaint

I have two specific criticisms regarding this user.

A. Article Selçuk özdemir was created 24/2 09:51 by user Selcukozdemir. I thought it was a blatant online CV, and tagged it CSD at 10:07, and SoWhy declined the speedy at 13:10. I then did a PROD, which was seconded by another user, and then (EDITED Chzz ► 22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)~~SoWhy~~Selcukozdemir) removed the prod without an edit summary. I requested speedy again, and this was denied for procedural reasons (ie that it was a 2nd speedy in a short time); therefore I have listed it AfD, where, to date, it has received 9 clear delete recommendations.[reply]

This has caused an inordinate about of work to delete a non-notable persons online CV.

Comment: I never edit without leaving edit-summaries and you will notice from the history that the PROD was not removed by me [2]. My decline was correct as speedy deletion policy does not allow deletion of pages that don't meet its criteria and criterion A7 does not allow deletion of articles where there are claims of significance or importance. You may disagree with policy but you should not blame me for following it. Regards So Why 18:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

Sincere apologies for accusing you of removing the prod; I made a mistake.
We seem to disagree about the requirements of criterion A7, but - as with many such decisions - I can see how it could come down to an interpretation of policy, "any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". Frequently, I have seen this interpreted by other admins in such a way as to delete CV-like articles which have no references at all. I don't think that there is anything 'of significance or importance' - certainly it fails WP:PROFand WP:BIO, but I appreciate that WP:N of any flavor is not a criterion for CSD. I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. -- Chzz ► 22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B.

Information Systems Coordinator was created around 13:00 on 24/2. The article appeared to be an internal document regarding computer support procedures from the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. It was clearly nonesense, and I tagged it as such, CSD. SoWhy denied the speedy, and a short discussion ensued here. The page creator had tagged hangon, and explained in the talk page that he was using wikipedia as a convenient storage media for some project he wanted to work on at home and later retrieve at work. SoWhy misunderstood this. In some ways this was quite amusing, but there are serious applications. The document contained phone and fax numbers, and links to a website that should have only been accessible to internal staff. I was actually able to connect to that site, create an account, and could have created various support requests and suchlike. (I connected to try and find an email address to warn the company of the potential issue).

For these reasons, I do not feel that SoWhy should be given administrative rights.

My motivation here is not revenge, I simply feel that SoWhy is not a suitable administrator, due to poor judgement demonstrated by these 2 issues.

Thank you for your time, -- Chzz ► 02:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You should review WP:AGF. My interpretation of the creator's comments was not the same than yours, that happens. But your logic is incorrect because, as Pedro (talk · contribs) has pointed out, the whole content is accessible to everyone on the internet[3] (which means it was copyvio). But there was never a "security breach" as you claimed nor was it patent nonsense per policy. Regards So Why 18:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I have reviewed WP:AGF. It is difficult for me to further this discussion, as I no longer have access to the deleted material. I did not claim there was a "security breach". Re. patent nonsense, again perhaps we must agree to disagree on interpretation of policy wording on the subject - and in this case, I am at odds with popular interpretation. I consider that the material had no meaningful content in the context of a wikipedia article. I realize that others do not consider the context to be important and therefore argue that, for example, a page reading 'My name is Bob and I like sausages' cannot be CSD:G1. I think it can; I think the warning template rather than policy itself encourages this interpretation - but that is an argument for another place.

Thank you for responding to my complaint; I hope this debate has helped contribute to your intent when you chose to instigate an editor review. -- Chzz ► 22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can you delete pages that have valid sources? Isn't one of the points of Wikipedia to inform and give information to users? Claim that "(A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" when it was a famous person with credible sources. I guess you are looking for a section saying "THIS IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE:"? Be a little more specific with A7.

I have no idea to which page you are referring to but I'd be happy to discuss the issue at my talk page. Regards So Why 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.