Wikipedia:Administrator review/SoWhy

Thank you everyone for your reviews, I appreciate every kind word and will try my best to address and improve upon any criticism voiced. I truly appreciate that you all took the time to comment. Regards  So Why  10:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions please :-)  So Why  20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're an excellent administrator. Your CSD word is consistently accurate, and your comments on various talk pages are always intelligent and useful. I guess there's much to complain about! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There always is, there always is... Thanks for the kind words, Julian, I appreciate them :-) Regards  So Why  10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't spend much time with the XfD stuff, but I definitely agree with Julian on the talk pages point. The one thing that sticks out in my mind, and what causes me to stop and read when I see the SoWhy sig., is that you very often are able to state a perspective, find a point of view, or articulate a thought that had previously escaped me.  You don't state the obvious, but rather engage folks to think about a fresh observation.  I may not always agree with you, but you make me stop and think.  Looking back through your history, I really don't see much to complain about. I guess I could be a little jealous about someone who can be in NYC one minute, and Paris next.  You spread your work out among a wide variety of areas, you're willing to nom and support users at RfA, you keep an eye on things that are going on at the AN boards, and my personal favorite, you don't go running through the wiki deleting stuff, but rather you take the time to fix and build - not sure I can think of anything to offer in the line of improvement suggestions.  I'm sure we'll disagree about something ... somewhere down the road (in which case you'll be wrong and I'll be right of course ), but until then - I got nothing. ;) — Ched :  ?  01:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I, too, know that a good user is not necessarily someone I agree with all the time, so I'm touched by your kind words (even if you may disagree with me on some issues). Thanks for the long review, Ched. PS: No need to be jealous, that statement about NYC and Paris referred to my trip back home from my vacation, it's nothing I do on a regular basis (come to think of it, it was my first real vacation in 8 years^^). Regards  So Why  10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Showed poor judgement in nominating somebody for RfA with long term lack of knowledge over copyright / plagiarism. Clearly did not review the person's edits and edit history prior to nominating.  Calls judgement into question - was a "friend" nominated or someone considered suitable for the role? Minkythecat (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do really not want to drag this out here as well. Noone noticed this alleged "long term lack of knowledge over copyright / plagiarism" of the more than 150 !voters at that RFA (by the way: reviewing a candidate edits is not the same as to google each of her edits for such problems without any indication). But even if we were to assume that this is somehow my fault (as opposed to the fault of the person in question), how is nominating someone for adminship an administrative action? After all, anyone can do it. Regards  So Why  14:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could easily raise doubts about your judgment. As an admin, you know - or should - the abilities that are needed.  Yes, anyone can nominate - but you, as an admin, nominated someone for whom clear, massive doubts have arisen.  SO, did you check FT's edits prior to nominating, or was it a nomination of a friend? Minkythecat (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doubts that have not arisen in both RFAs I might add, so the judgment was impaired for anyone who !voted in those. After all, a nomination is nothing more but an elaborate !vote. I looked at a couple of those articles randomly, as I would with any candidate, but none were obviously copied, so I had no reason to assume it. I do not know FT personally or consider her a friend. She is just an editor who works in the same area as I do (NPP) and my nomination was based on her good work in that area because we need more admins working there. The newly arisen allegations are grave, no doubt about it, but the problems do not stem from the nomination or from her new +sysop but from her previous editing. Regards  So Why  15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you basically nominated based upon one particular area. Now, when was the image copyvio?  A year? Six months? Less? Do you have full confidence in the new A you nominated should they decide to delve into dealing with areas of copyright?  Do you feel, with hindsight, you should have checked far more carefully, given the fallout, which has touched other areas? Minkythecat (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominations are not more than !votes, despite what some people might think. If I had !voted support with the same text, would anyone blame me for not checking the other areas? I still do have confidence in FT and I think that she will not venture in any area without making herself familiar with it first. Nobody expects any admin to be perfect in every area, else we would not have any at all. Should I have google searched every one of her articles? No, because it is not my job to spare others the need to vet the candidate themselves. I am not more responsible for another user's contributions that any other. I have cast a !vote in support for her work in NPP and more than 100 other people supported her based on their checks of the candidate. Noone has found those problems, neither supporters nor opposers, so it's not surprising that I didn't. The current "fallout" is unfortunate, no doubt about it, but it's not caused by my nomination of FT but by FT's edits that have nothing to do with adminship. Regards  So Why  15:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you sometimes put following the (written) rules above doing what's best for the project. We discussed this briefly previously, so I won't really get into detail. It's perfectly fine to follow policies and guidelines, and for the most, most users do. But there are times when it simply isn't. And I'm not always sure you're capable of seeing the difference. (The irony that some of these statements very likely apply to me as well is not lost on me, I assure you. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an excellent example for this problem: "The article is sourced to multiple reliable sources (whether they got their facts right is not our concern, remember WP:V: Verifiability, not truth) establishing notability." . The immaturity of this comment is breathtaking. But I suppose it's OK for anonymous Wikipedia admins to argue for libelling their no-longer-anonymous colleagues, so long as all i's are dotted and all t's are crossed. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would appreciate people to talk to me about specific concerns they have but if you want to raise it here, fine. My point was (as I wrote) that it's impossible for people at an AFD to know the "truth" about things. For all we know, the source could be correct as well as it's probably not. But since it's impossible to read Sam's mind and understand, why he did the edit in question, we have no choice but to write what reliable sources report - but making sure that the article reflects that this really is only what the source thinks, not what is true. And the article does just that, using the wording "...is accused of...". I see no problem in reporting in line with WP:V that a reliable source makes such an accusation. The article does not depict it as a fact. Regards  So Why  10:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * From User:Aitias
 * In my humble opinion you are simply one of our most accurate, diligent, polite and helpful administrators. Also, I have always felt your judgement to be excellent; Minkythecat's criticism above does neither change this opinion nor does it worry me. Summarising, I truly believe that the project should be more than delighted to have such an outstanding admin, who does such a great job. Thank you for your work. :) — A itias  //  discussion  16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I much agree with Julian. Great as an administrator, strong CSD work. This is more in the sense of editing rather than +sysop, but the places I encounter your name most are discussion areas—whenever I see your signature I always take a moment to read what you've said. And it's usually an interesting and insightful addition to the discussion, and that's something I truly admire. On another thought, since you've become an admin, I've always seen you as the makings of a 'crat. Not saying that it'd be a smart path to take at this point, but that's my opinion. :-) Keep up the good work,  Jamie ☆ S93  17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thoughtful work at CSD and RFA, and a great communicator. Ausgezeichnet. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * SoWhy has excellent judgement. He upholds the neutral viewpoint and has a fine understanding of policies and guidelines. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found you to be fair, reasonable and friendly. Not a common combination in people, let alone those doing a stressful task like being a wikipedia admin. Hobit (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From User:decltype
 * While this is supposed to be about administrative actions, I believe responding to all sorts of inquiries in a proper manner is an essential part of the administrative role. Your track record in this area is beyond reproach. However, sometimes your responses to "why did my article get deleted" may come across as rather curt and standardized, but I suppose this is inevitable. I can't really comment on your CSD work, apart from the fact that my own philosophy and approach is heavily influenced by your comments and insights. In general, my own view is that almost all of the time, we should treat our policies, shaped through wide consensus, as normative. While you may not have made any explicit comment to that effect, your actions indicate that you share a similar notion. I'd appreciate your comment on this, though. To summarize, I think you're a very good administrator with a far above average knowledge of policy combined with excellent conduct. decltype (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * From user:dramatic
 * This is but a single incident, but I think there was a little hastiness/laziness in twice declining Tangi Utikere for speedy. The first time you said that he may be notable, but did you actually do any of the checks you suggested? I think that in A7 cases there is a duty for the admin to do a basic check in case there is clear notability which the article has merely failed to state. Then I came along - I read the article and found no claim to notability> I searched and found numerous mentions of him in non-notable local roles (clearly a person active in the community but nothing to base an article on, and the fact it was an unreferenced autobiography should have counted against it further). I did not think to check the article history, but when I did afterwards and realised a speedy had already been declined I supported my reasoning on the talk page. The second decline comes across as a procedural one purely on the basis that you had already declined it without any consideration that research had been done and that a second editor thought the article was a clear-cut speedy. dramatic (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a problem of my administrative conduct, I'd say, but with different opinions on what CSD patrolling admins should do. Unfortunately, while you might think so (for good reasons maybe even), it's not an admin's duty to check for whether the subject of an article is notable or not. The article in question made several claims of importance/significance (like being on the board of the notable New Zealand Lottery Grants Board, being advisor to a minister, etc. - remember, importance or significance is a much lower standard than notability) combined with several Google News hits indicating that there is in fact coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Whether those claims or the coverage are sufficient to establish notability is a question that can and should be decided using PROD or AFD deletion venues and which speedy deletion admins can and should not make (review the wording of A7 that explicitly states that sources to back such claims are not essential to decline an A7). So yes, it's quite possible that you are in fact convinced that the article was a clear-cut speedy, the same way that I was convinced, that it isn't. The second decline was procedural because nothing has changed from the first one and thus my reasoning from the first time still applied imho. On a side note, you should always check the article's history before tagging it for speedy deletion as it's always possible that the speedy has been decline before. Regards  So Why  22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * From User:Cliffsteinman
 * You seem to be doing your job, as far as review goes I give you a thumbs up. Keep it up :D Some day I hope to become an admin, but that's many many readings of rules and maintainance actions in the future. It's people like you and the general helpfulness of users and the community that makes people want to be a part of and help grow Wikipedia. Cliffsteinman (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)