Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/BigDom

Username: BigDom User groups: autoreviewer First edit: Jul 19, 2006 09:09:49 Unique articles edited: 4,791 Average edits per page: 2.17 Total edits (including deleted): 10,374 Deleted edits: 625 Live edits: 9,749 Namespace totals Article	7607	78.03% Talk	456	4.68% User	218	2.24% User talk	445	4.56% Wikipedia	280	2.87% Wikipedia talk	84	0.86% File	154	1.58% File talk	59	0.61% Template	246	2.52% Template talk	174	1.78% Category	16	0.16% Category talk	8	0.08% Graph Month counts 2006/07	10	2006/08	288	2006/09	556	2006/10	315	2006/11	597	2006/12	508	2007/01	177	2007/02	251	2007/03	0	2007/04	0	2007/05	6	2007/06	322	2007/07	244	2007/08	214	2007/09	318	2007/10	342	2007/11	2	2007/12	0	2008/01	1	2008/02	0	2008/03	0	2008/04	0	2008/05	11	2008/06	0	2008/07	1	2008/08	0	2008/09	0	2008/10	0	2008/11	0	2008/12	0	2009/01	0	2009/02	0	2009/03	0	2009/04	0	2009/05	126	2009/06	246	2009/07	716	2009/08	881	2009/09	602	2009/10	576	2009/11	369	2009/12	615	2010/01	551	2010/02	690	2010/03	212	Logs Pages moved: 135 Pages patrolled: 1495 Files uploaded: 191 Top edited articles Article

* 109 - Burnley_F.C.   * 70 - Chamois_Niortais_F.C._season_2009–10 * 62 - Clarke_Carlisle * 57 - Chamois_Niortais_F.C.   * 47 - Turf_Moor * 46 - Burnley_F.C._season_1920–21 * 38 - Michael_Duff_(footballer) * 37 - Steve_Jones_(Northern_Ireland_footballer) * 37 - Djibril_Konaté * 32 - Chris_McCann_(footballer)

Talk

* 8 - Joe_Cada/GA1 * 7 - Chamois_Niortais_F.C.   * 5 - Clarke_Carlisle * 4 - Djibril_Konaté * 4 - Linvoy_Primus/GA1 * 4 - 2010_Cambodian_League * 4 - Shoegazing_Kids * 4 - List_of_Montserrat_national_football_team_results * 3 - 1877_FA_Cup_Final/GA1 * 3 - Jonathon_Blum/GA1

User

* 79 - BigDom * 70 - BigDom/Sandbox * 27 - BigDom/Sandbox2 * 11 - BigDom/Did_you_know? * 10 - BigDom/Articles_created * 6 - BigDom/Sandbox3 * 5 - BigDom/monobook.js   * 3 - UBX/Ancient_Egypt * 2 - BigDom/Chamois_Niortais_F.C._season_2009–10 * 2 - MJfan9/list_of_PS3_Games

User talk

* 18 - Carlinbohs * 17 - Oqaz * 10 - BigDom * 6 - Nmajdan * 6 - WFCforLife * 5 - Socceragent * 5 - Cammyaufc1910 * 4 - GiantSnowman * 4 - Fionnsci * 4 - ChrisTheDude

Wikipedia

* 35 - WikiProject_Football * 23 - Good_article_nominations * 16 - Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Nelson_F.C._seaso... * 10 - Featured_article_candidates/Turf_Moor/archive1 * 10 - WikiProject_Football/Did_you_know * 7 - Good_articles * 6 - WikiProject_Football/Season_article_task_force * 6 - Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Montserrat_nation... * 5 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_6 * 4 - Peer_review/Clarke_Carlisle/archive1

Wikipedia talk

* 72 - WikiProject_Football * 4 - WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues * 3 - Did_you_know * 3 - WikiProject_Cricket * 1 - AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage * 1 - WikiProject_Football/Season_article_task_force

File

* 3 - Eddie_Mosscrop.jpg * 3 - Nelson_F.C._1922-3.jpg * 3 - NelsonFC1922-23.gif * 3 - SO_Cholet.gif * 2 - OC_Chateaudun.gif * 2 - Logo_DNCG.png * 2 - NelsonFC1921-22.gif * 2 - CroixdeSavoie.jpg * 2 - FC_Chartres.gif * 2 - AS_Monts.gif

File talk

* 1 - Kit_body_black_lowleft_highright.png * 1 - Nelson_F.C._1922-3.jpg * 1 - Nelson_FC.jpg * 1 - Old_Trafford_inside_20060726_1.jpg * 1 - Ryan_Giggs_United.jpg * 1 - Manchester_United_Badge_1973-1998.png * 1 - Arsenal_FC.svg * 1 - Arsenal_open_top_bus_parade_2004.jpg * 1 - Arsenal_Stadium_interior_North_Bank.jpg * 1 - Emirates_Stadium_Arsenal.jpg

Template

* 32 - Chamois_Niortais_F.C._squad * 30 - Burnley_F.C._squad * 16 - Accrington_Stanley_F.C._squad * 8 - St_Albans_City_F.C._squad * 7 - Championnat_de_France_Amateurs_Groupe_C * 6 - Championnat_de_France_Amateurs_2_Groupe_C * 6 - Championnat_de_France_Amateurs_2_Groupe_F * 4 - HB_Køge_squad * 4 - Angers_SCO_squad * 4 - Stade_Laval_squad

Template talk

* 159 - Did_you_know * 3 - Accrington_Stanley_F.C._managers * 1 - Stranraer_F.C._squad * 1 - Chamois_Niortais_F.C._managers * 1 - Burnley_F.C._managers * 1 - Rochdale_A.F.C._managers * 1 - Chamois_Niortais_F.C._squad * 1 - 2009_MLS_season_by_team * 1 - Chamois_Niortais_FC_squad * 1 - Nelson_F.C.

Category

* 3 - Nelson_F.C._managers * 2 - Chatham_Town_F.C._players * 1 - Boston_Town_F.C._players * 1 - SK_Austria_Kärnten_players * 1 - La_Roche_VF_players * 1 - Harrisburg_City_Islanders_players * 1 - Chamois_Niortais_FC_players * 1 - Havant_&_Waterlooville_F.C._players * 1 - Vanuatuan_football_referees * 1 - Tonga_international_footballers

Category talk

* 1 - Chamois_Niortais_F.C._players * 1 - Boston_Town_F.C._players * 1 - English_bus_drivers * 1 - English_football_championship-winning_seasons * 1 - Middlesbrough_Ironopolis_F.C._players * 1 - Vanuatuan_football_referees * 1 - Tonga_international_footballers * 1 - Nelson_F.C._managers

Retrieved at 21:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Lambanog's Neutral + Responses

 * 1) Neutral for now.  Support per my first question.  Oppose per my second.  An admin should be able to assess matters independently and arrive at a clear and logical conclusion. XfDs are not a vote so relying solely on this vote of two individuals against one even when against the candidate's own interpretation of pertinent WP help files is not ideal. If the candidate was to close this as he says there is a better guideline based argument to be made but candidate has not identified it.  Even then there are other circumstantial issues particular to this case that have been overlooked and to be considered.   Will observe how the rest of this RfA plays out. Lambanog (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lambanog, when are you going to accept that it was deleted, and the deletion was upheld at review? Almost everyone that you have asked this question has said that as an admin they would have deleted the redirect - even if they might have opposed this if they had !voted. Your argument was specious - and to be honest, I think you just need to learn to remember the layout of the template. When I add,  or  as references, I do not even need to look it up... hell, you could even print off the syntax and have it in front of you. My advice would be to let the issue of the deleted redirect drop, and stop asking about it at RfA. Even if a candidate was to say "Oh, yes, I would definitely have kept the redirect", it won't make any difference, as the redirect was deleted and this was not overturned at DRV. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree here, it strikes me that Lambanog is basically looking for candidate whose answer is "I would ignore consensus and close the discussion based off the opinion written in an essay." It is not a guideline, consensus in the discussion was fairly interpreted, and the Deletion Review agreed. I know you have been asking this in RfAs for a while now, but its striking me as becoming rather POINTy, especially as your comment "An admin should be able to assess matters independently and arrive at a clear and logical conclusion." seems to assume bad faith of those who performed the closure and participated at the DRV, and you also seem to be jumping to conclusions that the candidate based their closure decision from vote counting, when infact they clearly said they would base it from consensus. It is certainly not worth considering opposing a candidate over. --Taelus (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved discussion from main RfA page, not directly relevant to candidate. --Taelus (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see what the problem is. I could simply ask my first question which is really the question that mucks it up for most of the candidates that I end up opposing and then say "oppose for lack of experience".  End of story.  Instead I give a second question which is trickier but is actually an opportunity for those who would have otherwise failed my first criteria to get a neutral or if very well answered maybe even a support.  It could be seen as a bonus question for candidates who would otherwise get a straight up oppose.  Of course it could work in reverse like in this case but it's still no worse than a neutral barring other considerations.  In any event my rationale follows policy.  XfDs are not a vote.  That is very clear.  Contrary to what you may think I am not particularly wed to the T: cite news redirect.  If it was closed in a manner that was clear, logical, and consistent with policy and that took everything relevant into account I would not have made a fuss over it.  However it wasn't.  Consensus based on a misreading of WP:CNR?  Please.  Add the writer of WP:CNR who was not me to my vote and that makes 2.  2 vs. 2: default to keep.  Add the writer of the article on Pseudonamespaces and then that makes it 3 vs. 2—and that is at the most basic level presuming the writers of those articles didn't consult anyone before writing them and those articles reflect only the opinion of one individual.  That's not even taking into account the dubious circumstances surrounding this case. If you answer this is based on consensus you should give a clear reason.  I've seen a semi-reasonable justification from only one candidate who said he'd close this and he earned a neutral from me on this question but he failed my other criterion.  Is this question so very hard?  No. There's a quick answer to it that while not getting kudos from me doesn't get penalized either.  But there are many candidates who want to show their stuff and just KNOW how to close tricky XfDs.  We want jocks at XfDs? I would note that those who have problems with my questions have similar editing profiles.  Similar behavior.  Similar reaction.  Both of you exemplify what the current model of an ideal admin that seems popular at RfAs which you both fit and that I find suspect. My first question criteria is designed to test using an alternate point-of-view.  That the second question also seems to get the same result most of the time validates the observations that the first question is based on.  It seems I'm more comfortable with admins who don't undergo explicit admin training, sorry. Lambanog (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You just said yourself it is not a vote, and consensus can change, thus invoking the essays as consensus to create "strength of numbers" in the discussion is contrary to your own criticism of the closure. You are welcome to your views over what makes a good administrator, but I simply disagree here. Admins should perform closes based on current consensus, not based on essays which may represent historical consensus, or just minority viewpoints. Also, again, WP:CNR is an essay, not a guideline. People who disagree with it or don't go with it are not simply misreading it, they are recognising it is an opinion that is not a Wikipedia guideline, and not agreeing with it in the scenario presented in the XfD. If you want to propose change and make it a guideline, or request shortcuts to the template namespace so that such redirects do exist by default, there are venues to handle that. I don't think its right to attempt to influence policy by opposing/supporting RfAs based on the point. --Taelus (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus based on an obscure RfD participated in by 3 people? Given your response I'd question your ability to close AfDs that are being piled on. How would you have closed Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam for example if it wasn't edited?  Your decision based on what?  Lambanog (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most RfDs are obscure! As for 3 people - that was enough to form a consensus. As for your "this person who wrote this should be counted as voting to keep" argument? I see where I have been going wrong when I have been closing xfDs: I have only been looking at the comments on the xfD, instead of looking for all the editors who have contributed to the policies, guidelines and essays that are referred to in the discussion! No wonder you think I'm such a stupid, crap admin!
 * You can word it any way you want to, but at the end of the day, this "obscure RfD" is a big issue to you - you didn't get your own way, and are determined to find an admin candidate who will say "Yes, Lambanog, you were right - they shouldn't have deleted it". Your arguments at the RfD were, quite frankly, weak. Now, you might say that that shows what a crap admin I am, but at the end of the day, the consensus was to delete it, and the consensus at the Deletion Review was that the deletion was correct. You might not like that, but I think that to be perfectly frank, you need to just get used to the fact that the redirect was deleted, and that is the end of it. My advice for you: either print off the syntax for the template (assuming that you can't remember it off the top of your head), or bookmark the relevant page in your browser. I find your assertion that anyone who says that the deletion was correct is not thinking independently to be against the policies and guidelines which guide the process.
 * I am quite happy for you to leave a message on my talk page listing all of the xfDs which you believe me to have closed in correctly - I know that you must be able to find a lot of them (I'm sorry, but the list at User:Phantomsteve/Admin/deletions only goes up to 4th March - I need to update it, and will do so later) - but I'm sure that as you think I am so crap at understanding how to close them, you'll find several examples in the 31 xfDs listed there to show where I am going wrong. You can, of course, look at the other xfDs I've closed through looking at my contributions.
 * However, leaving your personal opinion of me aside for the time being, I am going to leave this discussion. I have made my thoughts on the matter abundantly clear, and I think at the end of the day, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, Lambanog! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The candidate expressly stated his interpretation of WP:CNR indicated it be kept yet he ignored it! He wasn't talking about his personal opinion.  So if he interpreted WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR to clearly mean delete but a majority of votes said keep he'd keep it against his interpretation?  That doesn't sound like independent thought. Opinion is one thing interpretation another. Lambanog (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a problem with Lambanog asking this question and judging it in this way - providing the reason for the subsequent judgment is made clear, which it was. As it happens, if I were up for RfA, I'd probably fail this one too and get a Neutral or an Oppose from Lambanog, but providing it is all out in the open so the closing crat can understand it, that would be fine - each editor is allowed to use whatever criteria seem appropriate to them, and to support or oppose candidates based on those criteria. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)