Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ingenuity

This is an RfA talk page. While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy. Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs. Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere. Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed. Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Bbb23: Oh come on, that's a bit much. It's an implicit, very carefully voiced tiny distant sockpuppetry suspicion, and it's perfectly fine to ask about this, but I'm not sure if conditional praise deserves the term "praise"... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I really was curious how Ingenuity could be so accomplished so quickly, and despite my tendency to see socks in the shadows, I never thought that Ingenuity had another account before this one - and I still don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, sorry. "It's" above should be replaced by "It does read like", and "conditional praise" should be replaced by "apparent conditional praise". This may have been influenced by the hard-to-overcome association between your username and SPI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I found Bbb23's question, and Ingenuity's response, useful. And it was a revelation to find BBB23 capable of burying a "have you used other accounts/IPs" query in so much filigree. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose: You are an outstanding editor, and are relatively fair-minded in your judicious application of Wikipedia's policies as they are written. Your contributions are fantastic. The quality of your articles are great, your edits are well-written, and your discussion in AfD is fair-minded and polite. There are strong reasons to support your candidacy, and the overwhelming support you have received on this page is a testament to the quality and value your contributions have brought to this site.
   However, some of the discretionary votes you have made on AfD weigh too far (in my view) on the side of deletionism for me to support your candidacy.
   In particular, I take issue with:
   The following deletion votes : Wherwell Primary School, George J. Fritschel, Luis Fernando Cifuentes, Zoop (platform), Ry Armstrong (actor), C3controls (2nd nomination)
   The following redirection votes: Roosevelt Elementary School (Hawthorne, New Jersey), Washington Elementary School (Hawthorne, New Jersey), Mark Ashton (musician)
   This Merge vote: Raid of Mar-a-Lago
   Thank you for your great contributions to this site. withdrawing my oppose Jack4576 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   With respect, the fact that the above, only one (Ashton) isn't still at the same place as the !vote cast surely shows they have a very good grasp of what is suitably notable for a page? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd agree it may suggest they have a good grasp of community consensus. But I take issue with that consensus; both in relation to the particular results above, and in relation to the systemic problems caused by what appears to be the incumbent WP consensus more generally. Jack4576 (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Not to badger, but it appears to be greatly poor form to oppose a candidate on consensus that is not directly related to the candidate or in his control. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   As I've tried to show by linking to particular votes above, I take issue with the candidate's direct involvement in particular overzealous deletion decisions; and that direct involvement is the only reason for my vote.

   My issue with the community's consensus is not the reason behind my vote, I was just responding to Lee Vilenski's comment about whether or not this candidate's votes showing "they have a very good grasp of what is suitably notable for a page". Personally, I don't think they have a good grasp as to what is/isn't notable. Hence my vote.

   That their grasp is in line with consensus is not a fact that bolsters their candidacy for me, (I imagine it would for others), I don't personally regard that trait as having any value. Jack4576 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I find it hard to believe that a user with 3 GAs could be considered a deletionist. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't see the connection. Outstanding authorship doesn't imply quality AfD involvement. Jack4576 (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Authorship implies you are not a deletionist as authorship involves adding information to Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   deciding what is in scope, and deciding where to add detail, are two different decisions. Jack4576 (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Certain editors don't care at all about how much content work you do if they think you're "deletionist". 26 GAs + 3 FAs to my name and I'm often called deletionist. There's no winning. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Shouldn't this funny complaint – that a potential admin correctly gauges consensus – be moved to the list of absurd votes below? — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   In finding consensus it is important that the site's admins have a good interpretation of the site's SIGCOV and GNG rules, and in my view their AfD votes, noms, and reasoning falls short. Jack4576 (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   If you want me to restore the redlinked articles to your user space so you can work on them, add sources, and improve them to an acceptable quality, just ask. Also, have you discussed this issue with the administrators who deleted the articles? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Some of the articles were well-sourced and were deleted anyway. (e.g. Zoop (platform)) It is not a quality issue, it is an issue in regards to the application of the notability guidelines Jack4576 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   We are here to write an encyclopedia. If you think we shouldn't have an article on a topic, I don't understand what you are arguing about. Then again, I don't understand a lot of the notability arguments, and frequently I can find that if you just improve the article with good sources, those arguments vanish as being moot. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I think we should have an article on that topic. We did have one, and it was well sourced. It was deleted, and I question the judgement of editors that decided that was an appropriate exercise of the GNG guidelines, especially since they are often the deciding factor in AfD decisions. (In addition to that article, also concerns re: the other examples I've shared above) Jack4576 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, I think I misunderstood what you said, I'll follow this up on your talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Considering the fact that you think these sources (examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) constitute a substantial amount of local independent coverage, I'm not surprised that quite a few editors here don't agree with you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Ultimately depends on the merits of the opinion doesn't it Jack4576 (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   FWIW, the standard deletion rate of articles at AfD is around 75%, a bit higher than Ingenuity's delete !vote rate of 72.5%, furthering my point that it's unfair to criticize a candidate for (generally correctly) interpreting consensus in a manner you disfavor; if you have concerns for such guidelines and their interpretations, do the work on AfD and associated talkpages, rather than on a specific RfA. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   My oppose vote is because of a pattern of bad (my opinion) AfD votes and noms by this user. I'm unsurprised that their delete rate is similar to the standard deletion rate, as the standard deletion practices of this website leave a lot to be desired.

   I am already active at AfD Jack4576 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Their average keep-to-delete ratio is less than the average. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   marginally Jack4576 (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   According to the AFD statistics, I believe that Ingenuity is good at AFD and understands WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Additionally, "weigh too far (in my view) on the side of deletionism" isn't a valid reason to oppose a candidate because the candidate has a good grasp of community consensus. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   If a person's problematic application of GNG aligns with community consensus that isn't redemptive. I simply have a different opinion as to whether their deletion patterns are / aren't problematic. I accept that is a minority viewpoint. Jack4576 (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   There's this funny trend that people usually bring articles to AfD because they should be deleted. There's also the fact that we are all human and nobody gets everything right 100% of the time. But people will find any excuse to call you a deletionist. This is total nonsense. I'd agree it may suggest they have a good grasp of community consensus. But I take issue with that consensus that's too bad. Consensus is clearly against your viewpoint. Maybe check that your own interpretations of SIGCOV and GNG are correct before leveling accusations at others. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Nobody gets it right 100% of the time, but of only 40 AfD participations, I spotted 10 that went too far. Jack4576 (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Thing is though, of those 10, 9 agreed with their assessment. Have you ever thought that your understanding of the criteria is the issue, rather than this user? It's clear that the consensus of Wikipedia users also had the same thoughts as this user over many AfDs, so to suggest that they shouldn't have additional administrative tools because of that... just seems like a bizarre argument to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I accept that I'm in the minority most of the time re: AfDs. I disagree that it comes down to a matter of understanding.

   The application of the criteria is in many cases subjective. I don't think its bizarre to vote for adminstrators (that have a degree of power over AfDs) that have a proven record of interpreting GNG in a way that aligns with making this site the best encyclopedia it can be. Jack4576 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to be clear, admins don't really have 'power' in AfDs. If they !vote, they're voting as an editor. If they close, they're simply assessing consensus, and if they get it wrong or supervote, the close often ends up challenged, so generally they're pretty careful. Valereee (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand that they don't have absolute control, but admins do generally have more influence than regular users; and I would prefer to support Admins that have a proven track record of interpreting GNG in a way that is healthy for the site. Jack4576 (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Not exactly. The links I provided above, for example, do not contain "substantial amounts of local independent coverage." This is not a matter of subjectivity. I also think it's safe to say the article Ritchie userfied for you does not pass the GNG. None of the sources (in the article anyway) demonstrate SIGCOV, and the delete arguments were well-supported. Not really a subjective matter. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   See I don't think it is safe to say that at all. Jack4576 (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   ...and this is indicative of possible WP:CIR issues. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Pfft, reasonable minds may differ. Ritchie himself in his talk message to me said himself noted a few reasons why Zoop (platform) may be notable. Are you going to question his competence too?

   If you can't handle dissenting views maybe this isn't the website for you. Jack4576 (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   None of the sources currently in the userfied article contain SIGCOV, and Ritchie did not say that. Experienced editors do not often assert the correctness of things that are incorrect. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I was not referring to SIGCOV, I was referring to GNG potentially being met.

   There is an open RfC on the correct interpretation of SIGCOV under GNG occuring right now feel free to participate. From discussion you can see that there are more editors than just myself are of the view that some further clarification around these rules might benefit from additional clarification. Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion feel free to take this to my talk page. Jack4576 (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I commented here simply because I observed an unusual oppose !vote and decided to clarify, although that doesn't seem to have worked. I do not wish to bother you in regards to your other articles. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I mean, you can !vote however you like, but let's be clear: if thinking most elementary schools aren't notable is disqualifying, I'm hard pressed to think of a single recent RfA candidate that you would support. You'd have to oppose our staunchest inclusionists on the grounds that they're too deletionist... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps that's the case, you've correctly identified my position. I don't think its a radical view that institutions like elementary schools are more often than not notable subjects for their communities, and thus ought be regarded as so by WP, its editors, and especially its admins more generally. (within rational limits of course, such as by excluding home schools) Jack4576 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Notable within their community ≠ notable for Wikipedia purposes. Valereee (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Wikipedia should be for everyone. It is obscene that local coverage of subjects on English Wikipedia tends to bias major global cities, and the Anglosphere. Jack4576 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, how perfect does an editor need to be to get your support? casualdejekyll 18:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know it when I see it Jack4576 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the only person who would pass, is those who have never !voted to delete. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather obscene. (Okay, I'll stop with the dogpiling.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I check the 10 AFDs, and 9 of them are 8-12 months ago. Even if Ingenuity's votes are incorrect, you can't oppose the candidate because of mistakes made a long time ago. Additionally, the candidate doesn't prepare to mainly focus on AFD votes and closes. The person who loves reading (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the length of time, not the usual focus of the editor are necessarily relevant. Jack4576 (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would once again suggest that in the future, when an oppose comes in that mentions "deletionism", which is not a real thing, and when there is literally no chance that the concern raised is going to impact the final result, such comments can safely be ignored and do not need these long discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But what about long discussions about those comments suggesting we can safely ignore one-off oppose (!)votes? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • People want to have their voices heard and have a good row or dogpile, which explains a lot of the House of Commons. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    'Murican here. Our politicians do the same casualdejekyll 21:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    197 supports to 1 oppose. Seems like consensus is clear here. This is more due to Jack not liking GNG or SIGCOV, you only have to see his recent comments on notability guideline talk pages. ", as the standard deletion practices of this website leave a lot to be desired." Says it all. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another pointy oppose, here?   ArcAngel   (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this disruptive? This is the appropriate forum for commenting on this. Jack4576 (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s disruptive because you are opposing a clearly qualified RFA candidate to prove a point about our deletion/notability policy. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am opposing an RFA candidate who I think is unsuitable to have an elevated role in assessing AfDs

    It is not disruptive to have and express a different opinion. Arguably its more disruptive to spuriously claim so Jack4576 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I second Flame's reply to you Jack. It's wrong to oppose a candidate because you disagree with an unrelated policy.   ArcAngel   (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to change a notability guideline, the best way to go about this is to open an request for comment on the issue. Opposing an individual RFA is not the best way to go about this, especially if you are looking to convince people that subjects like elementary schools should be generally notable. You'll receive plenty of commentary about your viewpoint, but very little of it would be positive feedback, especially since the RFA candidate, by himself, does not have the power to unilaterally change WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Given that there are no other oppose !votes (as opposed to over 200 support !votes), it does not appear that your oppose has convinced anyone of your position, unfortunately; this is why people are saying that your oppose was pointy. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There are 2 issues, (1) the existing notability guideline, and (2) how that guideline is interpreted

    My issue with this editor is their discretion in going about (2). I understand that they are not responsible for (1) Jack4576 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So if I understand this correctly, you will oppose every adminship candidate for the sole reason that they interpret the notability guidelines that you think are flawed differently than you do. It really bothers me that you just make votes to prove a point about the notability guidelines, as I feel that is the real reason here. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have less issues with GNG or SIGCOV if editors applying those guidelines exercised their discretion in relation to those guidelines less reflexively toward deletion decisions. Jack4576 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Let it go, it's one vote in 200. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    True, but it’s sad to see a user oppose another user to prove a point. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The oppose has been retracted, but I personally think it's very important to mention that I don't like how this might be construed as somehow setting a precedent that badgering oppose voters is a "good" thing. Don't badger oppose voters. I probably shouldn't have said anything myself, honestly. casualdejekyll 20:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree; much as badgering is inevitable as I said above, I don't wish any disrespect or ill will towards Jack4576 or any other controversial opposers, and am genuinely grateful for his support of my nominee. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Same. I mean no disrespect toward Jack4576 or any other controversial Oppose. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    None taken Jack4576 (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it has another aspect, too. A nomination statement requires an investment of at least time. Then, the floor opens for the community to scrutinise the nominee and ask questions; the nominee tries their best to offer answers and explanations, some can be fairly personal. This is a stressful exercise that helps the community understand the nominee better and build the necessary trust, but it also takes time and effort of many.

  Now, if someone shows up and tries to nuke the process, just like this, with no respect towards the process and its participants, then I believe the community should be free to ask for the reason and to scrutinise it.

  It's not that Oppose !votes are equal to Support !votes. They are not. Those who build sand castles diligently and in good faith, are not same as those who come and destroy them for fun. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a curious sidenote... I looked up Willbb234's edit history in X-tools. S/he has almost 15,000 total edits, which was shocking, considering his/her behavior as of late (including multiple blocks and pointless, argumentative attempts at unblocking). I went to his/her user talk page, and dug into the archived pages. I'm wondering if someone hacked the account. In the archived talk pages, Willbb234 spoke respectfully and eloquently, and received multiple barnstars for help and assistance to other editors. Even the writing style is completely different. Willbb234 (or whoever was writing as the user) was calling the blocking administrator "buddy boy" and what not. It was just very weird and inconsistent with past behavior. It's me... Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 15:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a hacked account. Did they have a committed identity? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, before the user page got U1 deleted. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just know what X-tools shows, and what's in their archived talk pages. It's me... Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 16:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admin assistance could help. Hey Ingenuity, you're an admin now, can you check the deleted user page for a committed identity? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: sorry, but I'm not even sure how to do that yet. If you suspect a compromised account, please post about it on ANI rather than a RfA talk page. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's a wild leap to assume compromise. Willbb234 was first sanctioned for edit warring almost a year ago, and has been on a progressive slide towards their current partial block from all articles ever since. There is no marked or sudden change in behaviour or anything which would suggest that the account was compromised. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. It's me... Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 17:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]