Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rehman 3: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (16/19/2); Scheduled to end 01:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Rehman (talk · contribs) – I am an active global editor since May 2008, and have worked in a wide range of areas. As of a couple of months ago, I've focussed more time on the WP-namespace, File-namespace, and other crosswiki-related content. I also am an admin at Commons, where I do quite a lot of maintenance work. I also have OTRS access, which I mostly make use for ticket verification for OTRS files that pop up in the deletion categories.

Here at enwiki, like at Commons, I deal with lot of files, crosswiki-related content, and many other maintenance tasks. The only difference here is that I need to take an additional step in asking another admin to perform specific tasks (my deleted contribs should show what I mean). I think it is about time to take this step to speed and ease things up, both to myself, and the attending admin.

I initially decided not to go for self-nominations; nearly 80 days ago User:Wifione did agree to nom me, but due to understandable reasons, he was unable to nominate me. After performing a thorough self-review, I decided that it won't hurt to go for a self-nom, so here I am, taking a leap of faith. :-) I look forward to a week of discussions. Rehman 01:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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: As an average admin volunteer at Commons, I do a lot of maintenance work (mostly deletions, history cleaning, policy, ect), relating to files and categories, and also deal with quite a lot of templates and protection requests. I intend to do the same here; mostly work on file related issues; reducing {{MTC}} backlogs, and attending to CSD and protection requests.

As an average volunteer here at en.wiki, I currently do quite a lot of CSD-requests on files (verify) and categories (verify). Currently, this procedure is a little pain in the butt, as I have to tag each file and wait quite a bit for the file to get deleted by another admin; unnecessary work for both, me and the other admin.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My primary interest here at Wikipedia is topics relating to energy, and wiki-maintenance. In the field of maintenance and non-encyclopedic work, I'd say may best work is Template:Infobox power station; put a lot of time in getting that right. I have also created or significantly improved many other templates, non-wiki pages, and categories, which would take more time listing them here. In the field of real encyclopaedic content, although I don't really write much, I'd say my best work is List of largest power stations in the world, with others like List of conventional hydroelectric power stations and many others, of which most are still work-in-progress or stubs.

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: Yes, since my joining of Wikipedia in 2008, I have come in conflict only once. The best part of that conflict is that the other editor and I are now friends. Openly speaking, if I ever do come in the way of a long-standing volunteer again, I may be bit argumentative at first, but will simply go for third-party comments if things turn ugly, and apologize and simply back-off. As seen on my talkpage, or in discussions at my past RFAs or elsewhere, I don't have any issues with anger or attitude or whatever, and have the ability to let things go with ease :)

Additional question from ArcAngel

4. Take a newly created page that has been tagged for A7, and explain your thoughts as to whether or not it passes this criteria, and if you agree with the tagging.

A: Simply speaking, I would consider it a pass if my news/scholar search gives undesirable results. And if the search results are good, I would revert and explain why on the tagging user's talkpage (providing a link to AFD, if the user still wants it down, or if the situation is more complex). Going deeper, I would search (in different languages, if possible) for phrases and key information found within the article, before deciding whether it passes or not. This is important if articles (like some of which I come across in energy-related areas) is of subjects that have minimal influence in the English-speaking world, but is really record-holding notable subjects, like organizations owning/running some of the largest power stations in the world. I would apply a similar approach to individuals, animals, and web content. Rehman 14:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Swarm

5. Your answer to Q4 is pretty unclear, so this is kind of a followup. Can you choose an actual page that's tagged for A7 right now and tell us whether you would delete the page or not; or, can you give us a specific example of a page's content that would qualify for A7?

A: Taking Rieyan ashton from CAT:CSD as an example: I would approve the deletion of Rieyan Ashton, because it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". (In fact, a little search also shows that he is a teenager looking for work in the industry). My power station example doesn't fit here, what I meant there was that, at occasions, there could be A7's where the article as it is doesn't really "indicate why its subject is important or significant", nor could we find verifiable sources, but in the mean time, could be very notable subjects even though not much is heard of in the English-speaking world (English websites, etc). My answer above went haywire because, as I said here, I was staying up late to attend to any questions, which I now figured out, could seriously impact my thinking abilities. Please pardon me if I caused any inconveniences. Rehman 23:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Edit stats on talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Support I really couldn't say no to a member of the OTRS. I believe and anyone correct me if I am wrong that members of the OTRS should be admins on the basis that they must deal with different types of situations and In my opinion adminship is needed to deal with these tasks. When you have been trusted with the OTRS I think you can be trusted with admin privileges. The user has shown much pride in his contributions to the encyclopedia however there were a few minor blips I saw while reading through his archives. Regards. mauchoeagle 01:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Question. I see that you created your account the day prior to your !voting here. Do you have prior experience at wp, perhaps under a different name, which affords you a basis on which to strongly support the candidate? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I would guess that prior experience has been had here. Just looking at his userpage would suggest either that, or he's learned the ropes astonishingly quickly! Orphan Wiki 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I have had plenty of prior experience. I have been an IP editor since 2006 but was recently convinced to create an account. mauchoeagle 19:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I thought so! Good man :) Orphan Wiki 20:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. I would have nominated you tomorrow if you had waited until then. I have seen nothing that would indicate you would be a net negative as an admin - rather, I see that you are trustworthy, competent, and can make good use of the tools. I'll expand on this tomorrow - good luck. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 02:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong Support Quite a positive and enthusiastic contributor to the project. Although I respect the opposing viewpoints, I suspect that it is purely the candidate's enthusiasm which is being misread. I should request editors to view this editor on the basis of his contributions - which I find credibly encouraging - rather than the perspective of whether the editor wishes to have another flag. If that were the case, then we should purely discourage editors from applying for RfAs - because the mere application to become an administrator would then disqualify a candidate as 'wanting' to get the bit. In that case, we should have been trawling through various editors and their contributions to select prospective administrators. The RfA exists so that editors who may want the bit may apply. For Rehman, I would have been more than pleased to nominate him myself, leave an inconsistent schedule on my part that almost but ensured I kept delaying nominating him. I hope Rehman qualifies as an administrator because not only is he trustworthy, his contributions have validated his dedication to the project and his commitment to contribute on a continuing basis. Fair, well mannered, great deportment, and with an extremely amicable disposition, I strongly support Rehman's candidature for adminship. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 02:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support I don't see any indication that the tools would be misused, which is the most important thing. I do feel it's possibly too easy for the opposers to mistake honest-to-goodness enthusiasm for 'flag-collecting' -maybe I'm wrong - but provided that the tools are used correctly, does it matter that they may not all be used straight away, or that their use may start slow and then build? Surely the most important thing to look at is the likelihood of mis-using them. I don't think it's likely. And I feel that being over-enthusiastic, in and of itself, doesn't indicate a problem. Pesky (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Completely unconvinced by the opposing arguments to this point. As Wifione point out, the RfA process itself is a "flag wanting" episode by any editor that has the guts (given the current state of the process) to put themselves through it. So the candidate comes across as perhaps a bit overeager... is that a bad thing? In my RL career field, we encourage people to learn as many aspects of the business as they can so that they can not only be more useful to us as a business, but also make themselves more valuable and less likely to be cut from our operating budget in the future. While Wikipedia is a volunteer project, thus eliminating that particular aspect, the first situation is still very accurate. My one concern with this candidate is that all three of their runs at adminship have been self-nominations, but given that there are already two commentators who have stated that they would have offered nominations this time around, I can let it go. Net positive to the community = give the guy a mop! Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support I opposed last time, but now I'll support. There aren't enough administrators willing to work with OTRS (although I'd like to go there too, I don't know how to) so Rehman would be a good choice here. Minima© (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Looking over his talk page he seems like a reasonable guy who knows his stuff.  jorgenev (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2011
8. Support Qualified, experienced, longtime editor. No reason not to support. I don't quite understand how user rights can be used to determine whether or not someone can be trusted with the tools, but whatevs. Swarm ^X 09:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support This user has requested rights because he feels he has the experience required and he does, enthusiasm is what the project needs. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 7:49pm • 09:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support I've looked through his contributions and see nothing concerning. I do have a slight misgiving about the drop off in contributions (for an editor with over 12k edits, made about 500 since the beginning of the year), but it's not a big deal. I have no issue with an editor being interested in trying out new areas thereby gaining more flags, I see this as an enthusiasm to learn and certainly not an issue. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Experienced and won't misuse the tools. BigDom 11:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Plenty of experience, high quality work, wants to work in areas where we certainly need more help, and seems to be an amiable and civil person. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to add I am a little concerned by the possible misunderstanding of CSD:A7 - but it's sufficiently ambiguous for me to stay here, at least until there's further discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no "ambiguity", just misunderstanding. Both of the question and the CSD guidelines. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13. Support. The contribs I looked at were fine, and the enthusiasm is certainly there. I think that, with some quality mentorship from existing admins, this candidate would be a fine admin. Do take some of the concerns below on board, though - there are certainly areas for improvement, but none of these is a deal-breaker. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support unconvinced by oppose rationale. Being eager to take on extra responsibilities does not appear to in any way detract from the good onwiki work done by this user. Jebus989^✰ 18:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - eagerness to help out in as many ways as possible should be praised, not cast aside. Orphan Wiki 18:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Or no reason to think at all in your case apparently. Malleus Fatuorum 04:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose on the basis that I do not believe you are currently mature enough to handle these tools. - You seem to just need to have as many rights as possible, everywhere. This is seen by your last two RfAs here, your sysopship on commons.wikimedia, and your various requests for global rights (and your request for rollback on simplewp with only 12 edits, and your request to be on the OTRS, and the fact that you requested autopatrol on meta - most people just get it when an admin thinks they are trusted, and don't need to ask). Honestly, you need to learn that these are merely rights on the internet, not anything special. This lack of maturity and questions of motivation leads me to be concerned about how you will act in certain situations when people don't agree with you - but that is just my personal experience with other people who collect rights. Regards, Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   As I have explained to you at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Rehman_2, I ask for the flags because I need them... The autopatrol is to reduce unnecessary work in reviewing my edits, as I merely just update/fix links across wikis. Rehman 01:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   And you just happen to place yourself in every possible situation that would get you more. Sorry, but I judge potencial sysop candidates by actions and not words. If you can bring yourself to stop requesting every possible right over and over again, I'll consider supporting a later RfA. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. I just get the same feeling as Ajraddatz. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Could you tell me which flag you feel is inappropriate? All of the flags (except simplewiki, which there isn't much activity whenever I'm online) I use is currently being made use of. I'm sure the amount of work I do outweigh the flags I ask? In my very honest opinion, I find Ajraddatz statement quite "anti-flag"; you can't really oppose a person offering to help just because s/he has flags on other wikis? Those flags are existing to help editors, and that is exactly what I am making use of. Rehman 02:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It isn't the fact that you have flags on other wikis, there is nothing wrong with that. It is just the method with which you go around "collecting" them, and even the reasons for requesting them sometimes. For example, on both of your requests for global rollback you have stated that you want it for the autopatrol, because you feel that your edits are good and that people shouldn't need to check them. Call me critical, but that just seems like an excuse to get them to me. That, and the fact that you requested it two times, even when it clearly says in multiple places that the group is for antivandalism people who have demonstrated a need for the rollback and countervandalism portion of it... how can we trust you with adminship if we aren't certain that you fully understand what position that these flags entitles you to (or, more correctly, the lack thereof), and therefor unable to predict how you will react to a variety of situations, such as any in which you might use your sysop tools to assert the fact that you are right, etc? Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Aj's right—why on earth did you bother with global autopatrol, for heaven's sake? Common sense say that global rollback is for countervandalism, not for getting your crosswiki edits patrolled automatically. In addition, I just have had a weird feeling about this that was augmented a bit by your responses here; no one ever needs userrights—they're just for convenience. I'm not quite sure how to put it into words, but I simply don't feel comfortable because every time I see you here or at Commons or at Meta, it's happened to be you requesting rights—sysop at Commons and OTRS, for example. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Reason why I requested GR is because there were no Global Autoreviewer, and GR happens to be bundled with that. Due to technical reasons of not being able to split it, and community consensus of not handing out GR as a whole, I actually withdrew my requests there. But of course, I respect you views. Also, I was actually suggested to go for GR instead. Rehman 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The link you provided includes the statement, "... that if there's consensus to do so that Rehman should ask for global rollback ...". You were suggested to go for GR if there was consensus to do so, and as you did not have much crosswiki vandalism work then, I'm not sure what kind of consensus you were expecting. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - WP:NOTNOW. It hasn't been 9 months since the last RFA, which received zero support. I would need more time to see evidence of sysop-worthy work.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   While I understand your oppose is on good faith, I would respectfully request that you read Wikipedia:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   That's an essay. Just musings. Of one editor. Two other editors made edits -- the edits of one of them were reverted by the other. I'm frankly not any more impressed by the fact that one editor's thoughts were put into essay form in this instance than if you were to take the following and put it into essay form -- "When a candidate fails to meet a number of fundamental community-accepted criteria, occasionally a pile-on of oppose comments may occur. This can be demoralizing. This is clearly not in the best interests of the candidate or Wikipedia. Any editor in good standing may close a clearly failing RfA. Note that some editors prefer their RFAs to remain open, even if clearly failing, as the feedback is useful. Any candidate can withdraw their RFA at any time. Simply strike (Text) through your acceptance of the RfA and note that you are withdrawing." Actually--that is already reflected, not in a 1-or-2-editor essay, but in an information page that describes communal consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - I normally do not chime in on the oppose, unless something just does not sit or feel right. To me this seems to be all about user rights. It appears this user is acquiring as many as he can get. User rights are no big deal, but comments listed here and on request for global seem to indicate otherwise. I also have an issue with this users answer to question #1. "I currently do quite a lot of CSD-requests on files...this procedure is a little pain in the butt...wait quite a bit for the file to get deleted by another admin; unnecessary work for both, me and the other admin". I think that admin's should only out right delete items that are nominated by other users G10,G12, or other libelous content under the file tags of CSD's since this is where they claim to be working, that they themselves find. They should tag then leave any items they find that they feel needs to be deleted as a CSD to other admin's so not to be judge, jury and executioner of that article, item, etc. Enfcer (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per fetchcomms. T. Canens (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. I couldn't care less about user rights. However, your answer to Q4 appears spectacularly wrong (unless I'm seriously misunderstanding you, you appear to be saying that if you can't find a mention of something on Google, it ought to be deleted). Since the only admin area in which you indicate you want to work is deletion, I think you'd be far too trigger-happy. – iridescent 15:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per Iridescent. A7 does not apply if there is "any credible claim of significance or importance", irrespective of Google searches, reliable sources or verifiability. Deleting something under A7 because your "news/scholar search gives undesirable results." shows a very serious misunderstanding of the speedy deletion criteria, which is a problem since this is the area you state you plan to spend most of your admin time in, if given the mop. Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a pretty unclear answer-- I interpreted it a totally different way. It seems to me that they're just saying they would search for sources for A7s themselves before speedily deleting them. However, I think Rehman may have interpreted it wrong, as it looks like the question was looking for a specific example and they're just answering in a general sense. Perhaps they should be given a chance to actually answer the question before we start piling on here? Swarm ^X 16:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   See this thread on my talk. I don't think there's any doubt that what the candidate is saying is "if an article is inadequately sourced and I'm unable to find the topic online I'd delete it". – iridescent 16:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   See Swarm, that's the thing. It doesn't matter if they search for sources, it doesn't matter if there are no online sources, it doesn't matter if the tagger searched for sources, it doesn't matter if the article does or doesn't have sources - the only thing that matters for A7 is if the article makes "any credible claim of significance or importance" (wording directly from the CSD page). If the article makes a credible claim, is tagged for A7 and is then deleted, the admin was wrong - regardless of whether or not they did any searching for sources. Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, I see where you're coming from. I just find it hard to believe that the candidate misunderstands A7 that much. I'll ask another question regarding this. Swarm ^X 16:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose He appears to be very active at files and templates for deletion. In fact he has a 99%+ record of !voting "delete" and "per nom" as the reasoning. I am sorry, but I do not think "per nom" over and over actually helps the project (though it makes deletions a near certainty). Collect (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose I think it's been over a year since I've encountered this candidate; the last time was at his first RfA. Unfortunately, it looks like one thing hasn't changed since then – he still doesn't understand WP:CSD#A7, as explained above by Iridescent and Dana boomer. I also agree with Collect's position that voting "per nom" the vast majority of the time at XfD is unhelpful; it certainly doesn't enlarge your experience with deletion much, if at all. In spite of these criticisms I do want to commend Rehman for working OTRS, which certainly is very beneficial to the project. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose An editor seeking admin responsibilities must have a very clear idea of speedy criteria. This editor either does not understand A7 or alternatively is unable to explain it - see incorrect answer to Q4; either case IMHO disqualifies him. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose per answer to Q4. The answer was not the one I was looking for (in fact, it went in the completely OPPOSITE direction), and gives a pretty clear understanding that the candidate does not understand the A7 criteria. Therefore I am not comfortable with supporting this candidate.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose per Iridescent et al. A7 states quite clearly that "verifiability" is not a standard involved, yet the candidate essentially states that he would apply A7 if he could not verify the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. I think it's rather shocking to see four administrators supporting a candidate who has such a very clear misunderstanding of the guidelines surrounding one of the administrator's basic jobs. One can of course easily understand the motivations behind the usual fan club supports, but I'm left wondering if those four administrators actually understand the guidelines themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose I would need a better understanding of the speedy deletion process to support, since that is the area Rehman is planning to work in. Come back after making more substantive contributions to AFD and reviewing how speedy deletion works. In particular, admins usually don't delete articles they themselves have tagged for speedy deletion.--Banana (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose – Q4 is simply wrong, and shows a misunderstanding of A7. Considering the fact that the candidate states that he will work with CSD, Q4 just worries me, and prevents me from supporting. —mc10 (t/c) 23:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose I do not think that having many or "collecting" flags is a huge matter as long as it isn't disruptive to the project. However, the misunderstanding of speedy deletion worries me. MJ94 (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Opposeeditor is seeking too many user rights at once. Establish yourself a little more, perhaps, come back in 1 yr or so, and I'll be happy to support. Likeminas (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose per Q4. I don't have much else to add besides that the answer to that question raises huge red flags in my book. –MuZemike 00:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose per Q4. At first, Rehman made it sound like xe would delete an article if it simply didn't have enough Google results, which is an pretty significant problem. It wasn't until after Iridescent pointed out the error that Rehman clarified. Furthermore, placing the blame on staying up too late seemed odd to me as well. What if xe is up late on Wikipedia? Will xe make other similar errors because of it? I don't have too much issue with the "collecting of user rights", but the error on Q4 was a dealbreaker for me. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 04:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – There are some issues that bother me right now. I'll take a look at this again, but right now, I'm sticking myself in the neutral lot. —mc10 (t/c) 04:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Moving to oppose. —mc10 (t/c) 23:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral I don't see any reason why we couldn't trust him to use the tools in a good faith matter, I don't think bit collecting is a major problem if it isn't disruptive; but I can't support someone who wants to work with CSD and seems, based on question 4, to have such a fundamental misunderstanding of criteria A7. Monty₈₄₅ 22:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think I've supported Rehman in several of his endeavors on various projects thus far, and I remain pleased with his contributions to Commons. I know him to be trustworthy and friendly, which would normally sway me to support. Unfortunately, the answer to question 4 illustrates a potentially fundamental misunderstanding of the CSD criteria, and of the role of an enwiki admin in general. Our job is to push buttons that either 1) the community has decided should be pushed or 2) obviously, without doubt, should be pushed. Unless we're working in our capacity as editors, which we should most of the time, our personal opinion and research doesn't really matter. An A7 should be blatant – you should be able to decided in less than a minute whether it should be speedily deleted. If you feel it justifies further research or review, then decline the article and send it to AfD. It's not just this question; I usually can't stand minor misinterpretations of deletion policies being used against RfA nominees. I simply feel you're rushing into the role. Best of luck for the future. Juliancolton (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]