Final (82/27/1); Closed as successful by Kingturtle = ( talk) at 06:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
In reviewing the comments by those in support and opposition and in reviewing the demeanor of Erik through this process, I have concluded that there is sufficient support for this RfA to succeed. The main argument in opposition to Erik is his lack of experience, but no serious red flags were presented as evidence against him. There were a few other reasons given in opposition, but none of them consistently, and none of them described a threat to Wikipedia or the community. In a close call like this, in order to reject this RfA (an RFA in which the supporters express that Erik is civil, trustworthy, and competent, engages well with others, knows policy adequately, and makes quality edits) there would need to be something glaring about Erik's edits or interactions, but nothing glaring came to light. In weighing these two sides, the balance tips to the side of promotion. P.S. I acknowledge that this RfA closed many hours after its full week on the board and that some more !votes came in after the scheduled close. I interpret the week timeframe to be a guideline, not a hard line. And I don't see any foul play. Sincerely, Kingturtle = ( talk) 07:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
ErikHaugen ( talk · contribs) – Greetings; I have been an editor since 2005, although up until a year ago I only edited very occasionally. I am nominating myself primarily because I would like to work on history merges. I would be grateful for the opportunity to help out in that particular area, and hopefully my history of contributions demonstrates that I can be trusted with additional buttons. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 01:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
Oppose The candidate claims to be a Wikipedian since 2005, but let's be honest here. Most of the first 5 years were one or two edits per month (usually punctuation or a wikilink). The candidate has created no new articles or redirects. There are also some gaping holes in the collaborative part of the candidate's portfolio. Your heart is in the right place. I would encourage mentoring and trying again in 6 months.(moved to neutral)--
Hokeman (
talk)
05:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
Final (82/27/1); Closed as successful by Kingturtle = ( talk) at 06:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
In reviewing the comments by those in support and opposition and in reviewing the demeanor of Erik through this process, I have concluded that there is sufficient support for this RfA to succeed. The main argument in opposition to Erik is his lack of experience, but no serious red flags were presented as evidence against him. There were a few other reasons given in opposition, but none of them consistently, and none of them described a threat to Wikipedia or the community. In a close call like this, in order to reject this RfA (an RFA in which the supporters express that Erik is civil, trustworthy, and competent, engages well with others, knows policy adequately, and makes quality edits) there would need to be something glaring about Erik's edits or interactions, but nothing glaring came to light. In weighing these two sides, the balance tips to the side of promotion. P.S. I acknowledge that this RfA closed many hours after its full week on the board and that some more !votes came in after the scheduled close. I interpret the week timeframe to be a guideline, not a hard line. And I don't see any foul play. Sincerely, Kingturtle = ( talk) 07:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
ErikHaugen ( talk · contribs) – Greetings; I have been an editor since 2005, although up until a year ago I only edited very occasionally. I am nominating myself primarily because I would like to work on history merges. I would be grateful for the opportunity to help out in that particular area, and hopefully my history of contributions demonstrates that I can be trusted with additional buttons. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 01:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
Oppose The candidate claims to be a Wikipedian since 2005, but let's be honest here. Most of the first 5 years were one or two edits per month (usually punctuation or a wikilink). The candidate has created no new articles or redirects. There are also some gaping holes in the collaborative part of the candidate's portfolio. Your heart is in the right place. I would encourage mentoring and trying again in 6 months.(moved to neutral)--
Hokeman (
talk)
05:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
reply