Final (12/17/7); ended 08:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC) - Withdrawn - Supdiop ( Talk🔹 Contribs) 08:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
My comments from yesterday were wishful thinking; I need to do my time like everyone else. Primefac ( talk) 07:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Primefac ( talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to present to you Primefac as an adminship candidate. Primefac has had an account since 2010 and has been consistently active since late 2013, racking up over 12000 edits since then. Lately, he has mostly been active in the articles for creation process, where I have noticed him to be one of the most level-headed reviewers there. For AfC reviewers, the tools are a large help in order to process G13s, remove obvious spam, and other tasks. At AfC, he is helpful to the newbies who don’t know our policies, giving them sound advice and teaching them our policies. AfC and G13s are always backlogged, and we could do with more admins to help out.
But don’t be fooled into thinking that Primefac does not have content experience of his own; quite the opposite, in fact. He has taken the article astronomical spectroscopy from a terrible initial state into a strong B-class article that could probably pass a GA review in the state it’s currently in. He is also an active member of WikiProject Astronomy, where I have found him to demonstrate consistently good judgment and reason in scenarios on which he has commented. Even when consensus does not agree with him on an issue, his arguments are always logical, and I believe that he would make a wonderful addition to the admin crew. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (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 their contributions before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
We don't ask non-pilots to supervise the Air Force, for non-police to supervise the cops, for non-businessmen to supervise businesses.Whoa there. Adminship is characterized by the "mop," which implies that admins aren't supervisors, but janitors. If an admin takes on the role of "supervisor", there is a much bigger problem at hand.
Non-content creator admins typically have no understanding of what is required to create content.Contrary to what most of your prior RfA votes have implied, not all content creation has to be at the GA/FA level to be considered legitimate, unless if one wishes to drive decent content creators away by constantly antagonizing and hounding them for not being part of the Wikipedia mile-high club, which is what I've picked up from nearly all of your RfA !votes. No one is allowed to stop your from applying this criteria of yours to each admin candidate, but don't be surprised if few others agree with you. 138.229.142.217 ( talk) 06:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Final (12/17/7); ended 08:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC) - Withdrawn - Supdiop ( Talk🔹 Contribs) 08:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
My comments from yesterday were wishful thinking; I need to do my time like everyone else. Primefac ( talk) 07:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Primefac ( talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to present to you Primefac as an adminship candidate. Primefac has had an account since 2010 and has been consistently active since late 2013, racking up over 12000 edits since then. Lately, he has mostly been active in the articles for creation process, where I have noticed him to be one of the most level-headed reviewers there. For AfC reviewers, the tools are a large help in order to process G13s, remove obvious spam, and other tasks. At AfC, he is helpful to the newbies who don’t know our policies, giving them sound advice and teaching them our policies. AfC and G13s are always backlogged, and we could do with more admins to help out.
But don’t be fooled into thinking that Primefac does not have content experience of his own; quite the opposite, in fact. He has taken the article astronomical spectroscopy from a terrible initial state into a strong B-class article that could probably pass a GA review in the state it’s currently in. He is also an active member of WikiProject Astronomy, where I have found him to demonstrate consistently good judgment and reason in scenarios on which he has commented. Even when consensus does not agree with him on an issue, his arguments are always logical, and I believe that he would make a wonderful addition to the admin crew. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (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 their contributions before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
We don't ask non-pilots to supervise the Air Force, for non-police to supervise the cops, for non-businessmen to supervise businesses.Whoa there. Adminship is characterized by the "mop," which implies that admins aren't supervisors, but janitors. If an admin takes on the role of "supervisor", there is a much bigger problem at hand.
Non-content creator admins typically have no understanding of what is required to create content.Contrary to what most of your prior RfA votes have implied, not all content creation has to be at the GA/FA level to be considered legitimate, unless if one wishes to drive decent content creators away by constantly antagonizing and hounding them for not being part of the Wikipedia mile-high club, which is what I've picked up from nearly all of your RfA !votes. No one is allowed to stop your from applying this criteria of yours to each admin candidate, but don't be surprised if few others agree with you. 138.229.142.217 ( talk) 06:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC) reply