Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Primefac 2

Thread started by Mkativerata

A small comment about the nomination. Can we please avoid words like "correct" when describing AFD votes. Just because the AFD goes your way doesn't mean you were objectively correct. Moreover, the AFD percentage is a crock of shit, gameable by the cynical while punishing of the free-thinker. Let's look at candidates' actual AFD edits rather than numbers. Real RFA research is hard but valuable. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: I think some people have got the wrong end of the stick. I agree with exactly what you're saying, which is why I supplied a link to recent AfDs specifically, and when you read through those you found the improvements I did and supported. Indeed, I encouraged the candidate to talk about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riz Story, where the arguments presented and the attitude shown matter far more than just happening to agree with the closing administrator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mkativerata:I am happy to see that we are largely on the same page (c.f. User_talk:Ritchie333#A_picky_point). I'm not ready to fully join in your characterization of the AFD percentage, but I'll state that it is my opinion that it is a crude tool, gameable, and has other shortcomings. I actually considered making that point in my post to Richie but I decided not to, as it is a different point than the objection to the characterization of "correct".--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"I think some people have got the wrong end of the stick." – Ritchie333. I think you misuse and/or misunderstand the word "correct" in the context of AfD !voting. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• C'mon guys, let's not split hairs over semantics. We're all seasoned and experienced admins and eds and among the colleagues whose participation at RfA I respect and appreciate the most. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I remember I was nominated as an admin because of my minority POV rather than in spite of it. That's why I was reluctant to oppose Primefac for his deletionist leanings. But yea this discussion is really splitting hairs. Deryck C. 14:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on Q1

The candidate indicates in Q1 intending to work in TFD and AFC. An area that I see as problematic is in AFD. Has there been a consensus on the weight of an RFA candidate's intended administrative work vs all the possible uses of administrative tools? I would like to avoid being unfair to the candidate based on one area in which they have not indicated an interest.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  18:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Users tend to suite their criteria around interested areas of the candidate and whether or not they are trustworthy enough to show restraint in using the tools in areas they don't express interest. Some users tend to weigh in everything including areas of non-interest and end up opposing. So it's up to you really. I personally see if the candidate is trustworthy and can learn from their mistakes in general.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

!vote needs amending

Hi, Could someone properly amend my support !vote as it's still being counted as an actual !vote, Sorry I never know how to do it properly, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference the code is #: which technically indents but also strikes the vote. Primefac (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant thank you, I've done it as :# on numerous occasions so that's where I'm going wrong then, Anyway thanks for your help - Much appreciated. –Davey2010^Talk 02:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)