Final (76/36/10); ended 18:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC) - The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC) ; Ended 18:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) – GiantSnowman has with us for nearly five years. In that time he has racked up tens of thousands of edits, and has created scores of articles. My familiarity with him comes from WikiProject Football, where he has been a respected member for a number of years. In fact, I thought he was an admin until I saw him making a request for admin assistance for some routine housekeeping. While content creation is his primary focus, he is a regular participant at AfD, an area where I have always found his comments to be based upon sound judgement. Experienced and level-headed, I believe the project would benefit if he was given the mop. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:35, 13 January 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 |
The "function" of the specialized notability guidelines is a very useful one: they provide a nice safe playground for a certain kind of editor to wrangle about guidelines. On these pages, those editors can argue with each other, safely out of sight of the quiet majority who would rather write content than tell other people what content they're allowed to write. I think that in the real world of closing AfDs, specialized notability guidelines can usually be ignored. If something or someone meets the GNG then they probably deserve an article, and if something or someone doesn't meet the GNG then they probably don't deserve an article. In a few marginal cases there may be something in one of these guidelines that's of value, but I view them as usually subordinate to the GNG.
But the fact that I think like that doesn't mean I think GiantSnowman has to think like that in order to deserve my support. What I think is that it doesn't matter whether GiantSnowman can parse Wikipedia's labyrinthine morass of rules, or whether he parses them the same way I do. Because, in his contributions, I can see evidence that he's an intelligent, reasonable and approachable person who's open to the idea that he's fallible and he can be as wrong as the rest of us. Accordingly, I'm confident he will not set his personal preferences over the community consensus. And that's all it takes for my support.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, because I want to point something out about WP:ATH and the answers to question 6. If someone wants to be heavily involved in closing deletion discussions, it seems to me that one should understand that ATH and the like are intended to provide guidance as to what pages will or will not pass GNG, but not to provide a reason to keep pages that, even after careful research, would fail GNG. The wording of the candidate's answers so far seem to me to be a little unclear about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Moving to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]