The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Primefac[edit]

Final (12/17/7); ended 08:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC) - Withdrawn - Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 08:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]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]

Nomination[edit]

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]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with thanks for StringTheory11's confidence in me. Primefac (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: The work that springs immediately to mind are the G13 pages and WP:RPP. The former isn't vital but still important for keeping the draft space clean, and the latter is vital for anti-vandalism purposes. With AfC becoming more manageable, I intend on starting to help out with WP:NPP, and would deal with the various CSD tags (particularly copyvios) that get placed on the pages. While it might be a minor admin capability, the ability to see deleted pages would help tremendously on the IRC help channel when users ask why their page was deleted (instead of just vaguely pointing them towards WP:REFUND or the like).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: On a single-article level, my improvement of astronomical spectroscopy is probably my best contribution. I took a tiny article on a massive subject and expanded it to a fairly reasonable page which acts as a gateway to further articles. There's still work to do, but unfortunately it's near the bottom of my priority pile. On a Wiki-wide level, I've been helping users via IRC and through AfC to create better drafts (or abandon hopeless ones). It's always my goal to not only make better articles, but also inform editors about the useful tools, tips, and tricks to making a better page. It doesn't happen often, but when an editor gives WikiLove (either on IRC or on my talk page) it means that they haven't been completely scared away from editing and will (hopefully) continue to contribute.
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: I have had my share of disagreements with other users regarding pages or my editing practices. Most often it's an SPA who wants to add a particular section or item that isn't necessary. Regardless of the intentions of the editor, I have tried to maintain a level head, follow the BRD protocol, and start a discussion on the talk page in order to resolve the situation (usually with the input of additional editors). Even when it isn't an SPA, I try to discuss the issue before it turns into an edit war. This has worked so far, and I will strive to continue doing so in the future.
My biggest recent conflict was a series of BOLD AWB edits that I made to remove a promotional/unreliable set of references from a large number of pages. I was perhaps a little too bold, and another editor called me on it. I defended my decision but offered to undo all of my edits should they find support for their concerns. This support never materialized, however I admit that I was slightly more argumentative towards the other editor than I needed to be. I've learned to be a little more cautious since then with my edits, and more courteous to other editors.
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
4. What is your view of Process is important?
A: I don't think Wikipedia can function without a set of procedures in place. It's always been my belief that even for CSD nominations, barring the most obvious cases (e.g. blatant copyright) it should be nominated by one user and deleted by another, if only to demonstrate that two people support said deletion. Without policies like WP:BRD we'd have (more) edit wars, and I think that following these procedures means that everyone has to step back, take a second to think about what should be done, and makes everything smoother. There are of course exceptions (which I will cover further in Question 6), but I think for the majority of the time due process is vital for the (relatively) smooth and successful operation of this site.
5. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
A: The wording of the CSD criteria is incredibly specific, and I think it should be that way, because it removes ambiguity. In the last 12 hours I've come to realise that I've been doing exactly the opposite of that, however, and loosely interpreting the language to convince myself that a speedy deletion is necessary. CSD isn't a replacement for AfD, and so (with minor exceptions that I'll expand on in Q6 and slightly in Q9) the way its written is the way it should be applied.
6. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A: I'm sure some people view IAR as a "get out of jail free" card for admins to do whatever they want, but it's an important caveat to make sure the best course of action is taken (even if it's against policy). I've seen a fair number of AfDs put up for "procedural close" because the nominator did something incorrect (be it not transcluded on the AfD log or what have you), and IAR is necessary for minor infractions to ensure that a proper discussion is had and no one's time is wasted. IAR is also useful in fighting vandalism, such as blocking obvious socks without going through SPI (though later adding the name to the list for the record). Those are just the examples that I've personally witnessed, but anecdotes aside, I think that IAR is useful in that 1% of situations where following the letter of the law isn't the right course of action, provided the "rule-breaker" is willing to defend their decision with reason and rationale.
7. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
A: As a current helper in the IRC channel, I receive the notifications when ((help me)) has been used, and (depending on the time of day) I am often the person to answer their query. Most of the time it's a simple question regarding Wikipedia usage/editing, which I attempt to resolve (with the result often being them joining IRC to get further assistance). Occasionally, it will be a minor dispute, which I've tried to direct to the appropriate places and get a dialogue going. I do not see myself halting this activity, and as an admin I would be able to keep an eye on ((admin help)) as well.
Additional Question from Risker
8 Please tell us more about your work at AFC. In particular, I'd like to know more about how you deal with "spammy" or promotional articles, whether you think that waiting six months before deleting drafts is long enough/too long, and what positive experiences you've had.  Thank you.
A: I've been working with AfC for just under two years now, and I've got a fairly good system for dealing with submissions. When I first approach an article, I attempt to clean it up, fixing headers/bold/formatting/etc, just to make it easier to read. Then I check the references for notability purposes, and then give a read through the draft for content and suitability. However, as DGG recently brought to light on my talk page, sometimes my primary reference check is a bit premature, and a decline should have been an accept (though I will be paying more attention to this in the future).
The overly promotional drafts are fairly easy to spot, and in general I will decline as advert and leave a comment to the editor on how they can further improve the page (generall pointing out weasel words, flowery language, etc). I have found that leaving a detailed comment on the draft page makes it easier for not only them (to determine why their page was declined), but also me (so that I can remember why the draft was declined in the first place). On many occasions the editor will end up in IRC, where (if I'm available) I will attempt to help them further improve their page. Of course, if the subject is not notable, I do try to convince the creator to put their efforts to editing other Wikipedia pages (to mixed success).
With nearly 3000 drafts currently eligible for deletion, I think the process could be shortened slightly. I know there was a discussion recently about notifying the creator at the five-month mark and then deleting the page once six months had passed. Unfortunately I haven't been paying as much attention to that as I probably should, and don't know the current status of that discussion, but I think it's a very good idea; drafts sitting around for half a year with no obvious editing are unneccessary. With the existence of REFUND I would hesitate to reccommend an even sorter period before G13, but I know very well that life happens and sometimes projects fall by the wayside and six months is an acceptable upper limit.
Most of the time AfC is soul-destroying; sifting through loads of muck trying to find the diamonds. SPAs are the worst, since they're convinced that "The Man" is out to keep their page from existing. Occasionally, though, there are editors who genuinely make my day. I've searched my archives for a specific example that comes to mind, and unfortunately I cannot find it, so I will just have to be anecdotal. About a year ago, an editor popped into IRC asking about a draft I'd declined. After reviewing the page and offering suggestions, the editor fixed all of the major issues, stuck around IRC for a while asking the occasional question, and when the draft was resubmitted it was an easy accept. We had a great chat both on IRC and on-wiki, and I thanked him for being such a good sport about it all. This type of editor comes few and far between, but when they pop up on my talk page or IRC genuinely wanting to learn and improve Wikipedia it makes the whole thing worthwhile.
Additional questions from User:DGG
9 Continuing this line of questioning, how does one handle an AfC submission that is primarily or entirely a copyvio?
A: Any time I find a copyvio I check to see how bad it is. If there is information that can be salvaged (usually the lead and/or pertinent information) I will attempt to excise the offending text. If this doesn't lead to the necessity of a complete rewrite I will continue reviewing as normal, but if important bits of information are missing I will decline and comment on the draft about the need to add more text. If there is nothing worth saving in the draft, I tag it as copyvio, blank the page, and notify the user (all done using AFCH).
10 How does one handle an AfC submission that is unquestionably notable, and shown to be so by adequate sources,  but otherwise inadequately sourced?
A: There are two decline parameters that could potentially be used in this situation. The first is a lack of inline citations in a BLP article. I would decline, and comment on the importance of inline citations for BLPs. The second would be a lack of references to support the rest of the text, in which case I would decline as "improperly sourced," stressing the importance of having good references for verification purposes. In both cases, since the subject is notable, I would offer to re-review their page once the changes have been made (normally I opt out of re-reviewing pages) in order to move it to the Article space.
11 How many inline citations is "enough" ?
A: For a non-BLP article, there should be enough inline citations to verify the major facts, such as awards won. A lack of inline citations can also be an issue if there are dozens of references with no footnote links, since it makes verifying any of the information difficult. For a BLP article, I'm a bit more strict and extend the "major facts" to include anything that could be disputed: awards won, companies worked for, significant life events, etc. If I can read through a draft and not feel like the author is trying to slip some positive-sounding (but false) fact, there are enough citations. Obviously, one citation per sentence is extreme overkill, and I'm generally happy with 2-3 per paragraph (depending on the size, of course).
Additional question from Esquivalience
12. What is the difference between WP:CSD#A7's "significance" and WP:N's "notability"?
A: A7 is "should this ever be on Wikipedia?" and WP:N is "has anyone noticed?" As I've found often through AfC, there are a ton of people who are doing amazing things (particularly philanthropically), but no one has taken note of them. Should Joe Bloggs have an article for donating millions to charity and adopting seventeen disgruntled youth? Absolutely (A7 passes). Has anyone noticed he did these things? That answer will determine WP:N and whether there actually will be an article.
Additional questions from User:SMcCandlish
13. Would you recuse yourself from AfD/CSD decisions (other than keep) until after some tutoring/mentoring by a more experienced admin, since that seems to be the principal issue being raised?
A: I'm glad you asked this question, because this has been foremost in my mind based on the comments below, particularly with respect to the conditional support from Esquivalience. The simple answer to the question is yes, I would. It is painfully obvious based on the opposition to this nomination that my deletion record is not acceptable, and regardless of the outcome of this RfA I will be giving much more consideration to pages before nominating them for any sort of deletion in the future (and will be spending a bit more time at AfD). I know at this point some of the opposition will say "well just withdraw, do the work, and re-apply" but I have to wonder if that's the best option. Would training "on the job" as it were make for a better learning opportunity? I think so. Deletion is a relatively small part of being an admin, and if I go without it for a few months doing other important tasks while building my experience, isn't that a net win? and they are right.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Sufficient experience, and helps out in a thankless part of WP. No problems that I can see. Miniapolis 23:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, from my interactions with Primefac in the IRC help channel and from what I've seen of his AfC reviews I can say they're a knowledgeable and level-headed editor. Not having personally created content doesn't imply a lack of experience when one is hevily involved in helping others to create content. Huon (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Don't see any dangerous signs. Lack of article creation experience won't get in the way of using the mop. I like editors who spend time doing tedious work that needs to get done, it frees the creative types to do more content creation. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Good amount of patrols and also good amount of help. I believe he has the experience that he needs to become an administrator. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak support, with a recommendation that you continue to tag articles with CSD and to only close AfDs with the limits specified at WP:NACD (if you plan to go into AfD closing) for a few months before you enter the dangerous arena of deletion. I am concerned about your CSD tagging (A7s on films and notable topics), but some more CSD tagging and a quick review by another experienced admin before deleting speedy deletion candidates would be good. Esquivalience t 02:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Candidate's mistakes prove he is human. Wikipedia needs more humans. Too human. Withdrawing vote, no need to pile into opposition. Townlake (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --rogerd (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Likely net positive, subject to change. Candidate has sufficient experience and trust not to mess up the technical aspects of the tools, and I know them on IRC well enough to know they will not mess up the "social" aspects. They exhibit good judgement and I trust they will not speedy delete non-G13s without another admin review (as in tag, instead of deleting right away). L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 07:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reconsidering this. Sorry, primefac, and you know I respect you greatly, but the opposes are quite swaying. Have not made up my mind completely yet. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Rzuwig► 11:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - No issues. Bazj (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Helpful and understanding to new users. Seems to take feedback/criticism well. Active in a thankless part of the project and manages not to be cynical. Sounds like good admin material. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Please think of this as "moral support". I can understand how other editors can, in good faith, be concerned about a candidate being excessively deletionist, but I also think that RfA has become a minefield over AfD. Here, we have a clearly intelligent and helpful candidate, who has done high quality content work on Astronomical spectroscopy (I looked at it, and was impressed – and Wikipedia could use more administrators who understand science content), and who is helpful to new editors at AfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How is "who understand science content" compatible with nominating 14 pages between Solar cycle 1 and Solar cycle 20 for deletion? I'm really curious now. Kraxler (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the expansion of Astronomical spectroscopy reflects good content work, on a subject that requires an understanding of scientific source material. On the other hand, an editor can understand content and still disagree with other editors about whether pages in a series should be merged, or should each have standalone pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. Kraxler (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose, only 5 articles created, no indication of good or featured content creation yet. GregJackP Boomer!  22:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my view that content creation is not a major part of an admin's job as an admin, and in particular by the time an article gets close to GA/FA, Admin intervention should be little needed. I have never done serious work on a FA, nor been the major person getting an article to GA level -- I usually stop about B-class or lower. But I think i've been a pretty good admin over the years. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to others. DES (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said on the other RfA, you an exception (note to other admins, I know DES's work, so to me he is an exception; do not presume that I would place anyone else in that same category). DES, too many admins don't understand content creation. I'll not support someone for admin that hasn't, see User:GregJackP/Admin criteria. For the others who don't like my oppose, too bad. I'm tired of getting beat up on every time I voice my opinion at an RfA, so if you want to disagree, do so elsewhere unless your intent is chill those who think differently than you do. GregJackP Boomer!  04:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not getting "beat up" and you're not required to defend yourself every time, but RfA is a discussion and any editor is more than entitled to verbally disagree with you. While content work is not an unreasonable requirement in itself, your go-to standard is absolutely unreasonable, arbitrary, not listed anywhere as a prerequisite for adminship, and not remotely indicative of historical community standards at RfA. It's also fallacious, as absolutely nothing anywhere indicates that an editor who has not achieved a GA has less of an understanding of content creation than an editor who has. By all means, it's reasonable to oppose someone with no significant mainspace work, or to oppose someone who's actually demonstrated a lack of competence or understanding in the content area, but your automatic opposition to any candidacy that doesn't meet your arbitrarily-harsh benchmark for content work is anything but reasonable in my opinion, as is your continued refusal to hear out anyone who disagrees with you. This is a collaborative, community-based project, if you haven't noticed, and we generally operate according to longstanding principals and community-based standards—not the whims of self-righteous, overly-arrogant content creators. Maybe there's a reason you feel like you're getting "beat up" every time you oppose with that tired rationale. Maybe people are trying to send you a message. Swarm we ♥ our hive 04:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input. I will give it all the consideration it is due. GregJackP Boomer!  06:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite the criteria you have there, @GregJackP:. 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]
    Thank you for your input. I will give it all the consideration it is due. GregJackP Boomer!  06:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - the editor is severely lacking in an understanding of deletion policy, and this is especially concerning for someone who wants to work in speedy deletion.  Looking at the CSD log, there are a lot of problems (but I stopped at 4 examples... no need to pile on): (1) this A7 tag, despite the fact that the article claimed the subject to be "one of the most popular Telugu TV channels of Telangana state"; (2) this A7 tag, placed on a page of a member of the Saudi Royal Family; (3) this speedy deletion tag requesting the deletion of a user page because it was a duplicate of a draft, instead of just removing the draft material; and (4) this A7 tag on a page about a lawnmower brand, which although manufactured by a corporation is not itself a corporation.  The AfD record is considerably worse.  All but 2 of the !votes are delete or speedy delete (which in and of itself is not a problem; many people, including myself do not always heavily patrol the AfD logs, and there is a tendency to only go to AfD when one either sees a notice on a page or when one is nominating something for deletion), and of the delete !votes, the result for 21% was keep, and the result for 22% was speedy keep.  The only time the user !voted speedy delete, the result was speedy keep.  Even for someone whose main focus would be G13 speedy deletion patrolling and RPP, the fact that the user has said he wants to "deal with the various CSD tags" when there is clearly such a significant lack of knowledge as to the deletion criteria forces me to oppose.  That said, I do not see any problems with civility or issues that I think cannot be fixed with a bit more experience.  I'd encourage Primefac to become more familiar with the deletion criteria, get a better CSD and AfD track record, and I would likely support in the future. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That speedy delete/speedy keep afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super administrator (Google Apps)) was closed by the candidate, by moving the article into draftspace at its author's request.  It's a bit unfair to hold that against him. —Cryptic 23:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably should have looked at the discussion itself, but they number of delete !votes where the result was keep or speedy keep was enough for me to oppose.  Thank you for the clarification; I have struck that comment from my original !vote. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Being somewhere within the genealogy of a royal family isn't an assertion of notability importance/significance [CSD's wording has changed since last time I studied it!], which is not heritable. I've read the then-tagged article, and it did not actually make a clear claim of notability importance/significance. Being related to someone important, having a work history, and being mentioned as having been present at some events, doesn't translate to personal notability.  Case #3 is six-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other; the sole content of the page was a copy of the rejected draft.  (Agree with your AfD, Telugu and lawnmower concern; don't mean to come across as just a critic. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish, please note that a claim of notability is not needed to avoid A7 deletion, "significance" is intentionally set as a lower bar, as described in WP:CCS. I would have declined that speedy in a heartbeat. The article asa it then stood may not establish notability, but it givels multiple indiactiosn that notability could well be established with additional research, which takes it out of the A7 category, and troubles me. DES (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I too would have declined that speedy. Even if one is sure that the article will not be kept at AfD, that is not a reason for speedy. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct; it is not an assertion of notability; however, it is an assertion of importance or significance.  The article, at the time it was tagged, also included information about being the chairman of a company, hosting foreign leaders, etc.  There were other claims of importance or significance in the article, and that is why I linked to it.  I merely stated the royalty in my !vote because I viewed that as the most significant and didn't want to ramble on for paragraphs (I guess that plan backfired on me...).  In the state that it was in when it was tagged, it might have been appropriate for AfD, but it wasn't appropriate for speedy deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Way too many XfD and SPEEDY problems and lack of understanding therein, as touched upon for instance thus far by Inks.LWC and SMcCandlish (at bottom) and DES's and DGG's comments above. Also, has only been active for one year [1]. I do not see this as a qualified admin candidate at all. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose The nominee is clearly a productive and useful editor, and I truly dislike opposing. But I believe that it would be best for this nominee to spend roughly a year deepening their understanding of notability guidelines and deletion criteria, plus creating some new content. I look forward to supporting their next RfA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Insufficient tenure — the first month in which 100 edits were made to mainspace (일반 문서) was November 2014. Two years of sustained effort seems a reasonable minimum for a lifetime position as Administrator, does it not??? The fact that Jim/Cullen was moved to oppose is an enormous red flag for me as he is very reticent to vote in opposition. As mentioned above, the AFD record is problematic, with a total of zero Keep or Speedy Keep votes coming up in the last 250 challenges. Voting Delete, the win-loss record is absolutely abysmal 51-59, with an astonishing 30 Delete recommendations ending in Speedy Keep results! I've never seen a more disturbing track record than this. We won't even get into the question of mistaken A7s, this is a nomination that I can't support now, probably wouldn't support in a year, and may never support unless some sort of grasp of Deletion policy can be demonstrated for a protracted length of time. Sorry. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the raw statistics are misleading.  14 of those delete/speedy keep afds weren't actually speedy kept; they were bundled into a single afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar cycle 1 (example), and I've seen far more experienced editors make the wrong the call as to whether (and how) to bundle afds.  7 of the rest probably could have been bundled as well (representative example), and - along every one of the last 9 - were speedy kept because Primefac withdrew his deletion nomination.  That's hardly an ideal situation, and shows he should be doing more WP:BEFORE work before nominating, but at least shows he's willing to admit when he's wrong. —Cryptic 04:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see the bundling as a mitigating factor.  If an editor tags a bunch of related pages with speedy deletion tags or lists at AfD a bunch or articles that are related (bundled or not) and Primefac deletes those articles based on the speedy deletion tag or a bad close of the AfD, the end result is still that a bunch of articles end up being improperly deleted.  The issue is that Primefac lacks knowledge of the deletion criteria, and whether the articles where he is wrong are related or not, it does not change the fact that he misapplied the deletion criteria X amount of times. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Sorry, but your AfD stats show far too many nominations you opened that were either withdrawn or closed as "Keep", and more often than not your !vote did not align with the result. Based on that you'd be too high a risk with the delete button. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per most of comments in the Opposes above, though number of articles created is irrelevant to RFA (content work is important but does not need to include starting new articles), and someone who has been here since 2012 would normally be more than qualified for adminship, especially as Primefac has a commendably clean block log. However the deletion errors are unsettling especially in such a long serving community member. Take this comment as an example, firstly poor formatting is not a reason for deleting things, long before someone is ready for adminship they should be ready to be one of the people who demonstrates to newbies how to fix such problems, unreferenced is only a deletion criteria for BLPs, and while notability is a deletion criteria it specifically isn't a speedy deletion criteria, especially when there is a credible assertion of importance. Happy to reassess in a few months time provided the candidate rereads the deletion criteria and shifts from one of those tagging things for others to fix to one who demonstrates to others how to improve things. ϢereSpielChequers 09:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I'm sorry, but this candidate rather plainly fails my last, and arguably most important, criteria for adminship (i.e., evidence that he understands basic WP policies). I usually don't subscribe to the win/loss (which is Wikipedia:BATTLEFIELD-like in my opinion), but such a high percentage of "failures" at AfD (sorry, I couldn't think of a better word) and CSD make me much too uncomfortable to support. --Biblioworm  15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - sorry, but there's insufficient experience and knowledge. Keep up your hard work and come back in 6-12 months. All the best admins pass the 2nd time anyway ;) GiantSnowman 17:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I don't expect one to be perfect with every single thing here but I do expect CSD tagging & AFD nominating to be bang on, It seems most of what you've nominated has been Kept / Speedy Kept and then there's the CSD log where quite alot of your tagging was incorrect/didn't apply, Sorry but right now I don't trust you with the delete button so I can only suggest you think about what you CSD/AFD before you do it if that makes sense, Anyway I wish you the best of luck. –Davey2010Talk 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose sorry to pile on, but an AfD accuracy of 41.5% of green is the absolute lowest I've seen so far. I suggest the candidate withdraw now, before more time is wasted and more acerbic comments will be made. By the way, what I find perplexing is that the candidate seems to work on astronomical articles but at one time nominated 14 of the individual Solar cycle articles for deletion. Kraxler (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - sorry, but there's insufficient knowledge on WP:DP. With the majority of your votes closed as "keep", I suggest you withdraw this nomination and wait at least 6 to 12 months before giving another go. Racer-Ωmegα 19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - Sorry, I don't oppose very often but I simply cannot ignore that CSD log with far too many blue links in it for an admin candidate. From the edit histories I had a look at, several of these articles were also being worked on at the time of the tagging. I'd be willing to support in another 6-12 months if there had been some major improvement in the deletion rate of articles the candidate tagged for speedy deletion, but for now I have to oppose. —Frosty ☃ 23:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, I would need to see some major improvement in the AFD/CSD area before supporting in the future. Nakon 02:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I would rather not oppose a productive contributor with a good attitude but it seems the candidate needs more knowledge and experience and a more solid track record in administrative areas, especially deletions since Primefac proposes to work in that area. I am in line with Cullen328, WereSpielChequers and Frosty. I would be willing to support in the future with some improvement in the subjects noted above. Donner60 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose for now. Excellent principles, but the candidates actual practice does not really live up to it yet.  DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Donner60. More experience needed before I am comfortable !voting for lifetime adminship. I thank the candidate for service to date. Jusdafax  06:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral for now, pending answers to questions and some looking into the candidate's history, but leaning towards support.  DES (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerned about the speedy tags mentioned above. DES (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Overall work is good, but some of the bluelinks in your CSD log are worrying.  If you were an American, I'd probably oppose outright for this, despite it being six months ago, since you say you plan to work with copyvios.  This tagging of an article about a film as A7 (admin-only link, sorry; the article was later deleted for a different reason) does not impress me, either. —Cryptic 23:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Temporary neutral, leaning 95% support?: I need to do more research, but he candidate's A7s are concerning. I see several botched ones (e.g. tagging of articles that exist in a foreign-language Wikipedia) and articles tagged a few minutes after they're created. This potentially scares off newcomers, as the A7 (and other CSD) template is like: "We don't like your article; I have tagged it for deletion; go run and post a message on the talk page in five minutes before it is deleted." Otherwise, maintenance work is good, but I have to dig further. Esquivalience t 23:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Moved to support, conditionally.[reply]
    These are actually more serious concerns than the ones also raised about A7 tagging by Inks.LWC, in "Oppose", above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Candidate has sufficient experience, and appears to be level-headed, rational, and overall competent. The one noteworthy problem area I'm aware of, however, overlaps one of the candidate's declared administrative interests. AFD results show an unreasonably deletionist bent, which is not appropriate for someone doing CSD work, where neutrality on that matter is needed.  Above, some (not all) of the A7-tagging concerns raised by Inds.LWC, and several more by Esquivalence, are red flags, specially because of the WP:BITE effect of insta-tagging new pages while they may still be under initial construction.  It's actually possible to more correctly reabsorb CSD in a single day, with focus and some log reading. Adjusting one's judgement to the community consensus about what is and is not encyclopedic, especially with regard to WP:N and the various topical notability guidelines, is much more work, probably months of it. I'd probably be mollified if the candidate pledged to not act as an AfD or CSD admin without coaching/mentoring, since I see no other problem areas.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)  PS: I agree with note above that "bundling" in some of the AfD cases isn't a mitigating factor, for the reasons given above; don't need to reiterate it all here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Waiting for answers to questions before I make a final decision. Jianhui67 T★C 00:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming my neutral vote because of issues mentioned above. I just cannot support, nor do I see a reason to oppose now. Jianhui67 T★C 00:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, pending some more answers, though on the surface it looks like this candidate needs more work with AfDs. RO(talk) 16:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral – I'm liking the candidate's answers to the questions so far. But I can't ignore what the "opposes" are saying (nor the candidate's own admission of mistakes). Also, I do find the content creation a little on the light side for my liking (the one article that I thought was notable, HL Tauri, was in fact only created by the candidate, but with no follow-up work, which means the current article is almost entirely the creation of others...). My suspicion is that if this candidate makes the suggested changes, and comes back in about 6 months, they'll probably fly through an RfA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No haranguing intended, but I think we should be clear that candidates should admit past mistakes, because doing so is a sign of above-average good faith and willingness to self-moderate, and that RfA shouldn't penalize them for doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, absolutely. In this specific instance, however, it's that the candidate was admitting mistaken understanding of policies, etc. as recently as 24 hours ago. That's why I suggested coming back at this in 6 or so months, after demonstrating their corrected understanding of policy... On my end, my "standard" is absolutely not perfection! But I am looking for someone whose "bigger" mistakes are more in the past than in this instance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral – I won't pile on with an oppose. The AfD numbers make this a non-starter for me. But, this user is very, very nice and also very, very helpful at IRC, and has assisted me there plenty. Primefac, those opposes contain wise words that can bring you certain success at your next RfA. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category