Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Primefac 2

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

Primefac

Final (111/21/4); Closed as successful by ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! at 21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Primefac (talk · contribs) – Primefac is a bit of an all-rounder. His speciality is in Templates for discussion, which he has contributed significantly to over the past year. Few admins have been focusing on this area, so it's good to have another one. He's also a regular at Articles for creation, reviewing and tidying up drafts so they can be acceptable encylopedia articles. Elsewhere, Primefac has significantly contributed to a few articles, most obviously Astronomical spectroscopy, but he has also helped quell quite a few unpleasant content disputes. This is a good talent to have and it's always good to have an admin candidate who has the right sort of diplomatic skills.

As some of you may be aware, this is Primefac's second run at an RfA. After the first in 2015, the community felt he needed a better understanding of the deletion policy. Looking at the last 100 AfDs, going back six months, he now has a good score of about 83% called correctly, which shows clear and continual improvement in this area.

I'm pleased we have had so many good admin candidates come forward in the last few weeks, and I hope to continue that trend by introducing another one keen to tackle one of our regular backlogs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I'm thrilled that Primefac is ready to volunteer for a mop. I first crossed paths with Primefac at TfD about a year and a half ago and quickly thought he'd make a good admin. At TfD, he's one of the most productive and experienced non-admins closing discussions, and his efforts there have contributed to the near-elimination of what was once a stubbornly persistent backlog. He's also in second place for total contributions to the TfD holding cell, so he's no slouch at following up on TfD closes, either. As the admin who was most active at TfD when Primefac got involved and who helped coordinate NACs there, I can say I have very high confidence in his judgment - as well as being a consistently good reader of consensus, he's also happy to explain his reasoning when asked and reconsider if circumstances warrant. And to amplify Ritchie's point about improvement since Primefac's first RfA, he's now not only established a much-improved AfD record, but also developed experience with another deletion-related venue where he's shown a strong record of success.

In addition to his TfD work, Primefac is also a prolific reviewer at Articles for creation, a task that often requires good diplomatic skills and sensitivity to the concerns and experiences of new editors. This is another area where admin tools come in handy for cleaning up newbie mistakes like duplicate drafts or copy-paste moves, as well as more serious problems like copyvio.

There's no doubt that Primefac sails over the bar in terms of "having a need for the tools", and he's more than proved himself willing and able to roll up his sleeves and dig in on backlogs. TfD in particular is not a popular admin area and requires some specialized knowledge, so bringing a new admin on board who is already experienced there would be a big benefit to the project. We've seen lots of great candidates step forward recently - I'm very happy Primefac has decided to join them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks to Ritchie333 and Opabinia regalis for this opportunity. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: I intend to keep working at TFD closing discussions and deleting templates as consensus dictates. In a smaller roll, I see a lot of copy/paste page moves through AFC, so I will histmerge when necessary and delete-and-move when not.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia come from AFC and TFD. On the AFC side of things (largely through helping in the IRC channel) I assist users who are struggling to get their pages accepted. Sometimes this means getting them to realize that their subject is not notable, but often it's helping them see what constitutes a reliable source or promotional language. It might not increase my edit count, but overall I feel it improves Wikipedia by getting good content accepted and means interested editors are more likely to stick around.

Over the last year and a half I have assisted at TFD, cutting the backlog of old/unclosed discussions down to almost zero and trimming the Holding Cell (where old mergers are listed) down to a third of its size when I joined. Most of these have just been template mergers, but it has also resulted in the creation of a few list articles that were formerly unwanted templates. This is beneficial because it cleans up the template space and in the long run makes maintenance easier.

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've had content conflicts with a few editors in the recent past; both situations were paid/COI editors who were trying to push a particular POV. In the case of Riz Story I chatted with the editor for a few hours on IRC, assisted in cleaning up the article, but ended up taking the page to AFD. They became frustrated and tried to bombard the proceedings with unhelpful content, but I kept trying to calm them down and get them to realize that their actions weren't making the situation any better. Unfortunately I was unsuccessful, but not for a lack of trying.

On the Allen Meadors page I managed to get three different parties together on the talk page and figure out exactly what should and shouldn't end up in the article based on Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Granted, this happened after a couple of 3RR blocks, but sometimes that's necessary. In the end there was a fair amount of compromise, but it's clear the paid editor realized that the rest of us were just trying to do the best we could; since then there's been a lot of constructive dialogue on the talk page. I intend on approaching future content disputes with the same approach - try to get all sides to come to a compromise so that it doesn't explode into an edit war and/or end up at ANI. Of course, some conflicts are unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we can't try to diffuse the situation first.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Esquivalience

4. In your own words, explain consensus and how it differs from traditional voting-based decision making.

A:Consensus is the result of a discussion between multiple parties about the merits and detractors of a given position (be it a deletion discussion, a content dispute, etc). Consensus differs from voting-based decision making because the weight of the argument is taken into consideration alongside the numerical tally. This is why we often use the phrase !vote; six people claiming that "I do/don't like it" will always be overturned by one or two people giving sound arguments for a page to be deleted/kept (respectively), because it is the reasons given that make consensus more valuable (and ultimately more resilient) than just a hard yes/no vote.

Additional question from Grondemar

5. When patrolling the CSD queue, you come across this. (Assume this page was in article space.) What action would you take?

A: Based on the A1 criteria, and in particular the related RfC, I would remove the CSD tag; the title of the series is rather unique (a quick Google search used to check) and thus there is enough context to proceed. I would probably add a {{notability}} maintenance tag to the page (the Google search didn't turn up too much). I would also notify the user who tagged the article that I had removed the tag, encouraging them to either contact the creator to help them improve the page or bring it to PROD/AFD it (after waiting a few days to give them an opportunity to work on it) if there was no chance at improvement.

Additional question from Linguist111

6. A new user, A, creates a draft containing, "My girlfriend would be 25 today. Five years ago she got killed by a drunk driver. I loved her and I miss her so much, and want people to know about her. I hope the evil bastard who killed her rots in hell.", and submits it for review. An experienced editor, B, tags the page for G10 speedy deletion, automatically placing {{Db-attack-notice}} on A's user talk page. A reverts B's edit to the draft with the edit summary "Undid trolling", before B puts the tag back and places {{Uw-biog4}} on A's user talk page. A leaves the following message on B's user talk page: "You evil sick bastard! Did you kill her? Go and die, you evil scum!" You are the first admin to notice this. What actions do you take?

A: Undo the post on B's talk page (edit summary: WP:RPA); if requested by B I would revdel. Place a {{uw-npa4}} warning on A's page with a message along the lines that B was only reacting to the statements A made on the draft, that A really shouldn't be making threats on Wikipedia (either in a draft or to another user), and that I'd be willing to discuss the draft further with them. Remove and revdel the "evil bastard" part, removing the G10 in the process (since that's the only part that meets the G10 criteria). I would keep tabs on A's contributions for a few hours to see if/how they respond; continued negative action would result in a short block (24-48hr depending on how severe/quickly they escalated it), conciliatory edits would result in no further admin action from me.

Additional question from Andrew D.

7. At a recent AfD you say "having watched this page go through AFC and helping the creator make changes ... I vetted a few of them on IRC". Please explain this AfC/IRC vetting process. Who is talking to who and what is the general nature of the community there? Andrew D. (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A: The IRC help channel is a place where people can ask questions about Wikipedia. They fall into three main groups: people wanting to start an article, people wanting help with their drafts, and everyone else wanting help with editing. The user/page in question fell into the second group; their draft had been declined a few times and they wanted help finding/recognizing suitable references to demonstrate notability. I and a few other helpers assisted in that process, letting them know what was a decent source article and what was just promotional/PR junk. They visited the channel multiple times and I was able to see the progression from largely-promotional to fairly-acceptable. When I saw that the AFD nominator had claimed none of the sources were substantial, I looked and saw that some of them were references we had discussed on IRC as being acceptable (hence my comments on the AFD).

As far as the helpers themselves go, it's a mix of admins and non-admins who have experience in a wide range of topics. We're there to provide real-time assistance to users who are struggling to use Wikipedia. Despite the fact that a large portion of our time is spent helping those with drafts (and a large percentage of us are AFC reviewers), we do not circumvent the AFC process and do not formally give reviews; we merely provide guidance and advice.

Additional question from Reyk.

8. Editor A comes to your talk page asking you to take action against Editor B, with whom they have a long-standing dispute about the interpretation of policy. There's already a closed thread on this issue at ANI, started by Editor A, where there was no agreement that Editor B has been doing anything wrong. How would you deal with Editor A's request for your intervention? Reyk _YO! 11:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A: I would answer that because the ANI closed with no consensus as to B's behaviour there is nothing I can do. Depending on what was actually in the ANI I would either try to elaborate about how one policy can have different interpretations, that sometimes there is no one "right" way to do something, or I might suggest that they simply avoid B for a while if possible. It all depends on what the dispute is over (and what was actually discussed in the ANI); something like the interpretation of WP:V or a WP:MOS issue falls more in the former category, content questions (like infoboxes or template use) might be better handled by the latter. Either way, I would suggest that if they feel there is a fundamental issue with the way the policy is written they should start an RFC to potentially get things updated/clarified.

Additional question from Ivanvector

9. A new user named "Pistolfan79" makes this edit on their own talk page: {{edit semi-protected}} In 1976 the sex pistols wanted to have syd barrett work on their first album so they asked him to be the producer. He came to the studio to hear them play but he didnt want to work with the band and he called their music bollocks. So they called the album "never mind the bollocks" and their bass player changed his name to syd vicious to make fun of the insult. Please change the article because the hamster story is dumb. For your answer, please write the edit you would make in response to this user.

A: {{edit semi-protected|ans=yes}}

I have declined your request for a few reasons. First, the Sex Pistols page isn't semi-protected, meaning you don't have to use the template. Second, an edit request like this should happen on the talk page of the article in question (either Talk:Sex Pistols or Talk:Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols, depending on which page you want changed) so that more editors will see it. Third, you have not provided any independent reliable sources to verify this claim. Without a reference there's no way for readers to verify that the claim is correct. This is especially important because the current content in the article is sourced, and anything changing the narrative will require good references. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Tigraan

10. At WP:AFD you come across a discussion that has run for more than a week for page X. The page has only two edits (creation and AfD nomination) and is a one-line stub "The great and fantastic X is the best minister of education Moldavia has ever had." The nomination states "per WP:BIO", there are three delete !votes "per nom", "puff page", and "hoax". What do you do?

A: Google the minister to see if they exist and meet WP:POLITICIAN and/or WP:GNG. I would then !vote based on the sources found (or lack thereof). If voting keep, I would remove the puffery from the article and add a reference or two.

Additional questions from Northamerica1000

11. What is your viewpoint regarding the speedy keep criteria?

A: WP:SKCRIT is well-written and covers a large range of potential situations a user could find themselves in, including a number of rather helpful exceptions and examples. The criteria make sense and leave little room for interpretation, though I suppose that's the point.

12. Do you feel that WP:INVOLVED pertains to deletion discussions?

A: Absolutely; I think it goes hand-in-hand with WP:SUPERVOTE. An admin needs to either leave their personal feelings out of the close or just give a !vote (of course, if they have been involved in the discussion pre-XFD they shouldn't really be considering the former). Once the discussion has started, other than a valid withdrawal (per WP:HEY etc) I can't think of a reason why an admin who !voted on a discussion would even need to close it (plenty of other admins kicking about to deal with it).

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Primefac
• Requests for adminship/Primefac 2

• Links for Primefac: Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Primefac can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Yay, I get to be the first support for once! :) Support as nominator, of course. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Support--Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Support - it's difficult writing a well reasoned support with two distinguished nominators taking all the good points. Primefac is yet another editor who always struck me as being an `administrator without tools` - but that's not to say they don't need them! TFD is somewhere which could do with an experienced administrator, and I believe Primefac has taken on board the comments from their previous RfA and vastly improved -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 21:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Support as the other nominator. (Right OR, your turn for litter tray duty, that'll learn ya). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Net Positive, Someone who we can trust with the mop. Would make a great contribution to the list of administrators. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Support Experienced editor with sound judgement. Sn1per (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
7. Support Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) 22:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose because we are getting too many administrators. No, I mean Support, and in fact strong support. I supported (or at least moral supported) last time, when the issue was not enough mastery of the deletion minefield. That's readily fixable via experience, and if Ritchie, who opposed last time, and OR say that it's been fixed, then that's good enough for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
9. Support A clean block log on its and its bot's account. Conclusive proof that this editor would not abuse the tools. Minima© (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
10. Support - always a good sign when an opposer from a previous RfA is now one of the noms. I looked into some of the opposes from the previous RfA, particularly the AfD actions. While I don't categorize AfD !votes as "correct" or "incorrect," (but I know what you mean, Ritchie) I see rational, policy-based reasoning. I am particularly impressed by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comet appearances in china. I have long appreciated Primefac's participation at AfC. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
11. Support I was very close to reaching out to Primefac about a nomination myself (with just having not got around to it being my only excuse), so this is an easy support from me. Sam Walton (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
12. Support per noms, clear net positive. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 22:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
13. Support because I see no good reason not to. Also, someone should let the 2 admins and 8 other users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comet appearances in china who !voted delete know that they can't be admins now. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
14. Support per noms, nothing to add without repeating them. Yintan  23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
15. Support. No issues from myself. I'm not as active as I want to be at TfD, but every time I'm there I've been impressed by Primefac's contributions. The mop will do nothing but improve the candidate's already substantial work there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
16. Support, as a clear net positive and a great editor! Enterprisey (talk!) 23:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
17. Support No doubt a net positive.Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 23:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
18. Support because I don't agree that having been wrong on an AfD one time automatically disqualifies a candidate. Also, the candidate isn't a deletionist because of a single delete !vote. Lepricavark (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
19. Support - Participation with the project is good and no concerns about handing over the tools. -- Dane ^talk 23:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
20. Support- An improvement has definitely been made since the last RfA. No issues here! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 23:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
21. Support - I supported the previous RfA, and everything I've seen since confirms my opinion expressed back then. Kudos to someone willing to work on the nitty-gritty technical details. Huon (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
22. Support more admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
23. Support No problems here whatsoever. I trust primefac enough to have access to the admin toolset. Nothing more matters. --Majora (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
24. Support I've interacted with primefac before, mostly on IRC, and he's a skilled editor who will be a good admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
25. Support Frankly, I trust this user's judgement at least as much as my own, and often more. They're fair to everyone, and building an encyclopedia is their top priority. I have no concerns about their adminship. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
26. Support per noms and Lepricavark. Joshualouie711^talk 00:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
27. Support. This editor is one of three editors that make TfD work. They've consistently shown good judgement in that area, and it's imperative we give them access to the tools they need to implement their own closes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
28. Support. Clear net positive. The candidate has demonstrated an unusually strong need for the tools, and it's time to give them to him.Tazerdadog (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
29. Support. Give him the tools. As Ritchie said, another strong candidate in the batch. Likely the best RfA class I've seen over nearly ten years.   Aloha27  talk  02:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
30. Support I'd selfishly like to say I started the rush of great RFA candidates last year. In all seriousness, another great candidate and I feel confident in giving them the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
31. Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
32. Support Candidate has sufficient experience, and appears to be level-headed, rational, and overall competent. The one noteworthy problem area in the original RfA (a deletionist bent regarding WP:CSD and WP:AFD) appears to have resolved itself, as promised. A candidate who admits and learns quickly from past mistakes (as in the Q&A at and withdrawal of the too-early first RfA) displays signs of above-average good faith and willingness to self-moderate. I think Primefac has come a long way in the intervening half a year or so. To the opposers: No one has a 100% spot-on AfD record if they've actually been participating in that process in any seriousness. AfD is a non-trivial discussion involving many factors and perceptions, not a snap judgement. Observations pro and con at WP:ANI are also normal parts of the discussion process; ANI is not a Klingon tribunal and no one is doing the wrong thing in declining to auto-dogpile on everyone who is ever criticized there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
33. Support Good noms, clearly took feedback on board from last time, good amount of experience, works at TfD, generally clueful at AfD. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
34. I went through the history of the candidate's last 12 months of AfDs to get a sense for cluefulness and the evidence is generally very positive. There is the occasional misfire nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Lowater being one example, but the candidate's response is always to withdraw the nomination as soon as the error becomes apparent. The occasions on which this occurs are not numerous enough for me to draw the conclusion that the candidate acts hastily. To the contrary, most deletion nominations are well-considered and researched, yet also expressed succinctly. Then there are the examples when the candidate was probably right and the outcome probably wrong, or at least highly questionable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasteland (2013 film). That, folks, is why we shouldn't care about percentages as the nominator seems to (I refer to my comment on the talk page of this RfA). If anything, the candidate has an artificially low percentage because he takes the initiative to nominate, which is much easier than cruising along late in an AfD with a contribution that does no more than reflect an already-formed consensus. Conclusion: I've only looked at AfD but I'm happy with what I have seen. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
35. Support Administrator A Train has less than 6000 edits. KaisaL has 8012. Primefac is better than some current administrators. Marvellous Spider-Man 09:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
36. Support - excellent work on templates over a long period. Definitely a sound pair of hands for the mop. Cabayi (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
37. Support: No issues whatsoever. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
38. Support - Absolutely, yes. Primefac is an asset to Wikipedia and we can only benefit from granting him the administrative toolset. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
39. Support. The only problems last time were in knowledge of deletion policy, with perhaps a bit of doubt over length of tenure. I see no such problems now (and thanks to Mkativerata and others for their detailed investigation), and I'm happy to support. I'm sure Primefac will put the tools to good use in great work at TFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
40. Support- excellent answers to the questions. Reyk _YO! 15:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
41. Support – persistently helpful editor, clearly a net positive and hopefully a great administrator. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me 15:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
42. Support- Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
43. Support - An experienced editor who has demonstrated that they are knowledgeable and trustworthy. I see no issue for concern. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

    Support - Since the last RFA they've contributed alot to AFD etc & their CSD looks fine, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 17:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)(Moved to Oppose)

44. Support - I tend to look a lot at AfD results (as it's a place I've worked a great deal over the years). and my view rhymes more or less with that of Mkativerata above. --joe decker^talk 18:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
45. Support, based on review; does need to work on content creation, but that can be done. Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
46. Support - clear improvement since the last RFA (which I opposed), and I get the sense they will use the tools carefully and gradually. No concerns. GiantSnowman 18:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
47. Support I'd say you're in pillar 2 of my RfA criteria, which means you meet my criteria. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 18:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
48. Support Looks like a good candidate. lNeverCry 20:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
49. Support because this individual will be a net gain to the admin corps, and also to counter-act Colonel Warden/Andrew Davidson's ongoing crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
50. Support - very good response to Q9, assertive but not bitey with helpful links to boot. No concerns here. Have a cigar, you're gonna go far. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
51. Support Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
52. Support - no reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
53. Support as a strong candidate overall. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

    Support - At this time I see no reason not to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC) moved to oppose

54. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
55. Support. In Primefac's first RfA, I wrote that he was a productive editor but I thought that some more experience and improvement in the deletion area was needed. I think that improvement has been made, as others above have pointed out in more detail. His handling of deletions is careful. He has also made some content contributions since the last RfA. His demeanor is civil, polite and helpful which is very important for an administrator. He is very experienced and helpful in an area, TfD, in which more help is needed. He has stated he will work in the area. I think trustworthiness has been established; definite net positive. Donner60 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
56. Support - one of those cases where I assumed the nominee was already an admin; Primefac will make good use of the tools. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
57. Support I'm a tad concerned about the AFD nominations and the dustup with SwisterTwister, but the TFD work more than counters that. And it's a very tiny concern anyway. Mop wisely. :) Katie^talk 15:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
58. SupportGlad to have another admin to work the articles for Creation, fully support. L3X1 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
59. Support, tough with a stern warning against withdrawing nominations where someone else !voted. However, considering that (1) in Q1 they do not say they wish exercise admin powers at AfD, (2) the answer of Q10 is good (OK, maybe the trap was obvious) and (3) plenty of flak was already given at the first RfA at this very point, I think the risk of problems here is minimal. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
60. Support. (Moved from "neutral".) Being pointed out about PrimeBOT's existence and noticing the work that it does is enough for me to bypass any concerns I had, and puts me in this column for the long run. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
61. Very happy to support. I have every confidence Primefac will be a good admin. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
62. Strong Support - Absolutely ! - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
63. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. No concerns.--v/r - TP 00:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
64. Support: Good candidate, no worries. --Drmargi (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
65. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
66. Support - (edit conflict x 1) Has over 63,000 edits. Overall a net positive, although I agree with many of the opposers. Will be good to have another admin bot, after Cyberpower678's second rfa was closed. J947 03:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
67. Support Net positive, have seen good things. Gap9551 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
68. Support Why not? Jianhui67 ^T★C 10:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
69. Support - no issues that would make me want to oppose. Best of luck. Patient Zero^talk 12:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
70. Support. I see nothing objectionable about his conduct on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahmoud Hessabi. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
71. Support - I do not find the closure of MH's AfD concerning as the subject clearly passed NPOLITICIAN. If anything, I interpret this as one of the rare instances where IAR was applied appropriately. The other closure was probably not right but hey, he's a human after all and we all make mistakes. I fail to see how that one little and harmless error in judgment is a representative of his understanding of policies overall - which, by an examination of his contributions over the years, is pretty good. To err is human. The one time slip in judgment is not convincing at all.  — Yash ^talk stalk 14:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
72. Support per demonstrated need for the tools, and sensible answers to questions. To me, Primefac's actions at AfDs quoted by opponents demonstrate readiness to admit being wrong, and taking sensible steps to rectify the situation. No such user (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
73. Support, no issues of concern. Opposition rationale is unconvincing. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
74. Support, again. I'm impressed that an opposer of your first RfA is a nom of this one. Miniapolis 17:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
75. Best of luck in your new role. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
76. Support No issues of concern and no red flags. – The Bounder (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
77. Support Helpful on IRC, WP:NETPOSITIVE, grasp of policies/guidelines, per Miniapolis too. --JustBerry (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
78. Support, oppose section is utterly unconvincing, mostly nitpicking over a single AfD. Laurdecl ^talk 03:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
79. Looks like a good candidate. If Opabinia regalis thinks you're sane, that's certainly a point in your favour. The opposes are also unconvincing to me. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
80. Support seems clueful enough. Previous concerns on knowledge of deletion policy appear to have been addressed. –Grondemar 10:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
81. Support Was very impressed by his contributions in the Riz Story case. Bondegezou (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
82. Support Net positive. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
83. Support The nominators' presentations are very convincing. The oppose arguments are not. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
84. Support. I trust this user's judgment. /wiae 🎄 02:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
85. Support. Clueful and experienced. Definite asset to the admin corps. -- œ^™ 06:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
86. Support: The nominators' arguments are convincing while the oppose arguments...not. A net positive! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
87. Support Well-rounded candidate; will be a useful asset to the project with the tools. Spencer^T♦C 17:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
88. Support It seems user has done really good contribution to our project. I believe he will do even more having the mop. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
89. Support I don't see any wrong with this candidate. I see the usual standard opposers have been in... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
90. I'll support, somewhat tentatively, on the assumption that during the course of this RFA the candidate will acknowledge a recent mistake with respect to the speedy keep criteria and promise to adhere closely to the community's guidance on speedies (whether for keep or delete) in future. I think they may have missed the point of NorthAmerica1000's questions, which doesn't entirely fill me with confidence.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
91. Support, good well-rounded editor. I've reviewed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comet appearances in china and don't think it's a mistake that will be repeated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
92. Support - no concerns.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
93. Support - I am familiar with Primefac and unconvinced by those opposing.--John Cline (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
94. Support with the minor sticking point out of the way in the general comments below (which is not something I planned to oppose over, to be clear), I have no reservations and hope those in the oppose column will consider Primefac's reply there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
95. Support Why not? ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:27, 16 Tevet 5777 / 23:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
96. Support It's good to see a candidate who wants to focus on diplomacy and discussion rather than trying to apply hard and fast rules to every situation. I think that excuses any perceived mistakes at AFD. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
97. Support. No concerns whatsoever. Seems a very helpful user. Would use the tools wisely. Best of luck ;) RadiX∞ 04:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
98. Seems clueful. Yeah, imperfect at AfD, but not enough to concern me. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
99. Support despite AfD track record. He is a qualified editor and would definitely be a net positive with the tools. YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong? • Happy birthday Wikipedia!} 12:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
100. Support Good candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
101. Support I've reviewed the candidate's Afd contributions. I've also interacted with them and have had absolutely opposing viewpoints. Yet, I've found the candidate's attitude at Afds positive and the overall orientation towards learning very motivating. I'm absolutely confident that Prime would be a significant plus for the admin taskforce. Lourdes 17:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
102. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 20:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
103. Support No reason not to. ♠TomasBat 22:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
104. Support likely to be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
105. Support. Per Mackensen. As a community, we need to rethink how we're dealing with obvious advocacy editing in a way that doesn't involve leaving advertorials and hagiographies publicly visible as the subject's #1 or #2 google hit, while leaving the door open for a properly sourced, independent, neutral article on notable subjects and topics. Consensus can change. Risker (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
106. Support. The discussions in which I've participated or just read gave me the impression that this editor was already an admin! Carries well, so another who would be good with the mop.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 02:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
107. Support - TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
108. Support. Primefac helps and encourages other users, considers carefully before taking action, accepts consensus and edits accordingly, and, importantly, has been willing to admit mistakes and learn from them. These are all good qualities in an admin. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
109. Support – You had me already at "histmerge", these tasks are import!ant and unfortunately underrated by many contributors committing good-faith copyvios. I hope that you sometimes also be willing to do warnings and blocks for harrassment, as uncivility is another key problem to be addressed IMHO. Good luck for your new role! --.js (((☎))) 17:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
110. Support – He seems like a hard worker and his answers here are clear, articulate and to-the-point. He makes reasonable statements in a reasonable way, and seems to have empathy with editors with whom he might not agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
111. Support – No concerns. The opposers might have picked out something amiss with occasional AfD , but closing AfD is not an exact science and all admins sometimes get it wrong - including me. It's by no means the only area where admins work and there don't seem to be any other solid issues over this candidacy. I notice that one serial opposer is, as almost always, the first to get their opinion in the section, reinforcing once more the observation now beginning to be made by others, that it represents a pattern, giving rise to concern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The candidate's content creation seems weak but promising. When I browse their AfD record, I find them nominating Comet appearances in china just a few weeks ago. This demonstrates a significant lack of understanding. The topic is really quite notable and anyone with an interest in astronomy should be aware of that. So, this seems to indicate a significant failure to search for sources or consider alternatives to deletion. The nomination is relisted and eventually some editors with more clue reach it and sort the matter out better. During this protracted discussion, the candidate moves a table from the page in question to another page. They do not seem aware that cut/paste moves of this kind will invalidate such deletion because of the need for proper attribution. Overall, this indicates a preference to delete as the first and only option rather than considering gentler and more sensible alternatives such as merger. They need to have created more pages of their own and so have more skin in the game before they are able to delete the work of others. Andrew D. (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   You declined to mention that the candidate withdrew the nomination. --Izno (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   That close was technically quite sloppy. It was improper to make the close because the candidate was involved and there were delete !votes which had not been withdrawn. And it was described as a "Speedy Keep" when, in fact, it was over three weeks since the nomination. Overall, my impression is that the candidate still doesn't have a sure grasp of deletion policy and proper procedure. Andrew D. (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   There was no significant lack of understanding in the nomination of the article for deletion. I made the first Keep vote after two Delete votes. The original state of the article was just as Primefac said in his nomination. I happened to know the history and importance of the subject, guessed the original editor's intent, and suggested renaming and improving since references exist on the subject. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   I like StarryGrandma's work as I fancy that there was a keen twinkle in their eye when they created In the Neolithic Age. I would rather support them as an admin but must beg to differ with them in this case. The candidate nominated the page in question because it seemed too narrow – an "arbitrary cross-categorization". There's an alternative to deletion in such a case – merger into a broader page such as List of comets. It is our policy to prefer such softer actions – see WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE – but some editors rush straight to deletion because tools like Twinkle make it easy. You don't need to know anything about Chinese astronomy to get this right; you need to understand our policies. Andrew D. (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose based from contributions which are still not in a convincing capacity of needing adminship, Draft reviewing is not as impressive and especially not the bias against declining or nominating WP:PROF articles for deletion: Nearly any WP:PROF nomination was closed in either withdraw or keep. That therefore puts genuine concerns what a user with adminship would nominate or delete against genuine articles simply because of a self-imposed understanding of WP:PROF, which is one of the exact notabilities we have. Contributions also show a temper against other users including rollbacking a user's Draft review simply because they disagreed with the decline nomination. Along the same lines, the recent comments at a user's ANI supporting their actions make me concerned about the behavior imposed should there be adminship. This all is something that any Supporter should carefully examine in contributions, and Note all of these things have happened in the last months thus both easily findable and easily noticeable. Better is expected from a user who contemplates adminship and close examination of their contributions and temperament is something not taken lightly. Diffs can also be shown about this. While temperament can be changed, I see nothing to forgo that in exchange for adminship. All in all, that's not something convincing in an admin and not something I can support. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   I'm struggling to understand this - it seems unduly verbose just for the sake of being verbose. What I would appreciate is diffs demonstrating the behavioural issues you cite. Nick (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   I am unfamiliar with the candidate's work and so am not yet sure whether I'll be either supporting or opposing, but I believe SwisterTwister is referring to this AN/I he started at the end of December, where the candidate was the first to point out what he saw as a possible extenuating factor. I see also that it was the candidate who noticed SwisterTwister had started several other AfDs without notifying the article creators and had himself remedied that, which impresses me as the kind of initiative and helpfulness I like to see in admins. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   Yeah, we're definitely going to need diffs. Without them, this appears to be retaliatory because the editor disagreed with you at an ANI thread you started. His behavior in that thread was exemplary, attempting to de-escalate a situation caused by mistakes on both sides instead of escalating further. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   As for the Draft rollbacking, it was one of the last reviews involving rollbacking an experienced user, Robert McClenon' review (about 2 months ago so I'll search for the diff). Also, as for the ANI: "it appears that the issue only lies with ST and yourself. For everyone else that has interacted with them (see their talk, Jo-Jo Emeritus' page, etc) they're fairly pleasant" is not what's wanted in an admin and it was never "fairly pleasant" to begin with, as it only fuels the ANI situation, i.e. not acknowledging the fact the user was taken to ANI 3 times for the same hostility, not to mention the ANI user continued their attacks while this comment was said. "I think this is a case of some misunderstandings" is the same case where it's an understatement given the repeated attacks ongoing. That's provoking the situation, not improving it, and provocation isn't what's exemplary in an admin. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   As far as the AFC goes, I believe SwisterTwister is referring to this edit. The decline was for minor MOS/ELINK violations, which has long been held to not be a valid decline reason. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   Is there any chance of diffs supporting these accusations, at all ? Nick (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose The Mahmoud Hessabi AfD really gives me concerns. Yes, I get the arguments about knowing when you are outnumbered and withdrawing an AfD after being presented with other options. I respect that. My concerns are with not doing WP:BEFORE when there was a claim to be a cabinet minister in the article, and then when this was pointed out, closing it as withdraw while there was another editor advancing deletion acknowledging the WP:NPOL claim but not thinking it sufficient to merit a keep !vote. WP:SKCRIT makes it pretty clear that it is not applicable then. Same issue with Comet appearances in china. There were multiple delete !votes even coming a few hours before it was closed as withdrawn, and he should have just left it for an administrator to close. All this to say: these are both recent, and they both show a lack of understanding of the deletion process below the level I am comfortable with for an admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
   • (Moved my !vote from here to neutral). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   In both of these cases, I see a valid application of WP:IAR. Primefac erred on the side of inclusion after civil discussions with people who disagreed with them, and did what is best for the article, including cleaning it up to stop a possible drive-by deletion via WP:CSD#G11. His comment "the only information I can find regarding Hessabi is the information disseminated by his son through his "Museum". Nearly every source has the same list of accomplishments, and quite frankly I can't verify a single one" would suggest he understands WP:BEFORE, in my view. If there was an actual problem with these AfDs, a participant would have complained on somebody's talk page or taken the matter to WP:DRV - but they didn't. Since the standards of RfA have got higher and higher, non-admin AfD closures have got more lax (although we still issue sanctions where there are problems). Meanwhile, I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A1232 road as speedy keep with one outstanding delete vote, and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katy Katopodis as WP:IAR, including deleting an article I voted on! When am I getting desysopped? Kudpung has previously brushed off the IP that was involved on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahmoud Hessabi in a civil manner with Primefac - when is he getting desysopped? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose - I generally oppose giving the admin bit to bot operators until there is some way to keep their editing under control. This !vote is not necessarily a reflection on Primefac, I simply oppose the accumulation of unchecked power that bot op + admin brings about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   And what methods do you suggest for keeping bot operators "under control"? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   That has nothing to do with the stated oppose. It's like asking someone who has opposed on the grounds of not being a content contributor what they think should be done about CIO. It is entirely unconnected what BMK thinks should be done, it wouldn't reduce whatever concern he has. Leaky Caldron 00:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   It's extremely relevant, because if there's no change BMK is looking for, then he's providing a blanket oppose to all botops becoming admins. This would certainly be weighted less by bureaucrats. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   That is their prerogative, but I don't think it would make any difference if I were to have a plan for wrangling bot operators, since the probability of that specific scheme coming to fruition would be extremely small, given Wikipedia's very contentious consensus process. So, someone needs to come up with something, in my opinion, and - yes - that means that I will most probably object to making bot operators sysops until that happens, on the grounds that the accumulation of power is too great, and the checks against it are practically non-existent. That objection is my prerogative. All I can say to any bureaucrats who may be thinking of giving this oppose less weight (and why would they even do that, considering that Primefac is going to skate through anyway?) is that it's as least as good a rationale as "Why not?" and the many other totally pro forma supports that (I assume) don't get weighted less. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   Rob, I would say that the middle of an RfA is not the place to promote a debate on such a topic. You can be sure that if BMK did offer a proposal others would chip in and before you know it the RfA becomes a quasi RfC. RfA is exclusively to assess the candidate. Raising the less weight argument for this !vote in this particular RfA does not really hold water, Rob. Leaky Caldron 08:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   How about "no weight at all"? This sort of blanket opposition to adminship for an entire class of skilled contributors is harmful to the respect the community should share for all the different means of assisting the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   How so? Skill as a bot operator doesn't necessarily equate to skill as an admin, who, generally speaking, need a lot more social skills than they do programming ones. Blanket oppositions are not a new thing, and not necessarily a bad thing: we blanket oppose vandals, don't we, and people who might make great admins but have very little experience? And excited clueless newbies? Most people won't !vote for a nominee who has an extensive block log, or even a non-extensive recent block - that's a blanket opposition. A lot of people want to see a certain amount of content creation. You say "blanket opposition", I say "personal criteria". This is the second time you've said that my personal criteria is harmful to the project, but you must know that I would never knowingly do harm to the project, and that I'm pretty far from being stupid, so I must have thought things through.

   Let me ask, have you ever, for instance, criticized Fastily for !voting a "Why not?" support for virtually every RfA nominee? Do you really think that kind of knee-jerk !voting is helpful to the project, but that my thoughtful opinions are "harmful"? Are you espousing a double standard for editors who oppose and editors who support? Would you prefer that I simply find some equivalent of "Why not?" for any oppose !vote I cast, instead of giving a specific, reasoned, rationale?

   I know you cannot comment on it, but the case currently before ArbCom is a specific example showing that the accumulation of power represented by being an admin and also being a bot operator is a potential problem. I'm quite clear in saying that when the community comes up with a reasonable way to insure that all bot operators (and the large majority of them, even some that go overboard with their cosmetic edits, do very valuable work for the project) adhere to community consensus, that I would then change my criteria. That means that I perceive a problem (perhaps you don't), and I'm responding to it in a reasonable way designed not to harm the encyclopedia, but to help keep the community from being overridden by "super editors" who are also admins. Now, if you can make a good argument for why bot operators need to be admins, I'll certainly consider it seriously, and if I agree with your argument, I'll alter my criteria accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   Not to rehash the discussion we had last month, but in it, we established that the basis you had expressed for opposing an earlier RfA (and which I did indeed believe was inappropriate) was not actually the criterion you were using, which was significantly more nuanced. Here too, I wonder if your last sentence suggests that you've made a broader statement than on reflection you might have intended. I am certainly not suggesting that "bot operators need to be admins"; there are certainly bot operators who should not be admins, whether because of inexperience, inexpertise, temperament, or plain old lack of interest. And no one is saying—I'm certainly not saying—that the candidate's "skill as a bot operator ... necessarily equates to skill as an admin"; the purpose of the RfA is to collectively decide whether the candidate's bot work, coupled with everything else he's done and everything else relevant we know about him, leaves us with the confidence that he is qualified. In other words, the question is not whether bot operators need to be admins, or whether bot operators as a class should be made admins, but whether this particular editor, who happens to be a bot operator among his other areas of wiki-participation, is qualified for adminship. If you really believe that operating a bot should be a blanket disqualification at RfA, comparable to being a vandal, or an inexperienced editor, or an often-blocked one, or an "excited clueless newbie," then I certainly do regard that as an unreasonable and inappropriate position that should not be taken. On another aspect of what you've written, "overconcentration of power" arguments may sometimes have merit in other contexts, but that is when the overconcentration defeats ordinary checks-and-balances, or deprives other users of an opportunity to fill roles; here, botmaster and admin are not incompatible roles, and we have no limits on either the number of admins or the numbers of bots. Lastly, without getting near the merits of any current arbitration case, I'm familiar with substantially all the cases since 2006, and I'd wager that the percentage of admins who are also bot-operators and who wind up in arbitration is smaller than the percentage of those who are not. I realize that yours is just an isolated oppose !vote in RfA that is going to pass, and perhaps I should have just let it go, but I fear that sweeping comments opposing adminship for an entire and important subgroup of editors are divisive and demoralizing, although I gladly accept that you did not intend them that way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   There are, in fact, few if any "checks and balances" against improper actions by bot operators at all, since no one really tracks their edits, and they are therfore de facto a fait accompli. We have been extraordinarily lucky that the majority of bot operators have been scrupulous about following community consensus, but BRFA admits that policing the bots they approve is not part of their purview, and very few Wikipedians are even aware of BRFA's existence in the first place, so never take part in their discussions. This means that BRFA could approve bot operations which are opposed to community consensus - because there are virtually no non-bot operating community members involved in their discussions - and then not follow up to see that the botops are doing what they're supposed to do. Given the extraordinary power of bot editing, that in itself is an incredible mess, but when you also give the bot operator the ability of an admin, you're handing them a tool which, essentially, gives them practically unlimited power and, worse, the attitude that questioning what they're doing is in itself harmful to Wikipedia.. The only thing which prevents them from utilizing this power is the good will of the bot operators themselves, and, frankly, that is just not enough, given the frailties of human nature. We need specific, effective, community controls over bot operators, completely separate fromm the technical approvals issued by BRFA. Once those are in place. then making a bot operator an admin may make sense, but until they are, it's simply too much uncontrolled power in the hands of a limited number of people who can, through there massive umber ofd edits, override community consensus with impunity, should they have the desire to do so. This has nothing to do with AGF, and everything to do with the same theory of "check and balances" incorporated in the American constitution and the constitutions of most democracies around he world. Your objection to my espousal of this as "harmful" to Wikipedia I find to be unfounded and, frankly, insulting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose: My spirit tells me he will be a better Wikipedia editor withoit the mop. Darreg (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   Do you mean that administrative duties would replace content creation at the detriment of the encyclopedia, or that they are a hat collector whose personal attitude would deteriorate if given the mop? If it is the former, then "too much content creation" is a new oppose rationale at RfA, and if it is the latter, maybe you could elaborate. (I know such things boil down to "gut instinct" sometimes, but still, you must have an objective basis.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   Could your spirit elaborate a little? I have not yet decided, and I am curious to hear the reasoning. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   There has for a long time been a general notion that becoming an admin means the user will spend less time on content work. Trivially, this is only not true if becoming an admin increases the amount of time a user spends on Wikipedia, the user refrains from admin duties entirely, or magically becomes more time-efficient in their "content" work. Samsara 12:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   It would also not be true if they still spend the same % of their time on content work, and replaced their anti-vandal work with admin work, for example. Sam Walton (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   Even if true, Wikipedia is a volunteering project, and any editor can work in whatever areas they want (within their permissions). It is not up to us to decide what the candidate should work on. We shouldn't withhold them the admin tools just because we think they should use their valuable skills elsewhere. Gap9551 (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

   becoming an admin means the user will spend less time on content work (assuming same total time spent) - well, duh, but that would be a reason to oppose any candidate with content creation. If article creators are too valuable to put them on the vandal whack-a-mole, and non-article-creators are too clueless to have the mop, it is hard to see who should be an admin. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

6. Oppose The AfD positions have, frankly, been unusual. When a person !votes "delete" 90+% of the time, that is not specifically an issue per se, but where about half of the "delete" !votes end up in Keep or default Keep results, then one might well see a problem. Collect (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Mediocre content creation. More importantly, I too am concerned about the "Comet appearances in china" AfD closure. WP:SKCRIT point one states "no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected". Yet Primefac knew that "almost half of them have changed their opinions", which implies that more than half did not indicate a change of opinion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   I notice in that AfD that after being relisted on 14 November, the debate sat unclosed for over two weeks before Primefac struck his delete vote on 29 November. The comment "Too many dels to simply withdraw" certainly gives me the impression he was perfectly aware of the general speedy keep criteria, and made a conscious decision to ignore it. Only after a further two days (by which time the AfD had been open for almost a month) did it get NAC closed, presumably after he wondered why no admin was going to close it. As I said earlier, this is pretty much exactly what I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A1232 road. Others may disagree but I'd personally rather have somebody who takes the initiative on doing something and moving things forward, than leaving things hanging because they're afraid of somebody coming down on them for violating "the rules". Just my 2c. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

8. Per the inappropriate AfD closure mentioned by Andrew Davidson.  Sandstein  15:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose I !voted delete in that AfD about comets and China. Primefac, in violation of WP:WDAFD, withdrew out of embarrassment. That was only last month. If the candidate didn't know/ chose not to follow instructions then there's no way I think they should be interpreting or enforcing them now. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Something not right with the AfD issues being raised. Until someone without previous involvement in this RfA can clarify the various concerns raised I will stay here. Leaky Caldron 21:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
11. Oppose The nom's AfD record shows a massive disagreement with the outcomes at AfD. It's worth noting that the vast majority of those were in the fairly distant past. But these two nominations ([1] and [2]) are much more recent and show a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of our polices. You're allowed to make mistakes. But mistakes so recent (last 6 weeks) really aren't acceptable in an admin who will have the ability to close AfDs. Hobit (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Per Hobit, Collect & others. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose due to the AFD closure issues, There seems to be a lack of understanding with AFDs and I'm not best pleased with the China AFD closure either, I expect potential admins to know AFD like the back of their hand although fair do's we all make mistakes but IMHO these are one mistake too many so I cannot support. –Davey2010^Talk 01:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
14. Oppose – At this time, there is discussion occuring at Wikipedia talk:Drafts about the continued usefulness of G13, portions of which call into question the stance taken by AFC participants that any work done in draftspace is subject to their whims. Primefac is one of numerous AFC participants who have chosen to use AFC's WP:OWN attitude towards draftspace and G13 to attack my efforts to expand our coverage of notable topics that won't evolve as swiftly as those predicated on today's or yesterday's headlines. As a result, I've taken those projects offline and am working on them offline. I'll be happy to bring them back when I see evidence that others are here to collaborate as we refer to in the first two paragraphs of WP:ABOUT, as opposed to one-way judgment pipelines and treating such content as cannon fodder for the WP:MAW warriors to further pollute my watchlist with millions of frivilous edits. Otherwise, there's a billion-plus other websites in the world, many of which are just as starved for meaningful content as this one. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
15. Oppose Regrettably, because my (limited) interactions with Primefac have given me the impression that they are usually fair and reasonable. The AfD issues might not seem that important to people who don't deal with deletion discussions very often, but speaking as an editor who is not an Administrator, it becomes very awkward when you have to explain the basic processes like WP:BEFORE to an Admin. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
16. Oppose the combination of bot operator, so deletionist that Swister Twister opposes, and lack of content creation prompt me to believe that this is not the kind of admin candidate who will nurture a culture of collaboration. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
17. Oppose based on his failed merge at Template:Infobox NFL biography. In November 2015, I reverted a merge by Primefac after complaints about the output (see Template_talk:Infobox_NFL_biography/Archive_12#Question). While Primefac was attempting to merge {{Infobox NFL player}} and {{Infobox NFL coach}} to {{Infobox NFL biography}}, he never tested the merged template against existing test cases, nor solicited WikiProject feedback on any behavior that was to be changed. While I informed him of the revert and asked him to supply test cases for the proposed merge[3], he did not respond until 4 days later: "My apologies for being absent on this, I was busy with other things (though it looks like things are proceeding well)." [4] As a template editor, he failed to follow Wikipedia:Template_editor#Wise_template_editing ("Each template has a default testcases subpage which should be used for this purpose. It is important to test whether your changes have introduced any errors or not, which can be easy to spot if test cases are well-set up."), and was not responsive after breaking the highly-visible template. He was editing other pages during the 4 days in question (Nov 24–28, 2015)[5]. Ultimately, It ended up being a complicated merge, taking over six months to complete.[6]—Bagumba (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
18. Oppose  I sampled 9 AfDs starting 5 July 2016 and while the workmanship is better than examples from WP:ATA, I found substantive flaws in a majority.  Following are quotes from four of those AfDs.  "Delete...I can't find a single source not directly connected to the case itself. BLP1E all the way. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)"  While it is questionable to cite a redacted post, I don't think the reason for redacting is because he is redacting that part that said, "I think G2 would be perfectly acceptable...even if the CSD criteria don't fit... Primefac (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)"  "All in all, a man with money to spend is not inherently notable. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)"  "[The sources are] reliable, sure, but I have often seen it (successfully) argued that 'only local coverage' does not demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)"  Unscintillating (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
19. Oppose: Way too many AfD problems, for starters (including the issues brought up by NorthAmerica1000 in the Neutral section), and AfD is one of the places where admins need to be very clear, very fair, and nearly flawless. And the fact that SwisterTwister considers him too deletionist sets off all kinds of alarm bells. I can't support now, but if the candidate puts in at least six months focusing mainly on content work (yes, content creation -- prose, not lists) and learning how to do WP:BEFORE (ask NorthAmerica1000 for pointers; in fact, use him as a mentor for all things AfD) and improving vastly at AFD (not gaming but really improving skills to be as good as NA1000), I'd be more inclined to support at some point in the future. Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
20. Oppose per AfD concerns. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 15:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
21. Oppose: for too many flaws within AfDs and echoing entirely Softlavender. Fylbecatulous talk 20:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. I like the apparent efforts in creating articles since the last RFA, and the candidate appears to be quite civil. Also, the candidate's work at TFD and AFC seem great. And the CSD log looks significantly better since the last RFA. But the primary basis for opposes in the last RFA were related to AFD. The AFD stats definitely show improvement, as User:Ritchie333 showed 83% in the last 100. But there are a few things that I noticed. WP:WDAFD says "If no-one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it." In the Mario Luis Small AFD from December, the candidate closed and wrote "Withdrawn under protest; a low-level "named chair" should not automatically mean PROF is met, but I am clearly in the minority." So it appears that without changing his mind, the candidate chose to withdraw and close the AFD while still arguing an interpretation of wp:prof? I don't get it. As User:Andrew_Davidson noted, the candidate withdrew and closed the Comet appearances AFD(also from December) as speedy keep despite multiple delete !votes. He wrote "...relatively large number of delete !votes, but almost half of them have changed their opinions...", indicating an awareness of the delete !votes, and that half had not changed their !votes. There was also the Mahmoud Hessabi AFD from November, which the candidate also withdrew while there had been two delete !votes. And there was the Pen Pineapple AFD nominated and closed by the candidate in October as withdrawn despite 2 delete !votes. In this one the candidate wrote "Delete !votes not a significant proportion of the total." These seem like a either very careless mistakes, or indicate a lack of understanding a rather simple part of WP:AFD. I am curious about the use of "TL,DR" in nominating Mahmoud Hessabi. I believe it means "too long, didn't read", which would seem troubling in the context of an AFD. I think that a good RFA candidate should have demonstrated understanding of policy, but also an attention to detail. Assuming "TL,DR" had the meaning previously indicated, should an editor read things thoroughly before going to AFD? Should someone who uses "TL,DR" be trusted with the being an admin? Perhaps it is only this instance. I don't know. There also is the Frances Lowater AFD, nominated and withdrawn by the candidate in March. And the Wasteland AFD nominated and withdrawn by the candidate in May. User:Cryptic commented the candidate "should be doing more WP:BEFORE ". Perhaps this is still the case, but are AFD issues still a valid and sufficient basis to !vote oppose?  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  10:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   Not to put words in the candidate's mouth, but that "TLDR" you take such exception to in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahmoud Hessabi is clearly a reference to his own nomination statement, not the article he nominated. It could've been phrased without changing the meaning at all as "To summarize,". —Cryptic 11:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   Sounds like he's intelligent enough to give up when he's outnumbered, but principled enough to retain his beliefs in the face of opposition. A positive in my book. Jacona (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I find it concerning that both Andrew D. and SwisterTwister opposed on the grounds that he leans too far towards deletion in AfD. On the other hand, TfD needs more admins and the TfD crowd praised Primefac highly, so I'm reluctant to oppose. Deryck C. 22:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   Neutral. I've been thinking, and I'm sitting here for now. I'm familiar with where the nominee helps out the most: WP:TFD. The only thing is that the need for admin tools at WP:TFD was neutered a year or so ago when consensus was formed to allow non-admins to close discussions there to "delete". I'm on the fence here mainly since I honestly have no idea where else they have a proven demeanor to utilize the admin toolset, and I now feel the need to review the comments in this RFA's oppose section and the nom's answers to questions to make a further assessment of the nominee. Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   Technically, the consensus was to allow non-admins to close discussions as "orphan", but I digress. Giving Primefac the toolset would allow them to actually carry out a closure of delete, and save a lot of hassle for the deleting admins that have to tie off the loose ends. Furthermore, "WP:NONEED" for the tools is a poor argument... If they are trusted enough, why does it matter how often they'll use them? -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   Fair enough about the "delete" vs. " orphan" comment. However, I did try to a rather fair attempt to make my comment as far away as a "WP:NONEED" comment as I could. What I'm more or less trying to relay is that my limited familiarity with the nominee makes me unclear where else they have participated in the project other than WP:TFD. For all of the other recent candidates, I have at least seen them edit somewhere else before where administrative functions could definitely be helpful, but not this nominee ... which, for me, is a bit surprising since I have seen a lot of Wikipedia ... even parts of Wikipedia that happened years before I even performed my first edit. I'll probably be convinced one way or another after reviewing the questions, but the TFD thought was just the first one that came to mind. Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   One possibility, and something that hasn't been mentioned anywhere in this RfA yet, is PrimeBOT (talk · contribs), that performs routine template-oriented tasks. Similarly to what I said over on Cyberpower's RfA, it could be useful to run the bot on template-protected pages every now and again - I have noticed it touches project and template pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games, some of which do see high usage. Anyone who is technically savvy enough to run a bot and has the time to maintain it is worth considering. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   In addition to the bot, Primefac does a lot of AfC work, where admin tools are handy for routine chores - to clean up redirects, fix newbie errors like copy-paste moves, etc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Ritchie333: I wasn't aware of PrimeBOT's existence until now, but reviewing its most recent few edits, it performs a rather redundant and thankless task that I was doing while I was moving all the pages beginning in the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" to respective "Draft:" namespace pages whenever I found them. That alone ... and the fact that I don't see any errors with that bot's edits moves me to support Primefac's RFA without a second thought. (So ... I'll have a tea, please. )
   @Opabinia regalis: My experience with the AfC process is a bit limited to what I just mentioned to Ritchie333, as well as starting a major discussion related to the G13 speedy deletion criterion when it was established, specifically a discussion to narrow/clarify the criterion and a supplementary discussion regarding if a bot should be assigned to perform the G13 deletions automatically (which was opposed, but I had to ask/find out.) Either way, I'm now convinced to support this RFA and will be moving my vote in my following edit. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose for now (sorry). Neutral (moved from oppose). Primefac has recently closed two AfD discussions as "speedy keep" (link) and "withdrawn" (link), despite outstanding delete !votes present in the discussions. This goes against WP:SK, a deletion guideline page, point #3 of WP:CLOSEAFD, and is dismissive of opinions for deletion in the respective AfD discussions. Such discussions should be closed by an uninvolved administrator or user, per the gist/first sentence of WP:INVOLVED. However, I can also understand that users may not have read every deletion policy and guideline page that exists. Nevertheless, admin candidates should be aware of these matters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Link to the candidate's first RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Primefac. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Primefac: A couple of the opposes pointed to these two AfDs. In particular the speedy keeps. Closing a discussion as withdrawn despite others having voiced delete !votes is pretty explicitly problematic per WP:SKCRIT. To me this seems like an easy mistake to simply say "yeah that was a mistake and won't happen again". I get not wanting to respond to every oppose, but saying as much may be helpful (either here or as an addition to the response to the SK question). FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

And others (notably me I guess) have refuted this as WP:IAR means it is a non-issue, because the AfD closure did not lead to complaints or a deletion review. When you actually look at the diffs and not the incomplete and biased version of events Andrew presented, the impression you should get is that there are not enough admins around to close AfDs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, you're right on both counts. I messed up on those two closes by ending them early, but I didn't feel I should respond to every oppose with that comment for fear that some would view it as meaningless placation (I think that's specifically mentioned in the RfA advice).

I've thought a lot about those two closes in the last five days; how I could have approached them differently, how I could have talked to WT:AST like I have with a dozen other subjects over the last three years, how it will change my AFD behaviour in the future. I know some people have a counter where when you've messed up X times it's game over, but I'd like to think that I haven't hit that point yet. I made some mistakes, and I'm learning from them. For what more can you ask? Primefac (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Sandstein, Chris troutman, Leaky caldron, and TonyBallioni: Just a ping to the editors whose opposes were based in large part on these two AfDs Primefac talks about just above. Not looking to continue the debate or challenge your position, but just in case the response assuages some of your concerns. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• My main complaint about the Chinese comet AFD was that it had been nominated in the first place; the issue of the close was raised by someone else. The candidate had to withdraw because he had overreached and we can see exactly the same pattern at other recent AFDs like Charlotte Devaney. The case of Norma Redfearn seems especially egregious. The candidate says in the nomination "more importantly, WP:BIO. There are a ton of local sources that discuss Redfearn" when WP:BIO specifically allows "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". The candidate clearly doesn't do his homework per WP:BEFORE and that's why he keeps having to withdraw. This wastes everyone's time and shows that he's not ready to be put in charge of such discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Beyond Primefac's pattern of misbehavior at AfD, this nonsense of "...I'm learning from them. For what more can you ask?" is revolting. I expect competence from admins. Adminship is not a testing ground for well-meaning editors. In my opinion, Rhododendrites has really screwed the candidate by prolonging this discussion, especially with such a weak reply. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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.