Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Femke

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Question limit

I'm unfamiliar with the questions limit policy. Would it be considered a separate question to ask for clarification on what "slightly lower" means?— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an addendum to my answer, so hope that answers your question in advance. Femke (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixtal reasonable follow-ups are allowed so you'd be able to do that in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope_creep's oppose

Some PROD work too. — Bilorv (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

scope creep See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I see her AfC work in the admin related category also. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never understood this argument. It's the same paradoxical logic as a job posting that says "entry-level position, 5+ years experience required". How does one do admin-related work without themselves being an admin? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By making reports at AIV, UAA, etc, by closing deletion discussions that have an obvious result other than deletion, and so forth. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had certainly never closed an AfD before I became an administrator and nobody raised that as a concern when I was up for RfA. I do not think I had closed more than one or two discussions, maybe none. I still do not close many discussions. I am an administrator, not a clerk. And I respect good clerks. I also did not file reports at AIV or UAA, and nobody mentioned that either. But now I block vandals and username policy violators all the time. I was active as an ordinary editor though not a closer at AfD. What I did was try to be helpful in a wide variety of areas of the encyclopedia, rather than trying to build an impressive edit count in quasi-administrative areas. Cullen328 (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Cullen328, to avoid repeating myself and saying the same thing on multiple RfAs, I've popped it in an existing essay : User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content#Ritchie333's law of adminship. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather someone not close obvious keep discussions just to have AfD closers on their resumé. I certainly did this before my RfA, but in retrospect it doesn't really show that you can close discussions, just that you can cherry pick obvious closes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but to steelman the objection, "AfD closer" on the résumé might be a proxy for "has a clue". Though I cannot find it right now, I am pretty sure there is a policy somewhere that encourages non-admins to only do the obvious closures rather than the likely-contentious ones. If you NA-close a discussion with twenty !votes on each side without leaving a particularly insightful close comment, that might not tell me much about your ability to close AfDs, but it tells me a lot about your ability to navigate Wikipedia procedures.

In the same vein, I remember a fad at RfA a few years back to look at how often the candidate matches consensus (and to look only at that number, not any of the other stuff from AfDstats). The problem, obviously, is that anyone with two brain cells can easily get 99%+ on that metric by piling on the obvious AfDs. Heck, I bet a simple bot could get 95%+ (write delete per above on every AfD that has been open for six days with only delete/speedy delete !votes). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather a candidate show skill at closing RfCs and RMs and in participaticating at AfD than closing AfDs. And trusting the community would see that they have the skills to then work AfD. For my own vet Femke did a great job with them, which is why I moved forward with her on that, but I have vetted at least 2 other candidates who got tripped up by their NAC at AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]