Hello. I edit here sometimesoftendaily way too much according to most sensible people.[needs update][when?][who?][citation needed] I edit chemistry related articles and fight on the battleground the area of American Politics, do some work with Lua and templates, close discussions, run a bot, work with Javascript and CSS, and occasionally create an article among many other things. Galobtter's on other sites are going to be me, or at least I can't find anyone else who uses this username.
I have many many scripts in my common.js and numerous gadgets installed - it's a wonder pages load. I also have created a gadget of my own, Shortdesc helper, and some scripts.
I do not appreciate your vandalism on removing my idol from the wikipedia page 1889. The following revision was removed, although accured and should be kept: [1]
Next time you dare to remove this you will be reported to the owner of wikipedia. Hes my dad.
So I was wondering why the standard blocking time is 31 hours, and apparently it's because one guy thought that was a good number—with an excellent rationale of "31 is a prime number, that has appeal TO ME over all the other 29<x<37 numbers"—in 2005. Guess it's really true that things are done in wikipedia because that's the way it has always been done.
Occasionally I see people saying something along the lines of "It is better if people are pushed into doing an RfA." That means there's something so horrible about RfAs that people need pushing into it.
I also see people saying that self nominations are bad. But if people want to see a few admin endorsements or want to know that someone has taken a look to see if there are problems with the user - well if the candidate is good then there'll already be quite a few admins analyzing and giving their opinions in support.
What we really should be doing is encouraging anyone who has a reasonably long track record of clue and civility to nominate themselves - it should not require networking, knowing "who's who", or hunting for a nominator nor should it be a preparation for a trial by fire. That's the real problem with RfA - it either delays or discourages people who have a need for the mop. So useful mopping is lost.
People seem far more afraid of hat collecting - which really should be obvious from the editor's editing history if it's true, and obviously false if the person is doing good work - than losing out and discouraging possible admins. A self-nom or a nom that's early does not necessarily mean power-hungriness - all it shows that the person wants the tools, which is far more likely for useful purposes than for bragging rights.
Age is in my opinion one of the poorest oppose arguments. People do say that if someone cannot vote, then they shouldn't be admin - but the reason there is a general age requirement of 18 in countries is because people cannot be individually evaluated to see if they are mature enough to vote, while in RfA there is individual evaluation.
Committed identity: 9bf6b76671a3f594f0ae09ac6a28fc45d29cf15c9d96470b406e8256f323cc129f6d6f12539e000d868e371735ea7f10bd14b6584c6ea4d41898f5e7d9fc4f3b is a SHA-512commitment to this user's real-life identity.
Help
Add this page to your book
Show book (0 pages)
Suggest pages
