#I know it's unfashionable to oppose admin candidates on the basis of their content contributions, but really. The [[Uturunku]] article can't even be clear whether it's one volcano or two. I don't trust any admin who can't themselves write a decent article. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Eric Corbett|Eric Corbett]] ([[User talk:Eric Corbett|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Eric Corbett|contribs]]) 17:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)</span></small>
#::It's quite simple, really: the mountain has as many volcanoes as the Queen has birthdays. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 21:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#:No decent article? That's a good article.—<sup>[[User:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberpower</span>]]</sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat</span>]]:Limited Access</sub></small> 17:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#:<small>Signed comment -- [[User:Samtar|'''sam'''''tar'']] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Samtar|talk]] or [[Special:Contributions/Samtar|stalk]]</small></sup> 17:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)</small>
#:I hate to think how few admins we would have if we used such standards. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''<nowiki>{{ping|HighInBC}}</nowiki></small></sup>'''</small> 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#::Eric's got his right of opinion. I don't believe we should badger him. I would urge editors to let the !voters make their own decisions without being badgered. The majority, including me, have made a choice; so has Eric. Respect that, or not, let's not badger. [[User talk:Xender Lourdes|<span style="color:#0000FF;">'''Lourdes'''</span>]] 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
[[File:AmericanBadger.JPG|right|thumb]]
#:::Oh just stop with the badger meme. Nobody is denying them their opinion. Just as Eric has a right to their opinion we have a right to an opinion about their opinion. Discussion about each others opinions is pretty much how Wikipedia works. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''<nowiki>{{ping|HighInBC}}</nowiki></small></sup>'''</small> 18:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#::::[[Have at it, boys|Sure, go ahead]]. [[User talk:Xender Lourdes|<span style="color:#0000FF;">'''Lourdes'''</span>]] 18:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#::::: This is the first time that I have seen an admin opposed because an article that they wrote '''and has GA status''' wasn't good enough. {{ping|Eric Corbett}} What do you want? Every admin to have written 5 FA's ? [[User:ThePlatypusofDoom|ThePlatypusofDoom]] [[User talk:ThePlatypusofDoom|(Talk)]] 20:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#:::::: In my ''opinion'', {{u|HighInBC}} needs to stop telling other editors to stop with the badger meme. They're entitled to their opinion. But that line of debate ([[Turtles all the way down]]) soon becomes unproductive. It's worth remembering that Good Articles are not necessarily good articles, and Eric has more than earned the right to express his opinion on Jo-Jo's (or anyone else's) article work. [[Uturunku]] isn't a great article, IMHO, but a look at the history shows how much work Jo-Jo ha put into it, expanding it from a {{oldid2 |675845565 |2,800 byte stub}} to a 30,000 byte fully referenced, decent article. I sincerely hope that he will have experienced enough of the trials and tribulations of content work to have gained the insight we need in any admin, and that's the important part for this discussion. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 20:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:35, 29 June 2016
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.
First edit: Sep 4, 2012, 11:51 PM
Latest edit: Jun 27, 2016, 10:07 PM
Live edits: 13,453
Deleted edits: 3,746
Total edits: 17,199
Unique pages edited: 6,571
Pages created: 1,930
Pages moved: 831
Ø edits per page: 2
Files uploaded: 18
Files uploaded (Commons): 153
(Semi-)automated edits: 4,235
Reverted edits: 19
Edits with summary: 12,258
Number of minor edits (tagged): 1,032
Discussion on Eric's oppose
#I know it's unfashionable to oppose admin candidates on the basis of their content contributions, but really. The Uturunku article can't even be clear whether it's one volcano or two. I don't trust any admin who can't themselves write a decent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Corbett (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#::It's quite simple, really: the mountain has as many volcanoes as the Queen has birthdays. Jonathunder (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#:No decent article? That's a good article.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#:Signed comment -- samtartalk or stalk 17:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#:I hate to think how few admins we would have if we used such standards. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#::Eric's got his right of opinion. I don't believe we should badger him. I would urge editors to let the !voters make their own decisions without being badgered. The majority, including me, have made a choice; so has Eric. Respect that, or not, let's not badger. Lourdes17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
#:::Oh just stop with the badger meme. Nobody is denying them their opinion. Just as Eric has a right to their opinion we have a right to an opinion about their opinion. Discussion about each others opinions is pretty much how Wikipedia works. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 18:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#::::Sure, go ahead. Lourdes 18:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#::::: This is the first time that I have seen an admin opposed because an article that they wrote and has GA status wasn't good enough. @Eric Corbett: What do you want? Every admin to have written 5 FA's ? ThePlatypusofDoom(Talk) 20:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
#:::::: In my opinion, HighInBC needs to stop telling other editors to stop with the badger meme. They're entitled to their opinion. But that line of debate (Turtles all the way down) soon becomes unproductive. It's worth remembering that Good Articles are not necessarily good articles, and Eric has more than earned the right to express his opinion on Jo-Jo's (or anyone else's) article work. Uturunku isn't a great article, IMHO, but a look at the history shows how much work Jo-Jo ha put into it, expanding it from a 2,800 byte stub to a 30,000 byte fully referenced, decent article. I sincerely hope that he will have experienced enough of the trials and tribulations of content work to have gained the insight we need in any admin, and that's the important part for this discussion. --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
