Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/7 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parker1297 (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 1 June 2010 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

7

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (72/1/2); Scheduled to end 07:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

7 (talk · contribs) – 7 has been an active editor since December 06, 2007, and has made almost 550 edits to UAA and over 250 to AIV. I think he has now addressed the concerns on his first RfA. That said, I think he would make an excellent admin. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you The High Fin Sperm Whale for the vote of confidence  7  07:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Primarily AIV, UAA, and RPP tasks, as well as helping out with any other administrative backlogs. Pages tagged with more time-sensitive CSD tags (such as {{db-attack}} and {{db-copyvio}} would also rank high on the to-do list.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Numerically speaking, the vast majority of my life-to-date contributions relate to vandal fighting, attack, and copyvio cleanup/removal. I personally feel that this maintenance work is my own personal "best contribution" to the project. I also enjoy participating in other discussions such as RfCs, 3O requests, and policy change discussions. While I don't have any GA/FA/DYK credits, I have created 12 articles (the best of which might be Mitsubishi Ichigokan Museum, Tokyo) and multiple templates which I think have been positive additions.
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: Similar to my answer during my first RfA, I don't get too stressed about what happens on Wikipedia. To avoid simply answering this question with a one sentence "no", I will add that I think some experiences here have helped me realize that everyone's definition of civility and AGF are naturally subject to slight differences in interpretation. I wouldn't claim to be a subject matter expert on any single topic or article on Wikipedia so I have never really had any article level content disagreements, but keeping these differences in interpretation in mind while editing and discussing issues here makes stressful situations unlikely.
4. When looking at your edit count, I couldn't help but notice that the lion's share of your contributions are to User talk pages, including 535 contributions to User talk:0, which has a very brief edit history. Please explain this phenomenon, ideally using 25 words or less. (Note: I've already supported this RfA -- my question is "for the record.") --Orlady (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note by MC10: I think that's a bug of X!'s tool; he has never edited User talk:0. (Check the history.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's a bug in the edit counter. I could see that he was not listed in the history for User talk:0. It didn't occur to me to check to see if he had 535 edits on User talk:7, which in fact he does. (See this counter.) --Orlady (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't dig any deeper into this unless further explanation is expected.  7  00:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Explicit
5. You uploaded the following images under the public domain, while citing the extremely vague cutter.net (one source points to a less vague cutter.net/tokyo), the first of which you claim copyright: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. These sources do not explicitly state the files were licensed under the public domain. Could you explain why they were uploaded as such?
A: All of the files listed as PD were pictures I took and had uploaded here - the CC-by-SA pic was up at http://cutter.net/tokyo but it's not there any more as that page is focused on the emperor's park grounds now. It's safe to say that if I had been familiar with CC-by-SA during late 2008 / early 2009 I would have used that license for the former ones instead of PD.
Just two questions from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
6. Under what circumstances, if any, should protection be applied to a page where there has been little or no disruption?
A: I would not apply pre-emptive page protection to any page with little or no disruption, except in the case of high visibility templates which, if vandalized, could affect hundreds (or millions) of Wikipedia pages. e.g. {{done}}.
7. Do you see yourself ever standing for positions "higher" than that of administrator?
A: No, not at the present time. Separately, I personally feel that oversight is an incredibly important part of what happens behind the scenes on Wikipedia. I have notified the oversight mailing on multiple occasions for gross defamatory statements that have the potential to do harm, and most were quickly deleted. I think that the updated REVDEL level of access that has recently been granted to Administrators has been helpful to getting blatant items removed from public view as quickly as possible.
Additional optional question from Kraftlos
8. I notice you have a block on your record, could you explain in more detail what happened? (the name "Fascist Chicken" has peaked my curiosity)
A: After changing usernames through CHUU it appears that many accounts, including my old account name, were vulnerable to hacking. This account (User:7) was never hacked, but was blocked for a few minutes while everyone was trying to figure things out. Please refer here for more history from the blocking admin.


Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
9. When is it ok to invoke IAR?
A: I won't attempt to come up with a hypothetical situation where I personally would invoke IAR because, in just about every situation I can come up with, I can think of the dissenting opinion as well. However, I will say (as I did in this RFA comment) that IAR shouldn't be an easy or frequent solution for anyone to do whatever they please. There has to be a rational basis for the decision, and the person IAR-ing should be highly confident that a majority of prudent people faced with the same situation would make the same decision.
9.1(follow up) Please give some examples of "prudent majority" situations you've seen in the past (not hypothetical, obviously).
A:
  • As an editor the most straight forward example I can think of would be a situation with a new article which appeared to be borderline between MADEUP and {{db-g3}}. Many G3s (or G10s for that matter) are in fact also made-up and might qualify for either tag. In that type of borderline situation you usually can't go wrong if your own gut feel matches what you believe that others would do in the same situation. I'll be honest and say that in the past I have leaned both ways: sometimes marking for speedy deletion instead of waiting a week for PROD (which is usually something I only would do if the article has the potential to do harm (-BLP or organizational attacks), and often I would go the extra distance in AGF a and either tag or prod. An example of the latter would be Solar networking which was a well written and convincingly referenced hoax. I found the page while patrolling, and I can't see the details now that it's deleted, but I believe it had at least two references, both of which were on topic but neither of which confirmed the theories put forward, but rather used the same words as in the title but in different context. I tagged as a hoax immediately and approached the author to ask them if they could clarify the situation, while planning to come back and either AFD or CSD after a day or two if no reply. Before any of that could happen the article was taken to AFD and was promptly CSD'd. Some may view that this extra-AGF on my part (in not CSDing immediately) as a weakness, but I think it was the right thing to do in this situation to avoid biting a new editor who might otherwise be a positive contributor.
  • Other IAR-type situations which I have experienced in the past might be a direct-to-level 2 or 3 warning for a repetitive vandal. While guidelines may say each editor gets 4 warnings in order before any action is taken, there have been times where I have found an editor with 5+ quick succession vandalism edits in a row, none of which have been caught yet when I happen to find the newest edit and revert. If I revert the first and issue a level1 and then revert the other 4 the rules might say not to issue another warning since the users had not edited since their last. The issue with that approach can be that other editors and patrollers may not be aware of the magnitude of the past vandalism. This concept of a pseudo- level2IM or level3IM warning seems to be used by other editors and admin as well.
  • I think admin are faced with similar IAR situations, with the added responsibility that their decision to IAR in certain circumstances obviously have more profound outcomes and therefore need to be made with care. There have been many times where I have been preparing to either improve or prod/afd/csd an article when the article was deleted by a admin for either an incorrect reason (like no context when context was clear, but the article was badly written) or for a reason not even listed in the CSD criteria (e.g. "not an article"). Many times these types of admin IAR decisions are a shortcut to the correct ultimate outcome, in that the articles would likely have been deleted anyway, but I stand by my original comment that IAR shouldn't become a frequent/easy excuse. Instead, it is a failsafe built into the process to say that if you truly know that following the rule to the letter will not be the right approach that you should not follow it.


General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Strong support Absolutely thrilled to see this up and running. – B.hotep •talk• 08:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support - Excellent editor, adminship is long overdue. Shadowjams (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support This has been on my watchlist for a few months now. About lack of content: some people just "admin" far more than they "edit". Whilst the tools are beneficial to content-builders, I feel that people like 7 who are more familiar with the areas they want to work in are more use to the project as admins. From what I can see, he's likely to be a process admin, really working with those backlogs, not a drama admin, so it's a net positive, right? The opposes from the previous RfA are slightly disconcerting, but heck, in Aug 2009 I had <150 edits, and a lot of learning can happen in that amount of time. Good luck, 7, and keep up the diligent work. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 10:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support 7 has been helpful to people, rather than causing drama. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I offered to nominate 7, and I'm sorry that it didn't work out. However, I am pleased to support this candidacy. Not only is 7 sensible and clueful, but he has the experience and the confidence in the areas he's worked in to become a wonderful administrator. ceranthor 11:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, as I wished I could've last time. :-) Since his first RfA, 7 has only improved as an editor, and all I've ever seen has been helpful, fine work. 7 is a generally sensible and calm person – he won't do anything crazy. Making him a janitor was long due. JamieS93❤ 13:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Offers a 7 and 7 to 7 as she is the 7th support vote. 7 seems quite easy to work with from encounters on ACC. Cheers delirious & lost ☯ ~talk to her~ 13:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support fine editor who I have had nothing but good interactions with. Will make a good admin. This RfA put a smile on my face this morning (after looking outside and seeing snow on the ground). -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 13:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support - Very glad you took the nom Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 14:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support Impressive and clueful. Aiken ♫ 14:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Supported before, see no evidence to change my view.--SPhilbrickT 15:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I've had a positive impression of 7 based on the places where we've intersected. Review today of his recent contributions and deleted contributions (mostly pages tagged for CSD) gives me confidence that he will use admin tools responsibly -- and likely will shoulder a sizeable workload. --Orlady (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I thought that he was an admin already. Pilif12p 15:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Seems very knowledgeable in the fields I've seen him in. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Looks good. G'luck. Connormah (talk | contribs) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Because it looks good and I'd like more sysops to assist vandal fighters —Tommy2010 17:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I've seen 7 doing good work around the place, and with more work having been done on the deletion front since the last RfA, I'd be happy to hand over a mop -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. After eventually working out this was the second RfA for a user called 7, not some promising newcomer called 7 2, I'm delighted to support. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support – Very experienced in the areas he wishes to work in. No problems with me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support Per me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak support. When I noticed this RFA, I (honestly) wanted to support this second RFA without hesitation because I like 7 as an editor. But his speedy tagging (an area he wants to work in), as critizised in the first RFA, still shows multiple reasons for concerns: A7 for self-promotion by a significant person (could have been G11 but based on >60 Google News hits it should have been rephrased instead); This was meeting G3 but should have been redirected instead like the reviewing admin did; and I cannot understand this recent tagging at all, which seems simply wrong - even if parts of the text were copied from that page (which I couldn't really find), G12 requires that all text is copyright violating. This though shows an desirable reaction and generally 7 seems to have improved, maybe because of the criticism in the first RFA, in this area and I hope that they will continue to do so. As such, I will AGF that further improvement will not cease if they are made an admin and thus it will be a net positive to grant them access to the tools. I want to ask you though that you should be careful with your new delete button if this request proves successful and that you try to fix articles whenever possible instead of deleting them. And of course I'd be happy to assist with any questions concerning speedy deletion, regardless of the fate of this RFA :-) Regards SoWhy 18:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I'm pretty sure I'm going to wind up on this side; if I go hotter or colder after looking at the deletion work, I'll say so. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I'm conscious of speedy deletion issues but it is obvious that there has been significant improvement since the last RFA, which I probably would have opposed. In my view, the examples mentioned by SoWhy constitute the occasional error (if that - eg redirecting instead of tagging is nice but not everyone can be expected to foresee the redirect possibility and sometimes it is better to delete then redirect to prevent a reversion to the offending article which here was vandalism). Not the perfect candidate but there's definitely more upside than down. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I thought that this was an RFA for User: 7 2! My mistake :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I haven't seen anything that wouldn't make his addition as a sysop a net positive. —fetch·comms 21:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Airplaneman ✈ 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Suuport i remember this user, from what i've seen he/she would be a good administrator. Dwayne was here! ♫ 22:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Yes! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Well qualified candidate - civil, clueful, knowledgeable. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Been seen around, I'm sure they will do well with the mop.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 01:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. No problems with giving the tools to this user.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Y, obv.  Chzz  ►  04:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Thought I already supported. =/ He'll be great. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Tim Song (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong SupportCandidates Active areas would be improved with the mop Acather96 (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Aye. I supported last time and while I understand Jclemens position, I can't honestly say it's enough to change my stance. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support BejinhanTalk 11:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I supported last time, I'll support again.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 12:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Quite honestly, I thought you were one already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Did well on the last RfA, (the only concern as far as I know was not enough experience) but now this is the perfect time to support. Minimac (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Good involvement in WP:UAA, WP:AIV, WP:AN/I, WP:VP/T & WP:RPP. Vipinhari || talk 16:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support but what are we going to do if we have a User:7 2 who runs for adminship? On a more serious note, I appreciate the answers to my questions which seem well thought out. I'd add that move protection is often used for highly visible pages, such as Today's Featured Article, but I see nothing concerning here and the desire to work in areas that can always benefit from more admins is definitely a plus. Best of luck to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - no issues seen. Light on content creation, but so are a lot of other editors, and as I've stated elsewhere, to each their own. --Alan (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. No concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - I appreciate his well-thought-out answers in this RfA. Especially #9, "There has to be a rational basis for the decision, and the person IAR-ing should be highly confident that a majority of prudent people faced with the same situation would make the same decision." This completely captures my ideas about IAR. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - no issues here. Valley2city‽ 01:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - I've seen this user's good work around the encyclopedia. Good demeanor as well. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 01:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - I have seen them around and have no concerns, firmly believe they will be a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 02:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Seems like a strong candidate who would make good use of admin tools. Richwales (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I had the pleasure of getting to know 7's way of thinking before his name change, and I believed that he was mature and competent then. Time has only increased his maturity. bibliomaniac15 05:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - No problems here. GJGardner (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I've seen 7 around ACC and UAA and it's nothing but good work. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. I see no problems watsoever with 7's contribution, here on Wikipedia. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. "Thought he already was" is a cliche, right? A sensible, knowledgeable and helpful editor. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Respect the nominator's opinion. But the nominees experience is why Im supporting Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong Support Nothing that worries me at all. Immunize (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Weak Support Very light on edits to article space (75 article creations, 69 are redirects); however, what tipped the scales in favor of the candidate for me was a very strong vandal-fighting portfolio--Hokeman (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I am strongly opposed to the notion that "someone who's never had a GA or the equivalent has no business with the mop," as we badly need admins to perform a myriad of maintenance functions. I've seen nothing -- here or in the candidate's past work -- to suggest that 7 would not be a great addition. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. I've been waiting quite a while for this. Hi878 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. New Mexico Support from the land of enchantment - Excellent choice for the mop. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Initially worried with my question, but my worries are now gone. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. "Thought he was already" cliché. Plenty of clue. Fences&Windows 02:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Sure, good choice for the mop, - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Haven't seen any major issues, and the humble acceptance of this RfA shows at least some degree of levelheadedness. Juliancolton (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. While I'd generally like to see some type of audited content- even the cursory audit of a few DYK's, 7's other work outweighs that. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. support Everything looks good here. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support yep I think you will do great; your contribs are very nice. Parker1297 ( Talk to me · Sign my autograph page.) 23:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I opposed last time for lack of content creation, and I don't see that you've made any progress at substantially improving your content creation--no FA is fine, but no GA or DYK in several months since this was raised as a concern in your last RfA indicates that you're more interested in tools than content creation. I wouldn't normally outright oppose for lack of content creation given your article creation to date, but I consider what you're touting as your best contributions as insufficient forward progress to building an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's early in this RfA, let me pose this one question. Is this opposition based fundamentally on a lack of article creation, or is it based on a concern that you just don't have enough knowledge of the contributor, or trust, or both, because they haven't gotten into it with article contributions? I can understand those reasons, and maybe disagree, but I'd like to dissect exactly the reason why this is a problem. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have to pick between the two rationales as you pose, it's the former. But really, the reason is a lack of forward progress--I opposed on this same basis last time, he's done nothing significant since by his own admission, so why should my position change from opposition? Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many jobs to do in addition to article space. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And every single one of them should be done by someone who came here to write, not for any other reason. You'll notice that I haven't done much work myself lately, but that doesn't mean I've forgotten how difficult it was to get my triple crown. I am of the (apparently small) camp that believes that someone who's never had a GA or the equivalent has no business with the mop. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting anyone who does not have a GA or the equivalent is not "here to write"? There is more to writing than gaining trophies at GA and FA, contrary to what you appear to be implying. You also appear to be implying that adminship should be a reward for those who have a GA or the equivalent – an extremely disturbing opinion. Aiken ♫ 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Jclemens may wish to review WP:NOTENOUGH. A candidate for receiving the mop, having expressed in Q1 their intent to focus on AIV, UAA and RPP, is by extension demonstrating their focus on maintenance tasks instead of content creation. Both are necessary to the continued functions of Wikipedia, and UAA and RPP are arguably two of the most thankless routine chores an admin performs. With something less than 1% of all Wikipedians being admins, that leaves the vast majority of editors to perform said content creation, which frees up people like 7 to do those thankless chores. Each according to their ability. --Alan (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree. Adding a thousand edits to a thousand articles can be equally as valuable as adding a thousand to one of them and making it a GA or FA. Everyone has a different approach. Jclemens is entitled to their opinion, but I cannot agree with the content creation criterion as a prerequisite for adminship. Does it help in giving the user an understanding of how the encyclopedia works? Sure, but it's not a prerequisite. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Jclemens reasons and answer is quite fair. Of course I disagree for a few reasons. Perhaps the most relevant, I don't think the GA/FA committees get a preemptive veto over RfA candidates, nor do I think those projects are the only way to demonstrate quality judgment and editing. My question is really directed to that curiosity: is it about getting along (and having evidence of that) or is it about churning out qualifications that suggest those skills. I think the former is critical, the latter is unnecessary, and finally that 7 meets the criteria that I care about. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All in all, the adminship–content dispute is one that will likely never be resolved, but there's really no need to rehash the same arguments at nearly every RfA. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, it's simply a matter of personal opinion. I've written or otherwise contributed to 25 FAs and something like 60 or 70 GAs, but I completely disagree that being a good writer should be a perquisite to passing RfA. That said, this particular oppose is not unreasonable. Juliancolton (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I am confused Keepscases (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with you. I was looking for user:7 2. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I wish you the best, but I don't feel comfortable supporting at this time, based on editing habits and other concerns. Not strong enough for an oppose, but still. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/7_2&oldid=365532319"