[WikiEN-l] Verifiability equating to notability

[Steve Bennett]

On 03/05/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> AfD is becoming a cesspit which can only be recovered by draining,
> dynamiting and redigging.

RfA too please. Everytime I read either the talk page or the project
page I sigh with sadness...

Oppose. Doesn't meet my admin standards. Also, I'm biased against
disruptively formatted signatures. Also, some concerns about civility.
Also, the number of comments on people's oppose votes seems to be
bordering on harassment of opposition voters.

Oppose. As Mackensen points out, MoP doesn't have a lot of main
article contributions. The work you do is important for Wikipedia as a
community, but I'm not convinced you need admin tools. I would also
recommend that you use edit summaries more often.

Oppose. I can't possibly support a user who averages 10+ edits per
page, no matter how good those edits are. Furthermore, this list gives
me a heart attack. 5,615 article-space edits per Interiot's tool looks
good on the surface, but 4,273 of them (76.1%) are to his ten favorite
articles,

Oppose: too hung up on user boxes. See his user page.

Militantly Oppose - JoshuaZ seems to be a bright guy and very
level-headed - I'm sure he'll be a great admin here. But with all
sincerity, I cannot do anything but oppose someone who has lowered
themselves to the reprehensible depths of posting "Questions" on
WP:RfA pages. The Q/A grandstanding has nothing to do with anything.

Weak Oppose. Three odd months is too soon to become an admin, in my
view at least six are required. I am also concerned that this user
sometimes fails to understand that proper sourcing actually requires a
footnote or other direct reference

Oppose (for now) - no valid email address on file, thus no way to
contact privately, which is essential for admins.
[this one is especially unfathomable - opposing adminship on the
grounds that they haven't yet validated their email address?]



sigh...grr...sigh...

Why can't people just raise their concerns directly with the
candidates, rather than using these petty concerns as a cudgel to
bludgeon them over the head with when they're at their most vulnerable
- asking for acceptance from the community?

Steve