Jake Nelson wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
We could ask, "Give an example where you were able to build consensus with someone that you initially disagreed with." I'm convinced that this kind of skill is among the most important.
Not everyone gets into situations where that sort of disagreement comes up. I don't think, in the last two years, I've ever had a situation that would meet your criteria. Firstly, most of the articles I edit significantly are ones I'm interested in, and tend to be too obscure to get controversy on. Secondly, even more of my edits are spelling, grammar, reformatting, wikifying, merges, disambiguations, redirects, very recently categorization... etc. Thirdly, the rest of what I do is quick [rollback] of blatant vandalism that there really isn't a consensus to build for.
It's a fair enough argument, although the third point is not logically available for a person who is not yet a sysop.
Doing a lot of spelling fixes can make you visible. That can be spot-checked. Editing in obscure topics also shows that you avoid some of the popular debates. That's fine. I don't think that there is one single rule to fit all situations. A person in a position to make the decision should take all that into account, and should be prepared to override a popular vote when there are inconsistencies.
Ec