Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley

Adjwilley

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (72/8/3); Scheduled to end 02:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Adjwilley (talk · contribs) – Adjwilley is a thoughtful editor who has been actively editing Wikipedia since 2011. He is courteous to other editors, makes constructive content edits, and is skilled at helping resolve content disputes. (See, for example, his intervention at Talk:Secular Islam Summit; start from Archive 1 if you want the whole dialogue.) His reaction to being at an impasse with another editor is to seek wider community input; for example: [1]. He was deeply involved in crafting the RFCs for last year's Pending changes. He responds well to criticism and rarely gets defensive or upset. Adjwilley can be trusted to be responsible and effective with the admin tools, and to continue making good contributions on the content side. I invite you, fellow editors, to support giving him the mop. alanyst 23:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Thank you, alanyst, for your kind words. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I hope to work with page protection and protected page edit requests, as I believe backlogs in these areas are frustrating to editors and not good for the project. (I have often been frustrated on protected pages when talk page discussion goes on hold for a day or more while waiting for a protected edit request to be filled, or watching a page be vandalized over and over while a RPP request stagnates.) I could see myself eventually helping out at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Administrator intervention against vandalism and Requests for unblock, but I probably won't be doing these right off the bat, and would ease into them slowly and carefully.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

An illustration of constructive and destructive interference I created to illustrate beating

A: I'd say the two articles I'm most proud of (and on which I've spent the most time) are the articles on Mormons and Joseph Smith, both of which I helped get to good article status. (The former is probably the best example of my writing, since I wrote probably over half of it. I know my prose is probably weak, but I do try hard.) I've also made significant contributions to Micah True, which I rewrote in my sandbox while the article was fully protected, satisfying the concerns of those involved in the related content dispute. I'm currently working (slowly) on the Piano tuning article, which still needs a lot of work, but is coming along. I am also proud of some of the illustrations I've created and uploaded to Commons, not that they're particularly high quality, but likely because creating illustrations isn't something that comes naturally to me.

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: Yes, two. The first was relatively early in my Wiki-career (Dec 2011) and started here as a content dispute. I think what stressed me out was that the arguments seemed to go in circles without getting anywhere. The editor who I disagreed with and I were eventually able to work out a compromise via email, but I took a wikibreak after it was resolved. After that experience I began actively looking for better ways to resolve disputes. The second dispute that caused me stress was longer term, ranging over a number of pages, and eventually culminating in this RfC at WikiProject Religion. Oddly the dispute itself didn't cause me stress, but there was a period when the editor (probably in an attempt to teach me a lesson on reverting them) systematically went through my contribution history and reverted many of my older contributions. That, combined with a bunch of rotating IPs that started following me during the same period, caused me some stress. (Incidentally I ended up emailing this user as well to clear up some questions about IP editing, but as I mentioned earlier this one wasn't fully resolved until the RfC.) Some of the ways I have found for dealing with conflicts are:

• Always focus on content, not the editor. Try to see things from their point of view and find the root cause of the dispute.
• Try to find the best reliable source(s) available, and then take their position instead of your own.
• If you are attacked personally, don't defend yourself; just ignore it and move on. It probably wasn't intended as an attack anyway.
• Keep your arguments in the top three tiers of Grahm's Hiearchy of disagreement.
• Try to resolve the conflict at the lowest level possible, and don't get too involved. I sometimes think of it in terms of Wu wei...the more you stir a bucket of crap the more it stinks. Sometimes just "letting be" will do more toward resolving a conflict than taking an active role.
• Listen to uninvolved third parties who likely have a clearer view of the situation than you do.

Ok, enough of my philosophy.

Additional questions from I Jethrobot

4. You have correctly blocked a user for both general edit warring and violating 3RR on a given article, because they continued to revert despite several warnings. The user provides an unblock request saying, "I'm sorry if I offended other editors, edit-warred, and changed the article too many times. I want to keep contributing to improve the article." How would you handle this unblock request?

A: If that were the response I would not unblock, because the request doesn't show that they actually understand what they did wrong. (They sound like they might immediately go start edit warring again in their efforts to improve the article.) If they were a new user (which it kind of sounds like from the tone of the request) I would try to get them to understand the edit warring policy, making sure they were crystal clear on 3RR, and try to extract a commitment to follow it. For an older or more experienced editor I would suggest that they should consider voluntarily limiting themselves to 1RR. In any case, I wouldn't actually decline the request myself, since I already blocked them.

5. At what point is it advisable to stop assuming good faith in another editor (if ever)? What has been your approach towards editors who are clearly not assuming good faith in other users? Will that approach change if you are handed the mop?

A: Leaving aside the obvious cases of bad faith (vandals, sock puppets) and assuming we're talking about editors who are making normal edits and trying to be productive, I'd say it's always best to assume good faith. Yes, people are people, and we all screw up sometimes. At the same time, AGF doesn't mean you have to let people do whatever they want. Some editors might be trying to use Wikipedia as a means of advocating their points of view, fringe theories, favorite politicians, or whatnot, and are doing so "in good faith" because they "know" they are "right". I would argue that administrative action could be taken while still assuming good faith. As for my approach when I see editors who don't assume good faith in others, most of the examples that come to mind involve established users not assuming good faith in new users or IP editors. (It's easy to do.) In these cases I try to remind the established user that the newbie probably doesn't understand all our rules and norms yet. Sometimes a link to WP:Bite is appropriate, or in the case of IP editors, WP:IPs are people too. I don't really like directly telling people to AGF very much, because that can seem like I'm not, well, assuming good faith. (For instance, I can't think of a circumstance when I would use the {{uw-agf}} series of templates on anybody.) I don't think this would change much if I get the extra buttons. If that didn't fully answer your question please feel free to ask a follow up.

Additional questions from Pratyya Ghosh

6. Why do you want to be an admin?

A: Fair question, and to be honest, I have had some mixed feelings about it. I suppose the short answer is I think it will help the project... the longer answer is that there have been specific times and incidents that have made me want to do things that I can't do without the tools. For example, there have been a few times when I've been trying to edit protected pages where we are discussing things productively on the talk page, coming up with edit requests, and then had to wait a day or two for an admin to fill the edit request(s). Using the talk page to edit is hard, and it would be easier if the consensus edits went through faster, freeing us up to discuss the next incremental changes. In the past I've sometimes just copied the article to my sandbox and invited the involved parties to edit it there...a diff can be worth many many talk page words. (Please note I'm not saying I'd edit a protected page I was involved with...I want to reduce the wait times for others.) Another time I've wanted to be an admin was when I saw a fellow editor being trolled to death by Mangoeater1000 sockpuppets. They would vandalize his user page almost daily, and the editor finally gave up and retired. I still wish I could have done something about that one. Other times include times I have seen administrators doing things I disagree with (example: blocking established and productive editors without warning). While I definitely can't control what others do, I can control what I do, and I think a softer approach (see Q3) might be something that could benefit the encyclopedia. I personally think we need more Eguor admins, and I'm hoping I can help to remedy that.

7. What areas of adminship would you be most comfortable handling? What areas would you be least comfortable handling?

A: Most comfortable are basically the ones I listed in Q1. Protected edit requests is something I am very comfortable with (I've done a bunch of semi-protected requests). I'd also feel ok with RPP, AIV, AN3, move requests, (drat, forgot to mention that in Q1) and an occasional AN/ or AN/I comment, though I don't see myself getting too involved in that last one. Areas where I'd feel uncomfortable include anything having to do with Arbcom, Sock puppet investigations, and Speedy deletion. I suppose the closer it is to everyday editing, the more comfortable I feel, which I suppose is natural, since I'm an editor.

Additional question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

8. Please describe your contributions to the talk pages of Bradley Manning/GA2 or Black people and Mormonism (or both), particularly how your contributions show your development as an editor or help to show your qualifications to be an administrator.

A: On the Bradley Manning GA page: If my memory serves me right, I had previously submitted my first article for a GA review and was lucky enough to get a really top-notch reviewer. I remembered that the GA review page said something along the lines of I should consider reciprocating by doing a GA review myself, so I decided to try. I picked the Bradley Manning page because it was something I was interested in and knew about, but was not something I had strong opinions on. (To this day I still have mixed feelings on the subject, and I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with what Manning did.) I remember being concerned with some aspects related to WP:BLPCRIME, and I learned a few things about citations during the process. As for admin-qualifications, I think this shows some understanding of WP:Involved. I didn't want to set myself up to review an article where I had strong personal feelings on the subject, and I see admin action in the same light.

On the Black people and Mormonism article, as best as I remember, my first involvement was to move the article from Black People and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to its current (more common) name (here's the proposed on the talk page) and proposing a merge of two related articles (of the six existing on the subject). I later purchased a book on the subject and made a few edits to the article based on what I had read...I actually meant to do more, but I kept getting distracted by other things. Most of my involvement on the talk page was responding to concerns raised by others, and at one point I got involved in a long-ish dispute over whether we should use primary quotations containing language that is considered inflammatory/offensive today (e.g. certain words beginning with "N") or if we should use secondary sources that summarized, without the offensive language. At one point I made a talk page table that people could fill in which can sometimes be a useful and creative tool in talk page discussions where it's hard to find a consensus among editors or understand where stand on multiple issues.

Additional questions from TeeTylerToe

9. How do you think consensus is arrived at on wikipedia, what are the requisites for consensus to be reached?

A: Consensus is arrived at in a lot of ways, probably more I want to list here. Sometimes it's on the talk page, sometimes it's through editing, sometimes it requires an RfC, sometimes (as in RfA) there's a formalized voting process. We often have a tendency to vote here at Wikipedia, but it's not just about numbers, though those can be helpful. One of my favorite ways of reaching consensus is using variations of the Bold edit, revert, discuss cycle, thereby using combinations of edits, edit summaries, talk page posts, and diffs. (This helps keep the discussion focused IMO.) One of my least favorite ways is to stop editing and hold large RfCs, though sometimes this is necessary. I would find it difficult to generalize consensus enough to give a list of requisites that work in all situations, though "general agreement" might be one. Feel free to ask a follow up if you like.

Additional question from TParis

10. I've seen lots of interest in religion and primarily Mormonism. However, I haven't seen you actually identify with a religion. This isn't a question about what Religion you are, if any, but a much broader question. Is your participation in religion topics due to a membership (chose this word on purpose) to a religion or an interest in religion from an outside perspective? Further, if you do belong to a religion, what assurances can you give that tool use will not be influenced by your beliefs? I face the same problem, as a Christian, so I'm not asking this in a hateful manner but as a practical one. I do not expect you to say you are "involved" or have a "conflict of interest" due to a belief or disbelief, that's not the question. The question is about influence. Feel free to answer in the broadest of terms and not to identify your faith, if you choose, but I would like an answer on the questions themselves. If there are any questions about this question, feel free to email me as I am on vacation and I don't get to a computer very much.

A: That's a fair question, and I thank you for the respectful manner in which it was asked. You are correct that I haven't identified with a religion on Wikipedia, nor have I identified with any political parties, or social views. The reasons for this are not because I'm trying to hide anything (anybody with access to Google could probably find out), but because it's not really something I've wanted to wear on my sleeve, and I believe that it helps me, personally, to edit from a neutral point of view, and helps discussions stay focused on the subject matter and not the editor ("You're just saying that because you're a..."). I would rather be judged by the quality of my edits than someone's preconceived ideas of what I should believe. I came to this view early on, while I was editing at the Joseph Smith article. You wouldn't know it now, but that place used to be a battleground, with opposing camps of Mormons vs. non-Mormons. The result was a mess. There I tried to find a middle road, trying to edit in a way that would satisfy everybody, no matter their religious persuasion. The way I did this was to purchase the very best and most respected sources available on the subject and then adopt their "point of view" as my own. I don't know how much credit I deserve, probably not much, but if you were to ask anybody who has been involved in the Joseph Smith article for more than a few years, they would tell you it's a nicer place these days. As for my specific religious views, suffice it to say that I am religious, but consider my beliefs more complicated than could be described by naming a specific denomination, and that I see myself as an inclusivist, adhering to somewhat of a multi-sided multi-pathed mountain view.

On using the admin tools, I had determined before the RfA began that I would not be using the admin tools (eg. protecting, blocking, etc.) or privileges (eg. closing RfCs) in articles or matters falling within the Religion WikiProject. This isn't because I don't trust myself to make rational decisions, but is more as a matter of principle: I don't believe in mixing editing with admining. Frankly, I'm interested in religion articles and I wish to continue editing them without the admin bit getting in the way. Wikipedia is a big place, and there are plenty of areas where I can contribute without mixing editing and adminship. I hope this answers the question to your satisfaction. (Please let me know if it doesn't.)

Additional question from Iselilja

11. Can an admin impose a topic ban on a user and if so in which instances and should it be listed anywhere? And a related question: Can an admin legitimitely unblock a user under the condition that the user stays away from certain articles/topics? If the user accepts such an offer, should this be considered a topic ban, meaning that the user subsequently can be blocked even for good edits to the article/topic he has promised to stay away from because it violates his topic ban? If yes to the last question, should the topic ban be listed anywhere, and lastly, as the admins who makes such conditional unblocks often don’t mention any timeframe, does that mean that the topic bans in such instances should be considered indefinitive?

A: Hmm, this one is a bit tricky, because I've seen all of the above done before in the past, and the policy seems a bit grey in the area of users voluntarily agreeing to topic bans in exchange for unblocks. The answer to your first question is no, an admin may not unilaterally impose a topic ban on a user without wider community input unless the subject area is under some sort of discretionary or general sanctions, and the user has been warned of this appropriately and has then violated whatever restriction the sanctions imposed (eg. 1RR). Topic bans in these cases should be logged at either the appropriate general sanctions or arbitration Probation Log subpage, or at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions. On the second question, admins are allowed to perform conditional unblocks, but are only allowed to give "final warnings" which are different from editing restrictions/topic bans (see Wikipedia:Sanctions#Blocks), and which only come when an editor has repeatedly violated a policy to the point where they're getting blocked every time they violate it. It sometimes happens that a user voluntarily agrees to an editing restriction/topic ban in exchange for an unblock (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Final warnings for some examples of this). In these cases there should still be some sort of wider community input, whether on an adminstrative noticeboard, or sometimes on the user's talk page (Basically it shouldn't just be a lone admin.) The topic ban can again be listed at WP:Editing restrictions. If no timeframe is mentioned, the topic ban is assumed to be indefinite Wikipedia:Topic ban#Duration of bans but if there's a question, one can always ask for clarification or appeal at an administrative noticeboard.

I should also say that I think topic bans can be good things, when there are otherwise productive editors who have trouble controlling themselves in one area. Unlike the block, they allow people to continue contributing outside of the problem area. Of course, though, they do need to be used with discretion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from BDD

12. What are your thoughts on administrator recall? If confirmed, would you make yourself open to recall? (Briefly explain your answer, if you please.)

A: That is something I've thought about before, as one of the criticisms I've often seen of Wikipedia is that there's not really a way of removing administrator privileges short of Arbcom. As for me, I think some sort of Wiki-wide recall process would be a good thing (if the community could ever come to a consensus on something). If I pass this RfA, I would be open to recall, and I'd probably end up choosing a process along the lines of User:Dennis Brown/RFAS or User:TParis/Recall.

Additional question from Lsmll

13. You said that you want to work mainly on WP:RPP. Could you please describe how will you determine whether a page should be protected?

A: Sure. I'd start by reading the nominator's rationale, to give me an idea of what I should be looking for. Then I'd check the page history to see what's going on there. Is it IP vandalism, persistent autoconfirmed sockpuppetry, temporary spike in POV editing due to a recent event, edit warring between registered users? How long has it been going on? Is it a BLP and are there violations? What's the ratio of constructive IP edits to unconstructive edits (how many "stick" vs. how many are reverted by Cluebot, Huggle, STiki, etc.) This would help me determine the type and length of protection to be used. I would also check the logs for the page to see the type, length, and dates of any previous protection, which would influence my decisions. If an article just came off 3 months of protection and is immediately being vandalized again, I'd go for 6 months to a year. If an article is being edited constructively by IPs but there are BLP violations, Pending Changes lvl 1 might be an option. If it's edit warring between lots of registered users, short term full-protection might be in order, with a push to discuss things on the talk page. I'd also be constantly weighing the ideals of having a nice, stable, un-vandalized encyclopedia against having an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit (which is what we're supposed to be). Also note, it's not mainly RPP I'd like to work with; that's one of the areas.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

14. I see that you have been interviewed at the Signpost about your involvement in WikiProject Religion. Are you a member of any other WikiProjects? Can you tell us what your views are of WikiProjects on Wikipedia: do you believe they add value and, if so, what can you say to convince others to join the thousands of (starving:-) WikiProjects?

A: Wow, I had no idea they were going to quote the interviews that extensively. I'm a member of two other WikiProjects that I can remember: WP:WikiProject Musical Instruments (not very active) and WP:Wikiproject Editor Retention (very active). I think WikiProjects are good things, in that they serve as Village Pump type locations where interested users can bring things to the community's attention or discuss maters that affect multiple pages within the project. They can also be a bad thing if they are used for canvassing, but in my limited experience that's generally not how they are used, and the pros outweigh the cons. Unfortunately I'm no expert on WikiProjects, and I'm not sure what the best way is of recruiting new members. I think one thing that can help is to have a small core group (even 1-2 users) to maintain the project, tag articles, notify of events, respond to others' notifications, and basically keep the thing greased and running. If it is a useful place for collaboration, then collaboration is more likely to take place there. Other than that, I'm not sure what to say.

Additional question from Plutonium27

15 Do you participate in any Wikipedia-related IRC/chat activities? If so, would you please describe your involvement - including your views on how you think such activity affects the project and on what you, as an editor and now as an admin candidate, gain from it.

A: Honestly, I don't really use IRC. I remember creating an account like a year ago, but after that I couldn't figure out how to find the right "channel" so I gave up. A few months ago I managed to log on as an IP when I was trying to figure out whether Wikipedia was down or if it was just me. (Turns out it was Wikipedia...that was when they were moving the servers to Virginia.) That has been my only involvement on IRC, and I don't see myself becoming a regular user there. I think it's a cool idea, since it allows you to have fast real time discussions without the pain of edit conflicts, but I've never really felt the need to use it myself.

General comments

• Links for Adjwilley: Adjwilley (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Adjwilley can be found here.
• I will try to respond to questions in a timely manner, but between my job and family life I may not be able to respond immediately. Thank you for your patience. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Editing stats posted on (talk) page. :) John Cline (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Am I the only one who thinks 262 edits per month is actually a really high level of activity? Kurtis ^(talk) 09:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing as I can quite easily do that in a day... GiantSnowman 11:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm apparently at 262 edits this month right now, and that's the highest I have been in the last year and a half. If I was elected to ArbCom with this level of activity, then I don't think that Adjwilley should be judged harshly for that respectable rate of contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• I think it depends on the type of edits one is doing. I checked GiantSnowman's recent contribution history and found an instance of rolling back 8 contributions by the same sockpuppet in one minute. Earlier that day, they added the same template (which, granted, they had created) to 21 different pages in under 7 minutes. On the other hand, I often take 10 to 20 minutes to make a single edit. It's not uncommon for me to have 2-3 different books open, plus several tabs, checking back and forth between them, and hitting preview over and over. Although this is an extreme example, I remember one edit in particular that took me 2 hours to make: I was extensively citing 5 different books, checking dates, page numbers, facts, trying to make the paragraph agree with all the sources which differed in a lot of ways, trying to make sure I wasn't paraphrasing any of them too closely, trying to make sure I was writing from a neutral point of view, and writing very carefully because the topic I was writing on had been the subject of years of intense edit wars. Mind you, I'm not belittling in any way the work GiantSnowman does, nor am I suggesting that they don't also do the slower content work, which I'm sure they do. I know what they do is extremely important, and I respect it very much. It's just different than what I do. We really are comparing apples to oranges (both respectable fruits, but not the same thing). This is why I think edit counts are a poor metric of activity and experience. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good answer, but I fear that one of these days you will be kicking yourself for not saving an intermediate edit along the way. Even if you have a reliable power supply and PC and are editing a very quiet article I would seriously suggest saving at least every half hour. ϢereSpielChequers 07:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support No reason is obvious to object. Seems to be a good candidate for admin.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support — Per nominator's rationale; also, candidate has an admirable approach to disputes/conflicts as outlined in question/answer 3; wonderful work with in regards to maintaining article quality; and interests in administrative areas WP:RPP (and perhaps later down the track: WP:AIV, WP:AN3). Clean block log. Tick, tick, tick! Good luck, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support- Impressive, dedicated work. No qualms here. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. I like this editor's approach to dealing with conflict. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC).
5. Support I scanned his contribs, and his logs, and I see someone reasonably similar to myself, albeit more active, and I think we need exactly that. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - I have encountered Adjwilley on occasion, and have found him to have an even temperament and good judgement. I see no reason not to trust him with a few extra tools. - MrX 02:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support as nominator. alanyst 03:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Adjwilley seems thoughtful, mature, and sensible. I think s/he will be an excellent admin, and support without reservations. MastCell ^Talk 03:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support - I've run into adjwilley a few times, and found his contributions to be uniformly thoughtful and helpful. StAnselm (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
10. Support. Solid Q1-3 shows perspective. Reasonable article count. RFPP and AIV matches Q1. No reason to wait on this. Glrx (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
11. Stephen 05:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
12. Well, it sure took him long enough — I thought he was ready for at least a year now! Adjwilley will definitely do a good job as an administrator, and I'm very pleased to support. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
13. Support - that's good with me - "Mop please"! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 08:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
14. I would like to have a deeper look, but so far I'm satisfied; no red flags, good content contributions and solid answers to questions. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
15. Support cyrfaw (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
16. I'm convinced that Adjwilley is completely trustworthy. A clear net positive to the project. I was impressed by Adjwilley/CERFC and proffer my support on its sufficiency. I've also interacted with Adjwilley and observed his interactions even more. He will surely excel where he endeavors for sheer decency if no other quality emerged. :) John Cline (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
17. Weak support. I am struggling to find any comments at WP:RFPP. I found some stuff about Book of Leviticus and User:PiCo from March 2013. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
18. Support. I haven't had the chance to interact with this user very much, but I'm finding lots of good work in their contributions. I find the concerns about a low number of edits-per-month to be unpersuasive - mainly because it's similar to my own rate of editing. Quality not quantity. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
19. Support I have worked with Adjwilley on a few behavioral/mentoring issues and was more than a little impressed in his handling. This was a year ago and everything I've seen since has only reinforced my initial impressions. Adjwilley is independent, conscientious, calm, practical and entirely trustworthy. He is at the top of my shortlist of "people I wish were admin" and will be an excellent addition to the admin corps. Number of edits doesn't bother me, we've recently voted in admin with the same, and he has never been a "edit padder". Every edit is actually doing something positive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
20. Support The edits are of sufficiently consistent quality that more of the same won't change my vote. The contributions indicate adequate experience plus the essential attributes of maturity and trustworthiness, which are what we need in admins. With the good sense shown, I'm confident the candidate will exercise restraint on unfamiliar ground. The RFC that seemed like a discovery by ASW (per GiantSnowman) had already been highlighted appropriately by the candidate in Answer #3. I see nothing concerning in that RFC - it was exploratory and apparently defused a difficult situation. -- Scray (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
21. Support. Highly unlikely to break the wiki, and should be a clear cut net positive with the tools. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
22. Strong Support. He answered the questions well and I must say he is one nice guy, though he may not have much edits in main space, we do need a nice community admin. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    Have you ever met Yunshui amigo? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 13:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

23. Support. Seems level-headed. Contra the opposers, I think the "weight in religion RFC" is a positive thing. Not only does it show reasoned thought about the project, but it shows fidelity to wiki-procedure. There needed to be such an RFC.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  19:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
24. Weak support. Good egg who tries to do the right thing. On the other hand, editor is inexperienced in policy areas and does not understand WP:Involved. He should be extremely cautious for the next 2 years. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
25. Support. I agree with Adjwilley having level-headness. The opposers raise reasonable points, but quality is often more important than quantity. Therefore, I believe that he/she will make a very good admin.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
26. Support. I've seen the candidate around, and I'm not concerned about the issue of experience. What Dennis Brown said makes me confident to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
27. Support Answer to my question was adequate. Any answer along the lines of "If my beliefs conflict with admining, I'll back away" would've been acceptable as that just about covers my own admining. Religion or lack of a religion has never been a choping block for me, but recognizing one's own biases is and candidate seems to have that squared away.--v/r - TP 02:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
28. Support I'm pleased with the answers to TParis' question regarding biases as well as my own questions on blocking and WP:AGF. Editor's responses clearly reflect a demeanor that is chock full of WP:CLUE, care, and an ability to interact productively and respectfully with others when conflict arises. Not swayed by edit count arguments, because at this level, edit count is not a particularly useful metric of quality and ability to address content issues. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
29. Support Would be helpful for the project; seems trustworthy. Spencer^T♦C 02:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
30. SupportMy personal experience of Adjwilley in a content dispute on the article Leviticus was extremely positive - he was courteous, knowledgeable and sensible, and found a resolution that satisfied all parties. PiCo (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
31. Support. I don't see any real concerns. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
32. Support - I've seen the candidate around and have no reason not to support him. Regarding some editors concerns about edit count, I'd rather have an admin that makes fewer in number but thought out edits than one with many quick edits. Quality not quantity Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
33. Per Dennis. I've worked with Adjwilley too, and had the same impressions. - Dank (push to talk) 11:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
34. Support - trustworthy editor. As others have noted, his answers to the questions are of a high standard, and his answer to Q3 is especially good. Regarding his edit count, he has over 7000 edits, more than a third of which are to articles, which is more than sufficient experience to be an admin. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
35. Support I'm impressed with the answer. So here's my support.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
36. Support Calm, clueful candidate—a net positive, despite our disagreement about weighting individual articles on religions. Good points have been made in this RfA about editcountitis and length of experience; many current admins got the mop when six months and 6,000 edits were sufficient. Miniapolis 17:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
37. May not have the greatest quantity of edits, but they seem of fairly high quality. I found no reason for concern in my lookover, and I was very favorably impressed by the way that Adjwilley has answered the questions thus far. NW (Talk) 20:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
38. Support He has been very patient and polite under circumstances that would cause many of us to through good faith out the window. He would be an excellent administrator, one that can be trusted to do the right thing on Wikipedia. Bahooka (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
39. Support - The only reservation I can see is the question raised by some of the opposers about the relative weight to give the views of various religions in articles dealing with more than one religion. That is a legitimate concern, and a reasonable one, but it was only a proposal, and, honestly, it was a proposal in an area where wikipedia needs a lot of help in, articles dealing with multiple religions. However, I cannot see rejecting someone as an admin on the basis of a proposal made once. In all other areas in which I have interacted with the nominee, and their have been quite a few of them, I have honestly never seen anything which led me to believe he would be less than fair in his administration of the tools. Also, we desperately need admins who are willing to work in religion based content, and this individual seems to me to be one of the best possibilities out there in that regard. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you User:John Carter, I appreciate the support. You might want to note that I won't be performing admin-related tasks in the religion space (See Q10). I wish to continue editing there, and I don't want the bit getting in the way of that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

40. Support Superb candidate who will not break anything. Vogone (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
41. Support no issues. --Rschen7754 22:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
42. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns, strong answers to questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
43. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
44. Support because I see no good reason to object. ~2500 edits to article space used to be enough, and I think in the absence of proof he is unsuitable to be an admin, that is enough on the edit-count measure for me. Regarding the religion proposals, whether you agree with most or even some editors, and whether you will be able to judge consensus and behavioral issues are totally different things, so that objection does not move me. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
45. Support, my concerns addressed in answer and statement of intent at question #10. Will not break Wikipedia. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
46. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
47. Support Opposing for lack of article edits when the editor clearly demonstrated his writing skills by being the main contributor of two GAs of core and highly controversial subjects in the area of religion is simply idiotic. We aren't talking about a teenage vandal fighter/NP patroller or frequent wiki-politics only editor here. Those are the cases in which lack of namespace/article writing opposes should be used. Secret ^account 04:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

    I wasn't the main contributor at the 2nd article, though I think I made a respectable splash. [2] I was on the 1st though. [3] ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

48. Support - qualified and suitable. Eusebeus (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
49. Support. Admired his response to this Q from the Civility Questionnaire: "Should the quality and/or number of contributions an individual makes outside of discussions have any bearing on whether an individual should be sanctioned due to incivility? Should the incidents of incivility be taken on their own as a separate concern?" Reply: "Ouch. Hard question. As much as it bugs me to say it, I think the quality of contributions should count. Editors who are actually building an encyclopedia but have civility problems on article talk pages should be treated differently than editors who think this is Facebook and spend all day stirring up muck on the drama boards. Sorry. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)"
    Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
50. Support Appears mature, thoughtful, analytic, focused in his editing and has demonstrated insight in policies. Been a stable editor since June 2011 with 100+ monthly edits since then. If we want grown-up administrators with career, family and real-life hobbies, we shouldn’t set the expectation for monthly edits too high. Iselilja (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
51. Support - thoughtful and sensible candidate with a good track record of useful contributions. To be honest I'm a little worried by the fact there are multiple people opposing at least partially on the basis that 7,000 edits, regularly spaced over more than two years, is insufficient. Not only did I have a similar number of edits when I passed RfA a few years ago, but mine were generally more minor. We must be wary of constantly, irrationally increasing RfA standards and I really think Adjwilley's done more than enough to demonstrate competence and commitment. ~ mazca ^talk 10:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
52. Support Good candidate. One of the sharpest intellects I have seen in some time. Polished, well informed replies to questions.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
53. Support Good answers, reasonable contributions, no issues raised that I find troubling. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
54. Support See my rationale down in Neutral. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 13:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
55. Support See no concerns.Feel the Project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
56. Despite the concerns over edit count, I see a convincing history of quality editing. ceranthor 13:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
57. Support No real concerns. Quality over quantity, as has been pointed out above. Widr (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
58. Support This edit count issue is far outweighed by his many assets. Check his talk archives, for example. This is exactly what I feel comfortable with. He's calm, thoughtful, smart, and level-headed. He has that friendly airline pilot thing. I get the impression that if given tools, he would continue along the same lines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
59. Support Response to Question 3 is exceptional and explains his philosophy for resolving edit conflicts. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
60. Support Qualified editor. Great answers to all the questions. I believe he would make good use of admin tools. -- TOW  18:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
61. Support Dedicated and professional. Nothing here that alarms me. 262 edits in a month... --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
62. Support Low edit count means he is being considerate to the servers. No obviously deviant tendencies. James^x12345 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
63. Support No concerns on my end. TCN7JM 20:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
64. Support There isn't an editor on the project who wouldn't look better at RFA with a higher edit count, but the maturity and even-headedness I've seen from Adjwilley made me think he'd make a good admin. And his answer to my question addressed any lingering fears I may have had with his willingness to stand for recall. Overall, a net positive whom I'm convinced will serve competently. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
65. Support Satisfied with his answer.Lsmll 23:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
66. Well qualified candidate. – Connormah (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
67. I don't regard the edit count as low or the tenure brief. I'm not seeing anything in the oppose section to justify why a fully qualified candidate like this should be deferred or for how long. ϢereSpielChequers 07:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
68. Support. His AfD contributions are well-reasoned and show a good knowledge of policy, which fits in perfectly with the impression I get from reading the discussion here so far. I don't agree with the opposes below that are based on edit count; 7000 edits is more than enough to assess whether a candidate would make a competent admin. If a candidate shows good judgement and good knowledge of our community processes, then they should be trusted with the bit even if they have a much lower edit count than that. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
69. Support. When I was a naïve noob many moons ago, not knowing how important editcountitis is I created articles in Wiki markup off line then pasted the whole thing in one single edit to mainspace. Not much has changed since - I can sometimes spend a whole day reading through a long RfC, ANI, or doing an SPI for example before adding one single edit to Wikipedia. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
70. Support, no concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
71. Support I really like how Kudpung sums it up. I have no issues with the candidate and believe Adjwilley will make a fine addition to the administrator team. MJ94 (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
72. Support edit count seems high enough to me. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - editor only began editing properly in April 2011, and has averaged only 262 edits per month since then - and the average for the last 6 months is only 155. Basically, they are not proflific enough to either properly judge their worth, or to merit having the tools. That, combined with ASW's 'weight of religion' RFC link, is concerning enough for me to, unfortunately, oppose. GiantSnowman 10:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - per GiantSnowman; 2650 edits in article space doesn't seem to be enough. Kraxler (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   @Kraxler, the number is closer to 3,000 if you include edits to my sandboxes that eventually translated into article edits. (I have sometimes copied articles into the sandbox when I want to make lots of changes, or have worked up an entire new section or Lead for a mature article before pasting it in, completed.) This probably still isn't high enough for your standards, but I thought I'd mention it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   But your frequency editing is not enough, as an admin you will be needed to work a lot and must be an active editor, when edits per month average 260 dropping to 155 is an inactivity concern. Prabash.Akmeemana 16:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   I know I'm not the most active editor in terms of edit counts. I tend to read much more than I write, and often get caught up reading long discussions without commenting. Although I tried STiki back in May 2012, I've generally not done a whole lot of semi-automated editing, which also affects the numbers. As for not spending enough time on Wikipedia...I suggest you talk to my wife on that one :-) I try to contribute as much as I can, and when I involve myself in discussions I make sure to see them through. I'm not trying to change your standards, I'm just saying that numbers aren't everything. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   To Prabash's concern, I don't necessarily agree that admins need to "work a lot" or make a certain number of edits per month to be beneficial to the encyclopedia. There are even some truly outstanding admins who make less than 100 edits per month. It costs nothing to grant the administrative tools, so even one constructive admin action per year is a net positive for the project. Our biggest problems don't come from inactive admins; they come from active or over-active admins with poor judgement. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   Statements by Adjwilley and MastCell were well put, am now moving to support, best of luck. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   I never knew editcountitis (aka edit count inflation) is this serious. I passed my RfA 5 years ago with unanimous support with just over 1,600 mainspace count. And now, people think 2,600 mainspace edits are insufficient? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   Lots of things happened 5 years ago, Ohana, and I'm glad Dennis Brown acknowledges that there is something like "edit count padding" (see above, at his vote). The bare number of edits is not that important. My main concerns are the issues raised by GiantSnowman, and the not so good answers to questions above. The answers show a certain lack of experience, concerning wiki policies and guidelines. The supporters above desribe the candidate as nice and corteous, but that is not enough IMO. He should come back next year. Kraxler (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

   To be clear, I didn't call him nice and courteous myself, although that is true. What I worked with him with editors that had serious behavioral problems, and what I found was calm, clue, real world experience and the kind of common sense you can't teach: either you are born with it or you aren't. That is why I trust him, I know he won't overreact or bite off more than he can chew. I like a lot of people, but I don't throw the word "trust" around loosely, or frequently. Here, that trust was earned, not given. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

   Lenin said "Trust is good, control is better" and he knew why. Ok, Dennis, you trust this candidate, that's fine with me. Other users, who had no personal acquaintance with the candidate, try to get some feeling about his suitability for adminship by reading his answers above, or by analyzing his "track record". And both are not so good. The issues raised by Alan Scott Walker in the neutral section below also concern me. The RfC (to establish weight of different religions) linked there is hair-raising. Kraxler (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

   Oppose Moving to Support Editor needs more contributions in the mainspace, a concern rises Whether the editor will be an efficient admin that will respond to queries on time. Prabash.Akmeemana 16:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Not seeing a sufficient number or percentage of contributions to mainspace to put my mind at ease. Small sample size, file under: NOTYET. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose I think this has to go under Not Now. Adjwilley has only 2600 edits, but while OhanaUnited makes a good point, I still think it's not enough. Plus, after looking through his archives, I don't see enough qualities that an admin should have. While I regret this, I will oppose. buffbills7701 21:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   Actually, he has 7442 edits. The 2600 figure is the number of edits he has to the main namespace. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   Hi buffbills7701, just to clarify something, NOTNOW/NOTYET is about new users who file RfAs that have zero possibility of succeeding; as Adjwilley is not a newbie and their RfA is currently passing, that information page doesn't apply to them. Again, just clarifying... this is not an attempt to have you change your vote! :) Best. Acalamari 17:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

5. Unfortunate oppose This request really strikes me as wayyyyy toooo early. The edits so far appear generally positive, and their interactions clueful. The quantity of mainspace edits is way too low right now, especially the ratio of mainspace-to-elsewhere. I am seeing really really good things here - but not of sufficient quantity to support, and also not of sufficient quantity to say "neutral". This is truly a "moral support" - you're on the right path, and do sincerely hope that an early attempt at RFA does not curtail your chances 8 months or so from now. Bring your mainspace ratio up!! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

   @Bwilkins: Of his 860 edits in the User namespace, 612 are to sandbox subpages, and nearly all of these (say roughly 600) are edits to content drafts. Of his 730 edits in Wikipedia namespace, 82 are content-based (AfD and content RfC participation). 33 of 364 edits in Wikipedia Talk are with Articles for Creation; 21 of 30 edits in Template namespace are to content templates (infoboxes and navigation); and 26 of 56 in Template Talk are negotiating changes to a content template. If you grant that all of these contributions count together with article and article talk contributions as "mainspace" (read: content-oriented) contributions, the total is 4932 of 7358, which is 67% of all contributions. If you want to restrict "mainspace" to article, article drafts in userspace, and content-oriented template changes, and not count discussion of content or !votes, then the total is 3269 of 7358, or 44%. Food for thought. alanyst 14:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

6. Oppose per BWilkins, notwithstanding Alanyst's points. I still need to see more evidence of experience. --John (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Upon a review of this user's overall contributions, opposing at this time per a lack of well-rounded experience in the many areas of Wikipedia. This is nothing personal against this editor whatsoever, and this RfA will very likely close as successful despite this oppose !vote. More experience, which demonstrates familiarity with Wikipedia processes and areas of the encyclopedia would be desirable. Also, the answer to question #9 above about how consensus is determined on Wikipedia is somewhat concerning, because the editor didn't state anything about how the strength and validity of statements figures into the equation (e.g. how !voting is not actually a "vote"). Something I've noticed in these RfA discussions is that less experienced editors appear to have a much higher likelihood of passing RfA, because lesser edits directly corresponds to a lesser likelihood of making errors, experiencing conflict with other users or the likelihood of editing articles about controversial topics. In these discussions, it appears that many participants search for "something wrong," and with less-experienced editors, it's naturally less likely to find error or conflict. While smooth editing is commendable, I've noticed that more experienced editors almost invariably run into a higher degree of contention, which directly corresponds with a lesser likelihood of passing RfA. Conversely, perhaps this is a good thing, though, in which users with lesser experience have a higher likelihood of passing RfA; once editors attain the tools, they may be less likely to venture into controversial article topics, engage in discussions about topics that others may disagree with, etc., to prevent increasing the probability of losing the tools. This all said, I wish you well in your adminship as it's obvious that this will be successful, and please continue to contribute to Wikipedia's articles in main namespace to improve the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

   • Northamerica1000, Just curious to find out what your definition is of an experienced editor? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

8. Strong oppose I believe that Adjwilley becoming an admin would be a disaster and i'm appalled it is even being considered. In fact Adjwilleys edits are so problematic and vast that i have had to resort to creating two essay sections (WP:MASSRV and WP:CPOV) plus amended a policy and essays just to deal with his problems. Firstly, Adjwilley rarely cites wikipedia policies and guidelines, and when he does he often misunderstands them; this can point to two things, either he has a disregard for the wikipedian community, or he thinks his logic trumps wikipedia policy. This wuld be disastrous if he's dealing with new editors because they may see his opinion as factual due to his admin status.

Secondly, Adjwilley sometimes behaves in bizarre ways with deletion of sourced content. He also deletes unsourced content which is easily verifiable. A decent editor would add "citation needed" tags in order to avoid destroying the effort of other editors. Sometimes his deletionism is so extreme that he deletes things within minutes without waiting for others to improve/cite the additions which are still under construction. WP:UNSOURCED states that you shoudld "consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step". WP:PRESERVE mentions a similar policy saying "fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't".

Besides all that i dont see how the admin tools would be useful to him. A substantial amount of his edits consists of welcome templates, feedback on talk pages and other minor edits which are irrelevant to the tools. Besides myself, other more experienced editors have also made remarks about his misunderstanding of the WP:UNDUE and other policies. The amount I spent on him on essays and policy pages have gotten to the point where an Adjwilleyism template would be possible. My edits and his edits overlap significantly so i'd say i have a pretty good grasp of his ability, moreso than any of the other editors who have commented before me.

It also concerns me that he is planning to work on the WP:AN3 page because he is an edit-warrior himself who isn't impartial. Also thelast time he reported someone he was scorned by the answering admin for being hypocritical in his reporting. Furthermore, as you can see in the above essay where i was largely addressing him, Adjwilley edits with a Christian POV. There are already too many administrators who have been accused of having a Christian POV and adding Adjwilley to the mix will only create a power imbalance.

Other problems include that he is also not transparent - I have come across situations where when in the midst of a discussion he will break off a discussion and begin communicating through e-mail with his acquaintences. I can even forward an e-mail he sent to me where he says that he would prefer to speak in private to avoid too many prowling eyes on talk pages. Also he sometimes resorts to stalking of editors he has had disagreements with.

Other annoying aspects of his editing are that if he disagrees with a 1% of an edit he will not reverrt the 1%. Rather he will revert 100% of an edit. I have even seen occasions where he has reinserted vandalism that was removed because he disagreed with an intermediate edit. Such reverts are especially problematic with the wikipedia software because rapid commuication is is not possible on talk pages so you end up with an awkward situation where you try to squeeze four or five topics into a single post. Adjwilley's editing and communication style does not make this easier.

Another thing that discourages me is that i have seen him confront editors on topics where he is clearly less knowledgeable which to me implies a lack of humility. Pass a Method talk 01:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

1. In that big wall of text, is there a diff demonstrating the problematic behavior to which you refer? While not required in this context, it certainly seems like a reasonable request since you have such strong reservations not shared by most others who have commented here. If substantiated, these would be quite concerning. -- Scray (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

   "I could go into great lenghts about problems with his editing but for brevity..." I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, at this point, it's too late for brevity.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

   Deleted it now. Pass a Method talk 02:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Pass a Method, I'm not saying that your vote may be invalid, but it looks as if it may possibly be based mainly on your own interactions with the candidate and not represent a broad analysis of his work on Wikipedia. It should certainly be supported by diffs. That said, I'm not sure that your polling of 16.6% of the supporters to change their minds is a very good idea, and may even be in contravention of some policy or another. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

   I ensured to only reply to supporters who mentioned an oppose rationale (except for one by mistake) Pass a Method talk 02:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

   Did you just admit to campaigning editors who you felt you could actually change their vote based on wording in their support !vote? That doesn't sound like you are disinterested or neutral on the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

   No, otherwise i would have "campaigned" to editors who added weak supports. I was merely notifying editors who expressed an interest in this subsection.Pass a Method talk 03:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

   I've debated whether or not to respond here. While it is true that I have been in a long-term conflict with Pass a Method (this is the conflict I mentioned in Q3 that led to the religion RfC) much of what was said above is inaccurate, out of context, and misrepresented. For anyone interested in investigating, a good place to look might be in my talk page archives (2-4) as a fair amount of discussion took place there. If any avid readers out there are interested in a point-by-point reply, I could probably provide one on the talk page if one is requested.

   @Pass a Method, obviously I don't agree with your assessment of me, and I think we have misunderstood one another. If you are worried about me taking admin action against you personally, I can guarantee that won't happen since I consider myself involved in that regard. Also, since you seem worried about admins who edit in the area of religion, I invite you to read my response to Q10 above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral For now. The user's proposal to "weight" religions across multiple articles [4], at the least, lacks nuance, so it does not inspire confidence. 'Wikipedia's list of approved religions whose views matter' seems to be what the User was going for and is an odd "weight" claim to make across multiple different articles. But I will look further. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   @Alanscottwalker: It may not be readily apparent at a quick glance, but the guidelines Adjwilley proposed at that RfC were not necessarily all positions he personally advocated: "I got many of the ideas from reading sources about world religions, and those were ways they chose the religions that were important/useful to talk about." He expressed his own preferences here. I hope this provides useful additional context, and of course you can ask Adjwilley directly about it. alanyst 14:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   You pinged me, so I want to assure you I read that entire discussion. 'I read somewhere.' while of perhaps some use in such discussions is not of much use. Even Karen Armstrong in her "A History of God: The four thousand year quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam" discusses in detail rationalism, as well paganism and other religions, and those were not even her topic but were important to the understanding of it, nonetheless. To propose and support such a priori prejudicial statements to cover whole swaths of broad encyclopedia articles does not seem intellectually sound or useful. Also concerning is that proposal was apparently a means to address the behavior of a specific editor, which is also a doubtful basis for a content guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   Fair enough; I just wanted to call attention to his rationale since it was kind of buried in the RfC discussion. alanyst 16:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, I never meant for it to be a content guideline, and I've not pushed for it to become such. My full intent was to address problems like adding links to Church of Satan, Raëlian church, and Kopimism Church (a Sweedish congregation of file sharers) to a general Church disambiguation page that doesn't mention specific religious denominations. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   Ok. But then you probably should have not introduced them with: "I propose the following guidelines"; and been more circumspect in your tailoring of the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   You're right, I should have been more careful than that, though in context, I did say upfront, "In an attempt to find out what the larger community thinks on the matter, I propose the following guidelines for the weight given to individual religions in religion-related articles. I'm not asking that these be accepted as official or added to any Wikipedia-space policy page; I just want to see where the community consensus lies." (emphasis added) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, you did say that but official content guideline or unofficial content guideline ("for the weight given to individual religions in religion-related articles") is still not fit to purpose of addressing adding links, even were those proposals not so over-broad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   I have to say, that after reading the opening of that RFC, I see it as a neutral proposal to clarify how we treat small religions when pushed into mention in larger, more established religion articles. The very topic of religion is a heated subject and I am not seeing the same lack of nuance that Alan is here.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I am not sure whether it's enough for me to oppose, but the RfC on religions, and the assumptions within the items there, struck me as unexamined bias that makes me concerned about the editor's neutrality. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Neutral - Not sure yet. Monterey Bay (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral A mix really. I would have supported if RFPP was backlogged but it doesn't look like an area of demand, Support points towards that it's an editor with clue but on the Oppose side there's that he doesn't have enough mainspace edits yet. That RFPP is not backlogged is Neutral. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 11:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

   Moving over to Support on the basis that he doesn't want his religion to be involved in his editing and that he's agreed to not use Sysop tools on Religion articles. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 13:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)