Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bradv

Catfish Jim's oppose

1. Oppose You say the Strickland incident attracted a fair amount of criticism. That's one way to describe it... another would be to say it was one of the most damaging incidents in Wikipedia's history, played out in the highest-profile, international news media... "Wikipedia criticised after it emerges female Nobel laureate had page rejected", The Independent, October 5, 2018; "Donna Strickland's treatment on Wikipedia shows how women have long been excluded from science", The Independent, October 6, 2018; "For Just the Third Time in 117 Years, a Woman Wins the Nobel Prize in Physics", New York Times, October 2, 2018; "Wikipedia rejected an entry on a Nobel Prize winner because she wasn't famous enough", Quartz, October 2, 2018; "Donna Strickland had no Wikipedia page before her Nobel. Her male collaborator did.", Vox, October 3, 2018; "Nobel prize winner Donna Strickland wasn't famous enough for Wikipedia", The Times, October 4, 2018; "Physicist Donna Strickland Had to Win a Nobel Prize to Get on Wikipedia", The Observer, October 4, 2018; "Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Wikipedia entry", The Guardian, October 4, 2018; "Wikipedia rejected an entry on a physics Nobel laureate right up until she won, saying she wasn't famous enough", Business Insider, October 4, 2018; "The Nobel prize winning scientist who wasn't famous enough for Wikipedia", The Irish Times, October 3, 2018. An administrator needs judgement and credibility, and I don't think you are suitable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   This is bit disingenuous and doesn't accurately reflect the facts. Up until that point she was not notable. It was a BLP article and it needed to be accessed correctly and accurately. When it discovered she was notable, it took 90 minutes to create an article, which reflects the excellent collaborative nature of Wikipedia. It wasn't damaging in the least. Most of the coverage was sensationalist. The fourth estate which is under attack from us and social media in general means most newspapers are no friend of Wikipedia and any chance they get will horse us. In reality it is nothing to do with administration. It was correct decision, and the majority of Afc reviewers would have taken the same view. scope_creep^Talk 15:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   I would caution against making them a referendum on the Strickland affair. The real question is "Did Bradv make a reasonable decision based on the information they had", and the answer is absolutely "yes", because you cannot reasonably expect AfC reviewers to research the drafts they are presented with. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   I agree with scope_creep, I can't find any evidence that she was notable before receiving the Nobel Prize. The media obviously does not know about Wikipedia's BLP notability guidelines. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   The decision to decline the Strickland draft, as it stood at the time it was submitted, was the correct decision. It's again a perfect example of how Bradv is correctly interpreting the BLP policy - there were insufficient sources to confirm notability, indeed, there were no sources to validate a significant portion of the text in the article (the decline can be seen here). The decline reason, since this is quite an important point, specifically states "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article" and it's very difficult to disagree with that assessment when one looks at the submission as declined. The decline rationale was not and never has been "I've decided the subject isn't notable" and shouldn't be treated as if it was. Nick (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   I appreciate you feel that my opposition is unfair but the decline indicates that Bradv did not understand notability guidelines. The draft clearly showed that Strickland satisfied WP:PROF criterion 3 by being awarded a Fellowship of the Optical Society, a highly selective honour, and also criterion 6 as she served as president of the society. It's a little alarming that others appear to have missed this too. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   The fact that Strickland was president of the OSA was not sourced. A quote from WP:PROF, "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." - ZLEA _T\^C 15:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   It takes an amount of special pleading to claim that it was not sourced, given that one of the references in the article was a link to her profile on the Optical Society webpage. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   The crux of the argument whether it would have survived at Afd. With no coverage, and I've seen this numerous times in the last ten years; if they are notable and they don't have coverage they are deleted. They simply must have coverage to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV to survive if it is BLP article. It a truism and its sad really, that coverage is more important that society memberships, even if their fellows of extremely prestigious societies. In this case that was decision path that was followed. That and fact there no sources worth jot and the defacto working practices in Afc is to get submitting editor to supply structure and refs as possible. In the end up it couldn't be foreseen that she would become famous. The correct decision was made.scope_creep^Talk 16:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Of course it would have survived AFD. Keep Subject clearly fulfils notability criteria listed in WP:PROF. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Of course it would have survived. The argument that the subject hadn't received coverage id based on the unfortunately widespread and highly damaging misconceptions among editors, one which is antithetical to the notion of writing an encyclopedia, the idea that coverage of a knowledge worker or creative figure is somehow distinct from coverage of their work. This is nonsense; their coverage and notability are inextricably linked. (There may be circumstances where so little can be written about a person that they and their work are better covered in a single article, but that is not the issue here.) What happened here was that the standards of celebrity journalism were applied to a noncelebrity, but clearly notable, scientist. The notability of scientists is generally measured by the notability of their work; the notability of the subject's work was clearly established by the wikipage linked in her bio, and that should have been sufficient. That the candidate is still defending their awful, awful decision should speak volumes about their failure to understand key policies and, therefore, heir unsuitability for admin authority. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   The Optical Society fellowship and presidency was discussed extensively at the time, there was never any consensus that The Optical Society was a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association...or a ...major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. There are a number of professional bodies - my own, the Royal Society of Chemistry, is a prime example - which treat fellow status as a membership level one needs to apply to, rather than a status which is decided upon without any intervention or application by the subject. The argument made at the time, and which I will recap briefly here now, is that Optical Society promotes a significant number of members (for example, more than 100 this year) to the rank of fellow, suggesting it's not really a highly selective honor and not a particularly brilliant indicator of notability. It's an area (one of many) in NPROF which could do with refinement and better guidance for reviewers, but I honestly cannot fault Bradv for their decline of the article in the circumstances, and I really do think, given just how borderline the notability inherent with The Optical Society fellowship and presidency actually is, continuing to insist "Bradv did not understand notability guidelines" is incorrect and highly unfair. Nick (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   (ec)This to me appears to be an oppose on the basis of a requirement of Wikipedia's insistence of WP:NOTE being supported by WP:RS, the weighing of consensus where such evidence or lack was presented, and the (UK) press being wilfully ignorant of WP's standards for inclusion. From a brief review of the issue Bradv cannot be faulted for his determination of the consensus according to the arguments presented. I would suggest that Catfish Jim review WP:SYSTEMICBIAS where it is argued that it is the lack of coverage in mainstream media - and sometimes within specialist fields - of certain demographics in society and world culture that preclude some subjects not getting the articles their career achievements deserve. Some of those newspapers critiquing WP were complicit in not bringing the subject into public knowledge that WP editors may have been able to use. All that said, and it is a lot, it is not the fault of Bradv that what sources were introduced were insufficient to provide notability, and that an oppose on that basis is faulty logic. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Um, no... I'm quite happy with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. We have subject-specific notability guidelines like WP:PROF specifically because notability in academia is not measured as per notability for reality TV "stars". It is independent from the sort of notability that depends on media coverage. From WP:PROF:

   This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline.

   The issue here is that Bradv made a very significant error that he hasn't quite acknowledged. In his essay he states that there were "several claims of notability." in the draft including: "Strickland is an associate professor at the University of Waterloo, she co-invented Chirped pulse amplification, she is an associate chair of the physics department, she is a fellow of The Optical Society (OSA), and she won 3 additional awards." His contention however was that the three references provided were not "independent as required by [...] WP:PROF"

   For the fellowship of the Optical Society, Criterion 3 states that "For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source."

   For the presidency of the Optical Society, Criterion 6 states: "For documenting that a person has held such a post (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution or society is a major one), publications of the institution where the post is held are considered a reliable source."

   For the invention of chirped pulse amplification, which is covered by Criterion 1 "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." we are told: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work" which is expanded to "The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus." The paper that is used to reference this is listed on WoK as having been cited 2283 times!!! (86 of them since the Nobel Prize). All you need to get this figure is to type her name into Google Scholar, no great task. I'm reasonably proud of one of my papers having been cited 62 times... 2283 cites is phenomenal. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   ...and these sources were noted with supporting commentary where required? Is this not the crux of the issue at hand? ps. I acknowledge that my awareness of notability outside of 'common' reliable source criteria is limited (before your comments... almost non-existant). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   There is no supporting commentary needed. If an article is highly cited as per WoK, then it is highly cited. There is a question to be asked as to how many citations are needed to be "highly cited", but it's a long way below 2283. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• I also want to note WP:NPROF is the single most difficult notability marker on the entire project. I've had AfCs I've rejected before be clearly notable, I've had articles I've AfD'd for lack of sourcing be snow kept. I now try to avoid these articles completely at AfC or otherwise, since I'm not sure if the one obscure thing a professor's been awarded is enough for WP:NPROF, and I, as a non-academic, have absolutely no idea how prestigious any academy membership is. We need to make this part of the encyclopaedia more accessible. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with you. NProf is supposed to be most deterministic notability policy we have but other times there no way to tell what way it is going to go. No way to tell. @Catfish Jim: The citation count is a not a good metric to determine notability for WP:PROF. H-index is much more indicative of continuous invention over a sustained period of time and therefore most suitable for determining notability for WP:PROF, and why it is used at Afc, not citation count. Hers is at 20, which is relatively low for a scientist. That combined with the fact that she is associate professor, as opposed to a named chair or full professor or distinguished professor meant she was non notable. Still not notable with facts as they stand from Google Scholar. Only the awarding of the Nobel Prize is holding the article in Wikipedia. Without winning the prize, 10 years up the road, perhaps as a full Professor she would have probably have had an article. Your quoting policy, but that is not what happens on the ground. scope_creep^Talk 19:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  An h index of 20 is low? Are you serious? And am I reading the same notability guidelines as you? WP:PROF specifically says "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  PROF is a subject-specific guideline, and as such exists to provide clues as to whether a subject is likely to be notable, it doesn't confer notability in itself. If the article topic isn't covered in several quality reliable sources independent of the subject, then it doesn't meet GNG and wouldn't survive an AFD. Given that Ms Strickland's AFC had very little in the way of reliable source evidence of GNG at the time of submission, it would be quite right for Brad to turn it down. There is no requirement for him to go down the rabbit hole of checking for obscure awards such as the one mentioned above. As with the case of Clarice Phelps, the blame for our failure to cover female scientists lies with the media and journals, which prefer to take cheap shots at Wikipedia rather than providing the independent coverage of the subject that would enable us to write about it.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm afraid you're wrong. WP:PROF specifically states that it is "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline" Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm on record places that this needs to be looked at to have WP:NPROF conform to WP:GNG. The counter argument tends to be "but academics don't receive coverage, so we have to have this long list of things!" One person even said it's similar to what would be looked at for tenure, which is not accessible at all. I'm also not pushing for anyone to be deleted - I just want to know, as a member of a non-academic community, what coverage constitutes acceptable coverage to satisfy WP:GNG on academic grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 00:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  The whole point of WP:PROF is that there are absolute giants of academia out there who will never, ever satisfy WP:GNG. People who are more notable than any number of celebrities who pass it in spades because the lowest common denominator wants to read about them. Academics generally do not get covered on a personal level in the media, but this is not a reflection of their notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  The whole point of NPROF is actually that it exists simply to counter the systemic bias of mainstream media against academics when compared to entertainers, sportspeople, etc. It does that by providing an alternative route to notability for a group of subjects whose value as an encyclopedic topic far exceeds the chances that they will have received sufficient coverage to meet GNG. What NPROF does is substitute a series of criteria which we then can use to demonstrate that value (which we then call 'notability'). We look for work that has had a big impact in their field; for academics who have achieved eminence clearly greater than their peers; for those who have been honoured exceptionally. It should be clear that NPROF cannot be expected to conform to GNG: we are using completely different indicators to establish notability. Having said that, I feel we should recognise that establishing whether a particular subject meets NPROF is not easy and requires far more insight into sources than can reasonably be expected of an AfC review. The onus really needs to be on the article creator who relies on NPROF to establish notability to ensure that the claim is spelled out and supported clearly enough. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• One editor above wrote "The crux of the argument whether it would have survived at Afd." - except that isn't the case at all. AfC reviewers have to work with the sources actually put into the article, as opposed to the AfD full BEFORE sweep. And on that basis, Bradv made the correct decision. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly. One problem with the "would this article survive AfD" thing is that unsourced articles can easily get sourced by interested participants during an AfD, but can't be accepted at AfC without the sources. —Kusma (t·c) 20:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• And again, while AfC reviewers often offer basic advice, AfC is not a clinic or a clean up for incomplete or non-notable articles. At the end of the day, whether new articles arrive through NPP or AfC, the onus is on the creators to submit article that conform to policies and guidelines. I's not as if there aren't enough help and advice venues and pages already. 07:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
• Anyone else remember this (talk)? —Cryptic 15:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Assume for the sake of the argument that Bradv was incorrect in declining the AfC. Was that error so egregious that it merits an oppose vote at RfA? Would that decline have been less bad if it was about Geoffrey K. Aguirre, Eugene G. Arthurs, Saša Bajt, or anyone else in the OOS 2019 fellows list? Those three researchers have each, statistically speaking, extremely low chances of getting a Nobel prize, and they do not have Wikipedia articles at the moment. I suspect the press coverage is tainting the evaluation of the decision after the fact (on both sides: one is throwing Bradv under the bus to avoid larger questions about systematic bias, the other is defending Bradv to defend Wikipedia's reputation regardless of the merits). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

GregJackP's oppose

1. Oppose as does not meet criteria. Not enough created content to be an admin. GregJackP Boomer! 19:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   GregJackP, just to be clear, you oppose the candidate because they have only one GA, not the two that would make you support? I have last written / translated half a FA more than 10 years ago, does that mean I was a bad admin? —Kusma (t·c) 19:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Kusma - is there a reason that you are trying to state what you believe my position is on past admins, based solely on a !vote on an RfA? Are you trying to provoke something? This is an encyclopedia. It contains content. Non-content creators should not be selected at this point to supervise content creators. Now, unless you are going to ask the same type of question to those who support the nomination, take a hike. I do not have any need to explain my position further, and certainly not to someone who only questions one side of the issue. GregJackP Boomer! 19:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   GregJackP, the only previous admin I am referring to is me, and I believe your argument has no relevance to the candidate's suitability for adminship whatsoever. Just like you, I am allowed to question any argument on this page, in any section, and you are free to not explain your reasoning. —Kusma (t·c) 20:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Kusma, you know, the last time an admin said that to me, I went and asked questions of all of the support !votes, most of which said nothing, to explain why they supported the nominee, and the community had a cow. We can go back down that road again, or you can accept my opposition as my opinion, as pointed out in the essay that I linked to in my response. So if you want to start questioning those that support the nomination, per nom or other likewise weak reason, I'll be happy to address your question. Otherwise, like I said, take a hike. GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   GregJackP, there is no need to be offensive. One of the reasons why we don't get enough candidates is because of the drama. The other is because some voters exercise criteria that are often criticised as being too severe and prohibitive. In these cases, other participants at RfA are perfectly within their right to voice their opinion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Kudpung - see my responses to Kusma, above. He came to my comment asking if I were taking a position on him and his admin skills. That's an aggressive approach, so why don't you address being offensive with him? GregJackP Boomer! 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   GregJackP, I will be replying on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Kudpung, if you're going to issue threats, please do so here, instead of trying to intimidate me on my talk page. GregJackP Boomer! 00:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

CLCStudent oppose

Oppose - Not the best fit. CLCStudent (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

1. CLCStudent, would you mind gracing this RfA with your reasons why you feel the candidate is 'not a good fit'? Otherwise the bureaucrats will most likely accord very little weight to your vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

   Kudpung, are they going to give the same weight to those that support the nomination with the same amount of justification? Or is it just those who oppose a nomination that have to explain themselves? GregJackP Boomer! 00:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

    Bureaucrat note: this is not the place to discuss this. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

   Primefac - I don't have a problem asking the same question to those who support with the same amount of justification, if that's what you would prefer. Just let me know. GregJackP Boomer! 00:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

   I would prefer if neither side got asked that question; the 'crats know how to weigh consensus. At almost every RFA we just spin around the circle of "blank oppose - badgering about the oppose - everyone else jumps in and comments on how unfair it is that supports can do it but not opposes". It's getting old. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

   I agree, it's old, but I'm also getting tired of people trying to intimidate me for my criteria and going to my talk page to threaten me with ANI, etc., merely because I decide to participate in an RfA. PS, I have no complaints with the 'crats. GregJackP Boomer! 01:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

   This user has made the same vacuous and dismissive oppose at Valereee and Floquenbeam's RfAs as well. Reyk _YO! 09:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

   So? He has a perfect right to oppose a nomination, and he's given the same amount of information as a majority of the supporters have given. GregJackP Boomer! 17:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

   Of course he has a right to torpedo his own credibility. I do not recall suggesting otherwise. Copy pasting the same vague and empty oppose rationale suggests they haven't properly evaluated the candidate, and the crats should be made aware of that if they aren't already. Reyk _YO! 18:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

   Oh. You mean like "Support, per nom" and similarly vague and empty statements in support? Do those weak rationales suggest that they haven't properly evaluated the candidate? Or do I misunderstand you? Are you proposing one standard for those who support and another for those who oppose? Wouldn't that be a hypocrisy torpedo on that editors credibility? And the 'crats can then be made aware of it? GregJackP Boomer! 03:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

   "Support, per nom" seems only as weak or vague and empty as the nomination. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

   OK, so what about "Without a doubt" or "Has a clue" or "Seems sane enough" or "Looks good to me" or "Why not?" All of those are support !votes in this very RfA--are they strong rationales? This is just another way to badger and harass an editor for opposing, and not a single editor is asking weak or vague supporters about their rationale. It's a double standard. GregJackP Boomer! 04:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

   I don't think anyone's arguing that it isn't a double standard - most people just think the double standard is acceptable because their default position is "Support unless I find a reason not to". With that mindset, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they want to know the reason someone is opposing, or why they get frustrated when no reason is provided. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

   Well, when they start providing more information on why they are supporting a nominee, then perhaps they would have a right to ask why another editor is opposing, but so long as they believe that they have a right to badger those in opposition, they can take a hike. Their "default position" doesn't make it everyone's default position. GregJackP Boomer! 17:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

   I agree with you, there is a double standard, we all agree with you there. The difference is, in an RfA, there's about ten paragraphs up at the top detailing why (in the nom's words) the candidate would be a good admin. The undetailed supports, unless specified otherwise for some reason, are typically understood to be "per nom", which are not vague and empty, they are agreeing with the nomination statement which (usually) lays out why the candidate would be a great admin. It also follows with the commonly held belief (I am NOT saying this is your belief, I'm saying a lot of people have it) that adminship is "no big deal". There are, however, no paragraphs already there to specify why they wouldn't be - so unless the oppose is "per (someone else who opposed)", there's not anything to go by. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

   I did a quick spot check of the editors "badgering" the opposes. I found only one that did not give a detailed support rationale. Given this information, do you still have a problem with the questions being asked? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

   That's not correct. Support rationales include "excellent candidate for the corps", to six that haven't put down any rationale in support/opposition/neutral, including you. Several others give a single line or two in support, such as high edit to comment ratio and is an Arbcom clerk. The point is that no one is asking the same questions of supporters, and when they do ask, people go nuts. GregJackP Boomer! 17:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

   Scope Creep (#5, the one you quote) was the one I noted as not detailed. Vanamode (#16) is detailed. ZLEA (#13) is vague, but indicates familiarity with the candidate. Nick (#12) wrote a short novel. LessHeard (#11) indicates familiarity. Sporting Flyer (#34) gives detail and indicates familiarity. Amakuru (#52) gives detail and indicates familiarity. NoseBagBear (#10) indicates familiarity and gives detail. Kusma (#18) indicates familiarity. Kudpung (#30) gives detail. A few haven't voted, so it seems unfair to claim they aren't providing rationales. I might even suggest that those editors are asking opposers for an explanation so they can take it into consideration when they vote. I also don't include myself among the badgering crowd. I joined this conversation to respond to your question. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

   I didn't say you were badgering. You are, however, defending the status quo, which allows badgering. It's my position that it is inappropriate for either side. GregJackP Boomer! 21:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

   "[W]hen they start providing more information on why they are supporting a nominee, then perhaps they would have a right to ask why another editor is opposing,"

   "It's my position that it is inappropriate for either side."

   You're moving the goal posts. If you had started with your last point, I wouldn't have bothered engaging. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

   Who are you replying to? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

   Greg Argento Surfer (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

2. This editor's edit history at RfA is worrying. Either "Oppose, not the best fit" [1][2][3][4][5] or "Support, you are ready"[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] with no elaboration and with no apparent pattern or regard for the discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)